Building projects in the Rhodian State: local dynamics and interrelations

This pdf of your paper in Karia and the Dodekanese 2 belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (December, 2023), unless the site is a limited access intranet (password protected). If you have queries about this please contact the editorial department at Oxbow Books (editorial@ oxbowbooks.com). 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 12 Building projects in the Rhodian state: local dynamics and interrelations 6WHOOD6NDOWVD 'UDZLQJRQVXEVFULSWLRQVDQGKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHVWKLVFKDSWHUH[DPLQHVWKHQDWXUHRIEXLOGLQJSURMHFWVXQGHUWDNHQLQWKH 5KRGLDQVWDWHDJHRJUDSKLFDOO\IUDJPHQWHG\HWSROLWLFDOO\XQL¿HGDUHDGXULQJWKH+HOOHQLVWLFSHULRG,QWKHWLPHVSDQRI OHVVWKDQDFHQWXU\±IURPWKHODVWGHFDGHVRIWKHUGFHQWXU\WRWKH¿UVWGHFDGHVRIWKHQGFHQWXU\%& ±DQXPEHURI EXLOGLQJ SURMHFWV ZHUH XQGHUWDNHQ PRVWO\ WKURXJK SXEOLF LQLWLDWLYH DQG ZLWK WKH ¿QDQFLDO VXSSRUW RI EURDG VHJPHQWV RI 5KRGLDQ VRFLHW\ 7KH SDSHU GHWHUPLQHV WKH DJHQWV WKDW LQVWLJDWHG DQG ¿QDQFLDOO\ VXSSRUWHG EXLOGLQJ DFWLYLWLHV e.g. the 5KRGLDQVWDWHGHPHVDQGDVVRFLDWLRQV WUDFHVLQWHUUHODWHGDQGRUGLYHUJHQWDWWLWXGHVWRZDUGVWKHEXLOWHQYLURQPHQWDQG DVVHVVHVWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIDFRPPRQSROLWLFDOIUDPHZRUNZLWKLQZKLFKSURMHFWVZHUHLQLWLDWHGXQGHUWDNHQDQGFRPSOHWHG. Nature of works, date and issuing authority The paper examines epigraphic evidence in the Rhodian state during the Hellenistic period, mostly subscription lists and decrees pertaining to building projects – that is, construction or repair works, as well as the embellishment of amenities and facilities.1 For most of the Hellenistic period, the islands of Chalke, Syme, Telos, Nisyros, Karpathos, Kasos, and Megiste (Kastelorizo), as well as the Peraia – the Rhodian Chersonesos from Loryma in the south to Physkos in the northeast – formed a single political entity together with the island of Rhodos.2 The islands and the Peraia were fully integrated into the deme-system, with the city of Rhodos as the “capital” of the state.3 Despite the geographical fragmentation of the Rhodian state and the shift of political boundaries in this area over time, an inclusive and integrative approach to the history of the Rhodian state has been adopted since the early 20th century.4 However, as inscriptions are usually published and discussed by geographical region, an attempt to bring scattered epigraphic evidence together allows us to gain a better understanding of the extent of building works – including repair works, renovation and embellishment of facilities – within the Rhodian state as a whole. The objective is thus to determine the nature of building works, to examine the agents that instigated DQG¿QDQFLDOO\VXSSRUWHGEXLOGLQJDFWLYLWLHVWRDVVHVVWKH importance of a common political framework within which projects were initiated, undertaken and completed, and lastly to highlight interrelated practices in this geographically IUDJPHQWHG\HWSROLWLFDOO\XQL¿HGDUHD In total, 16 documents – nine subscription lists (Table 12.1) and seven decrees (Table 12.2) – attest to building or repair works in the Rhodian state during the Hellenistic period.5 It should be stressed that the texts under discussion offer us only snapshots of an otherwise more complex picture that is now lost.6 To illustrate this point: notwithstanding the rich epigraphic corpus of the Lindian inscriptions, subscription lists or decrees from Lindos do not explicitly refer to construction or repair works in the Hellenistic period.7 And although the architecture of the Sanctuary of Athena Lindia was completely transformed in the course of the 3rd century BC with explicit overtones of grandeur and monumentality,8 the epigraphic record neither corroborates this picture nor sheds further light RQ WKH VSHFL¿FLWLHV RI WKLV SURMHFW LQVWHDG WKH H[WDQW Lindian subscriptions illustrate concerns of a different nature regarding the adornment of the cult statue and other accoutrements for the ritual.9 0RUHVSHFL¿FDOO\VL[VXEVFULSWLRQVFRPHIURPWKHLVODQG of Rhodos itself and another three from the Rhodian Peraia (Table 12.3). The resulting picture of building activities 156 7DEOH6XEVFULSWLRQV ,' 6RXUFH S1 I.Rhod.Per. 152; Pérée 122 3ODFH 'DWH Thyssanous Before 230 BC Initiative Formula Rhodians Deme of IJȠȓįİ਩įȦțĮȞਥȢIJ>੹Ȟ" Thyssanous ਥʌȚıțİȣ੹ȞIJȠ૨ȞĮȠ૨IJ઼Ȣ@_ ਝșȐȞĮȢ>Ȁ@Įȝ>İȚȡȐįȠȢ 1DWXUHRI ZRUNV Repair works in the naos of Athena Kameiris After 227 BC Rhodian State ȉȠȓįİʌȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ« ਥʌĮȖȖİȓȜĮȞIJȠ«IJȠȓįİįȫıİȚȞ ȤȡȒȝĮIJĮ S3 7& 158; Migeotte 1992, no. 42 ca. 225 BC Kameiros >ȉȠȓ@įİਙȞİȣʌĮȡĮțȜȒıȚȠ>Ȣ@_ 9 (12) >਩@įȦțĮȞȤȡȒȝĮIJĮįȦȡİҕ>੹Ȟ@_ İੁȢIJ੹ȞțĮIJĮıțİȣ੹ȞIJ઼>Ȣ@_>ı@ IJȠȚ઼ȢțĮ੿IJ૵ȞਥȜ੝IJȡȦ>Ȟ@_>ʌ@ ȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚIJ੹ȢIJİIJȚ>ȝ੹Ȣ@_>IJ@ ૵Ȟșİ૵ȞțĮ੿IJ੹ʌȠIJૃਕıijȐȜİȚĮȞ ȀĮȝȚȡİ૨ıȚıȣȖțĮIJĮıțİȣȐȗİȚȞ S4 Fraser & Bean Syrna (Bayir) 1954, 30–33 no. 17; I.Rhod. 3HU301+302; 3pUpH 58 ca. 221 BC Syrnioi ȉȠȓįİʌȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ 9 ıȣȖțĮIJĮıțİȣȐȗİȚȞIJઁੂİȡઁȞ IJȠ૨ਝıțȜĮʌȚȠ૨ਥʌĮȖȖİȚȜȐȝİȞȠȚ ਩įȦțĮȞਥȢIJ੹ȞțĮIJĮıțİȣ੹ȞIJ઼>Ȣ ıIJȠ઼Ȣ"@ S5 ,5KRG3HU 101; 3pUpH 149 Phoenix (Fenaket) ca. 220210 BC Deme (of Tloioi) ȉȠȓįİIJȠ૨įȐȝȠȣȥȘijȚıĮȝȑȞȠȣ țĮIJĮıțİȣȐıĮȚIJઁȞȞĮઁȞIJȠ૨ ǻȚȠȞȪıȠȣਥʌĮȖȖİȓȜĮȞIJȠįȫıİȚȞ ȤȡȒȝĮIJĮįȦȡİȐȞ S6 IG XII 1 9; 6*', 3760; 6\OO 1116 Rhodos city 198 BC Private association S7 $'HOW A 21, 56-61; %( 1968 no. 383 (corrections in lines 18 and 20) 6(* 53, 822 Rhodos city 190 BC Private association )RUWL¿FDWLRQ walls 9 (8 preserved) 9 (61) 9 (2) 9 (deme of Loxidai) Construction of stoa and subterranean reservoir 9 (three NRLQD of thiasitai) 9 (9) Construction of the Temple of Asklepios 9 (3) Construction of the naos and the temenos of Dionysos IJȠȓįİIJ૵ȞਥȡĮȞȚıIJ૵Ȟ ਥʌĮȞȖİȓȜĮȞIJȠİੁȢIJ੽Ȟ ਕȞȠȚțȠįȠȝȓĮȞIJȠ૨IJȠȓȤȠȣțĮ੿ IJ૵ȞȝȞĮȝİȓȦȞIJ૵ȞʌİıȩȞIJȦȞਥȞ IJ૵ȚıİȚıȝȦȓ 9 Repair of the precinct wall and funerary monuments IJȠȓįİ>ʌ@ȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ ıȣȖțĮIJĮıțİȣȐȗİȚȞIJ੹įİįȠȖȝȑȞĮ IJ૵ȚțȠȚȞ૵Țਥ>ʌ੿@IJ੹Ȟʌİ>ȡȚ@ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȓĮȞțĮ੿>șȪȡȦıȚȞ@IJ૵Ȟ IJȩʌȦȞਥʌ>ȘȖȖİȓȜ@Įҕ>ȞIJȠ@įȫıİȚȞ įȦȡİȐȞ 9 Repair of the funerary precinct (Continued) 6WHOOD6NDOWVD S2 $(SKHP 1967, Rhodos city 124–125; Migeotte 1992, no. 37 Kameiros Families Foreigners Communities Associations 7DEOH &RQWLQXHG ,' 6RXUFH 3ODFH 'DWH Initiative Formula Rhodians Families Foreigners Communities Associations Kameiros ca. 170 BC Kameiros ȉȠȓįİʌȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚਥʌĮȪȟİȚȞ IJ੹ȢIJİIJ૵Ȟșİ૵ȞIJȚȝ੹ȢțĮ੿IJ੹Ȟ ʌĮȞȐȖȣȡȚȞIJ૵ȞȆĮȞĮșȘȞĮȓȦȞ ਥʌĮȖȖİȓȜĮȞIJȠįȫıİȚȞȤȡȒȝĮIJĮ įȦȡİ੹Ȟİ੿ȢIJ੹ȞțĮIJĮıțİȣ੹ȞIJ૵Ȟ ȤȡȘıIJȘȡȓȦȞțĮ੿IJ૵ȞਥȜȪIJȡȦȞ țĮ੿İ੿ȢIJ੹ȞਥıIJȓĮıȚȞIJ૵Ȟį઼ȝȦȞ 9 (two brothers and their families) 9 S9 7&6XSSO 157b; Migeotte 1992, no. 44 Kameiros ca. 170 BC Kameiros Missing 9 (34, from 12 different Kamirian demes) 9 (15) 9 (deme of Arioi) Supply of utensils and construction of subterranean reservoir 9 (6DUDSLDVWDL based in Kameiros) Repair works of an unknown nature (donation of 100 pairs of tiles) 7DEOH'HFUHHV 3+UHIHUVWRWKHSULHVWRI+HOLRVFI7DEOH  ,' 6RXUFH Findspot Issuing authority 'DWH 1DWXUHRIZRUNV Issuing body Honorand Fraser & Bean 1954, 28–30 no. 16 (cf. %(1955, no. 212); ,5KRG3HU 303; 3pUpH 59 %D\ÕU 6\UQD Syrnioi 220 BC (PH) Donation of temenos and mention of roof tiles Syrnioi Euagis daughter of Kleusthenes D2 IG XII 3 30; Meier 2012, 276–279 no. 27 Megalo Chorio in Telos Telians after 206 BC Restoration of walls and towers Telians Aristomenes son of Aristoboulos, former hierapolos D3 7& 110 + 7& Suppl. p. 27; Maier 1959, no. 49; Meier 2012, 269–273 no. 25; 75, 21 Kameiros Kameiros after 186 BC Repair of the peripolion Kamirians Philokrates son of Philostephanos from the deme of Plarioi (Kamirian deme) D4 Fraser and Bean 1954, 24–27 no. 15; ,5KRG3HU401; 3pUpH 44 %DNÕFDNQHDU *|OHQ\H Bybassioi 160 BC (PH) Repair works in the Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos Bybassioi Benefactor from the deme of Amioi (Lindian deme) D5 IG XII 3 1270; Fraser & Bean 1954, Syme 139–141; Winand 1990, 115-116; Meier 2012, 273–276 no. 23 NRLQRQ of those residing in Syme 154 BC (PH) Repair works in the Sanctuary of Athena Koinon of those residing in Syme Aristophanes son of Aristophanes from the deme of Politai (Ialysian deme) D6 Lindos II col. 1007-1010 (Add.); 6\OO 570; IG XII 1 1033; 6(* 40, 666; Winand 1990, 104–115 Potidaion in Karpathos NWRLQD of Potidaieis shortly after 152 Repair of the peripolion or 148 BC (PH) Ktoina of Potidaieis Pamphilidas son of Hieron from the deme of Karpathiopolitai (Lindian deme) D7 ,5KRG3HU 155; 3pUpH 128 6|ۜWN|\2UWDFD NRLQRQ of the (Thyssanous) eranistai ca. 120-51 BC Private association Benefactor of the NRLQRQ Repair of an unknown building/ facility 157 D1  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV S8 7& 159; Migeotte 1992, no. 43 1DWXUHRI ZRUNV 6WHOOD6NDOWVD 158 7DEOH'LVWULEXWLRQRIGHFUHHV 7DEOH'LVWULEXWLRQRIVXEVFULSWLRQV 6LWH Island of Rhodos Peraia 1RRIGRFXPHQWV Rhodos city 3 Kameiros 3 Thyssanous 1 Syrna (Bayir) 1 Phoenix (Fenaket) 1 Island of Rhodos Incorporated islands Peraia LV FRPSOHPHQWHG E\ KRQRUL¿F GHFUHHV IRU EHQHIDFWRUV RU RI¿FLDOV 7DEOH 7KUHHGHFUHHVLQSDUWLFXODULOOXPLQDWH activities in the islands of Telos, Syme, and Karpathos, from which no relevant subscription lists have come to light. At the same time, decrees supplement the evidence provided by subscriptions for the rest of the Rhodian state. Two thorny issues had until recently posed some impediments to the study of these documents: the problems of dating and the issuing authority. Until recently, most of the inscriptions under discussion were loosely dated to the Hellenistic period in light of letterforms and prosopography, while some well-dated events in Rhodian history, notably the earthquake of 223/222 BC, provided a terminus post TXHP for others.10 Following Nathan Badoud’s fundamental work on Rhodian chronology, the date of most inscriptions in question can be now established with a fair degree of precision, accounting for the eponymous priests of Helios DQG RWKHU 5KRGLDQ RI¿FLDOV 7DEOH  11 Therefore, by placing building activities in the Rhodian state within a secure and concrete chronological framework, we can now begin to grasp the historical context that necessitated them in a more nuanced manner. In this way, building and repair works and the documents that testify to them can become part of a wider narrative of active communities striving for FLYLFSULGHDVUHÀHFWHGLQEXLOGLQJSURMHFWVWKDWZHUHFDUULHG out for the common good. Taking a closer look at the dates of these documents, it cannot pass unnoticed that the vast majority of the relevant activities falls within a limited period of time that spans WKH ODVW WKUHH GHFDGHV RI WKH UG FHQWXU\ %& DQG WKH ¿UVW half of the 2nd century BC (Table 12.5). In other words, in the timespan of less than a century, a number of building projects were undertaken mostly by public initiative and ZLWK WKH ¿QDQFLDO VXSSRUW RI EURDG VHJPHQWV RI 5KRGLDQ society. Taking into consideration the dating of all the inscriptions, only one dates before the last third of the 3rd century BC and, likewise, only one falls in the late 2nd or early 1st century BC. This intense building activity in the timespan of a century therefore deserves close study. Building activity constitutes the connecting thread of all 16 documents presented here. Yet these documents emanate from a range of issuing bodies: private associations, subdivisions of the Rhodian state, and the Rhodian state 6LWH 1RRIGRFXPHQWV Kameiros 1 Karpathos 1 Telos 1 Syme 1 Thyssanous 1 Syrna (Bayir) 1 %\EDVVRV *|OHQL\H 1 itself. Until recently, the identity of the issuing body was a matter of controversy among scholars who could not ¿QG FRPPRQ JURXQG LQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH WHUP damos. Did this term consistently refer to the Rhodian VWDWHRUFRXOGLWLQVWHDGUHIHUWRRQHRIWKHGHPHV")UDVHU and Bean were advocates of the former view, arguing that the Rhodian state exerted control over the internal affairs of its demes, in light of a few decrees from the Peraia, including for example the decree from Bybassos (D4), discussed further below.12 This view came under scrutiny by Bresson, who argued in favour of the deme of the Bybassioi as the issuing authority, thus challenging the interference of the Rhodian state in the internal affairs of its demes.13 Moreover, in those instances where the formulaic phrase N\URWKHQWRVWRXSVHSKLVPDWRV – a genitive absolute denoting ‘after the decree has been passed’ – is encountered, it is now unanimously accepted that the validation of the decree lay in the authority of the issuing body itself and not of the Rhodian state.14 Thus, in the decree for the benefactress Euagis (D1) it is the community of Syrna who issued and validated the decree and not the Rhodian state.15 Likewise, the NRLQRQ of those residing in Syme constituted the issuing body of a decree for a benefactor (D5) and at the same time validated the decree itself.16 Often encountered in decrees issued by civic bodies as well as private groups, this formula places emphasis on the decision-making process, underlining that democratic SURFHGXUHVZHUHIROORZHGDQGWKDWWKHGHFUHHZDVUDWL¿HG by the issuing body itself.17 Decrees or subscriptions emanating from the Rhodian state and its subdivisions show consistent concern for the UHSDLU RI IRUWL¿FDWLRQ ZDOOV DV ZHOO DV WKH HPEHOOLVKPHQW and uplift of sacred architecture. Therefore, in light of the epigraphic evidence, it can be demonstrated that most of the building and repair works principally fall into two broad categories: 1) religious architecture, i.e. the construction, repair or renovation of temples and facilities within sanctuaries; and 2) military architecture, i.e. the UHIXUELVKPHQW RU UHSDLU RI IRUWL¿FDWLRQ ZDOOV WRZHUV DQG ramparts. The picture changes if we bring associations into the foreground. Building works undertaken by associations  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV 159 7DEOH,QVFULSWLRQVGDWHGDIWHUWKHSULHVWRI+HOLRV ,' 6LWH 3ULHVWRI +HOLRV 3+ Year Issuing date of the decree Julian calendar D 1 Syrna Hagesippos 221/220 BC (Badoud 2015, 165 A 5, 242, 255) Badromios 220 BC February/March S6 Rhodes Theuphanes 199/198 BC (Badoud 2015, 174 A 40, 205, 256) Hyakinthios 198 BC May/June S7 Rhodes Sodamos Hyakinthios 190 BC May/June 191/190 BC (Castelli 2017, 24) D 4 Bybassos Peisistratos 160/159 BC (Badoud 2015, 177 A 51, 242, 257, 273) Thesmophorios 160 BC September/October D 5 Syme Sostratos 155/154 BC (Badoud 2015, 178 A 56, 239) Panamos 154 BC July/August 153/152 BC (Badoud 2015, 178 A 54, 239, 258) or 149/148 BC (Finkielsztejn 2001, 193–194) Panamos 152 or 148 BC July/August D 6 Karpathos Pythodoros or their benefactors were of a different nature: they concerned funerary architecture or the construction of facilities that sustained convivial activities. Sacred architecture The island of Rhodos Kameiros has yielded three subscription lists that can be securely linked to building or repair works (S3, S8 and S9). Despite the fact that subscriptions S3 and S8 are dated half a century apart (the former dates shortly after the earthquake of 223/222 BC, while the latter belongs to ca. 170 BC), the mention of works conducted in relation to cisterns ਥȜȪIJȡĮȚ  LQ ERWK VXEVFULSWLRQV FOHDUO\ GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW these subscriptions subsidized works related to the same building.187KHFLVWHUQVKDYHEHHQDUFKDHRORJLFDOO\LGHQWL¿HG with the subterranean reservoir underneath the monumental stoa framing the north slope of the acropolis hill.19 Thus, the same building project was under construction for nearly half a century. With a length of ca. 207 m and a width of 15 m,20 an outer colonnade in the Doric order, a series of 16 dining halls aligning the rear wall,21 and with subterranean cisterns for the supply of water articulating the underground level, this stoa dominated the urban landscape in Kameiros (Figs 12.1–2). Standing out from other stoas in the Aegean in terms of its sheer length and taking into account the amount of work that was needed for the levelling out of the slope of the hill for its construction, the grandiose scale of this project is unquestionable.22 Whereas the stoa cannot be dated before 250 BC on the basis of the style of the Doric colonnade,23 epigraphy can nevertheless determine its construction and the duration of the project with a degree of precision. Building works were probably initiated after the disastrous earthquake that hit Rhodos in 223/222 BC.24 Works on this stoa were still being carried out half a century later, as subscription S8 has now been dated to around 170 BC.25 However, by the 170s BC the building had already reached an advanced state, as indicated by the preamble of the subscription S8. There, any reference to the construction of the stoa is absent, a relatively clear indication that it had already been built. Instead, in ca. %&IXQGVZHUHUDLVHGIRUXWHQVLOV ȤȡȘıIJȒȡȚĮ 26 for the FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH ZDWHU VXSSO\ V\VWHP ਥȜȪIJȡĮȚ  DQG IRU banquets of the demes during the Panathenaia.27 In brief, subscriptions S3 and S8 offer unique glimpses to the aspirations of the community for a project that transformed urban landscape in the city of Kameiros in terms of design, scale, and functionality. The building framed the Sanctuary of Athena and Zeus on top of the acropolis and married the concept of a freestanding portico with a row of dining halls at the rear (each divided into three compartments) with a subterranean reservoir that supplied the dining halls with water. In this way, the project explicitly demonstrates the vision of the community for a prominent monumental building that would serve the needs of all .DPHLULDQV EH\RQGWKHFRQ¿QHVRIWKHFLW\RI.DPHLURV DQG pay tribute to the gods. As explicitly stated in the subscription S3, honours to the gods were offered and the safety of the Kameirians was secured by the construction of the stoa.28 Half a century later, the religious dimension of the stoa was further accentuated (S8): the completion of the works resulted in the augmentation of the honours to the gods and the enhancement of the festival of the Panathenaia.29 7KH PRELOL]DWLRQ RI D QXPEHU RI OHDGLQJ ¿JXUHV LQ Kameirian society underlines the prominence of this project for Kameiros in the 220s BC, which was undertaken as a response to the need for the uplifting of urban space in the city after the disastrous earthquake of 223/222 BC.30 7KH GRQRUV FRQWULEXWHG ³ZLWKRXW LQYLWDWLRQ´ ਙȞİȣ ʌĮȡĮțȜȒıȚȠȢ O   D SKUDVH WKDW IXUWKHU XQGHUOLQHV WKHLU willingness to spontaneously support public works.31 The subscription evidently boosted the progress of works in this building, since 14,000 drachmas were raised in total, with individual donations ranging from 100 to 3000 drachmas. Half a century later, the subscription S8 apparently had only a supplementary role in the completion of works, as the amounts recorded in the stele are not of a comparable magnitude to those in S3.32 The reference to a donation of 100 pairs of roof tiles in another subscription from Kameiros (S9),33 which is contemporary to S8 (ca. 170 BC), can unhesitatingly place this subscription among those that refer to building works.34 160 6WHOOD6NDOWVD )LJ  3HUVSHFWLYH DQG D[RQRPHWULF UHFRQVWUXFWLRQV RI WKH 6DQFWXDU\ RI$WKHQD 3ROLDV DQG =HXV 3ROLHXV LQ .DPHLURV IURP &DOLz ¿J  The other donations listed on the subscription are all of a rather small scale, ranging from 4 to 30 drachmas.35 The maximum total amount that would have been raised by the subscription has been estimated at 1,200 drachmas and the minimum at approximately 750 drachmas.36 The SUR¿OH RI WKH PRUH WKDQ  GRQRUV LV TXLWH GLYHUVH  individuals, 15 familial contributions, and one association based in Kameiros.37 All attested donors belonged to the tribe Kameiris and came from a wide range of Kameirian demes, numbering 12 in total.38 7KH SUR¿OHV RI WKH GRQRUV LQ WKHVH WKUHH VXEVFULSWLRQV overtly demonstrate that, for all parties involved, Kameiros constituted the physical and political space that shaped their identity. Funding for building projects in Kameiros derived from three different sources: Kameirian demes, Kameirian demesmen, and private associations that were based in Kameiros and apparently had vested interests in the city itself.39 Groups or individuals with a non.DPHLULDQDI¿OLDWLRQGLGQRWWDNHSDUWLQWKHVHRUFKHVWUDWHG efforts to raise funds for projects that transformed urban space in Kameiros. A similar exclusivity in terms of the SROLWLFDO DI¿OLDWLRQ RI GRQRUV LV DOVR DSSDUHQW LQ /LQGLDQ subscriptions, though the purpose of the latter is related to the adornment of the cult statue of Athena and the provision of utensils for cult purposes, and not to building projects.40 The Peraia All building projects undertaken in the Peraia pertain to sacred architecture. This becomes clear in light of three subscription OLVWV 6 6 DQG 6  DQG WZR KRQRUL¿F GHFUHHV RQH IURP Bybassos in the Peraia (D4) and another from Syme (D5), an island integrated into the Kameirian deme of Kassareis, which was located in the Peraia. Whereas the two decrees date to 160 (D4) and 154 BC (D5) respectively,41 it is noteworthy )LJ5HFRQVWUXFWHGJURXQGSODQDQGIDoDGHRIWKHVWRDLQWKH $NURSROLVRI.DPHLURV IURP&DOLz¿J  that most subscription lists from the Peraia date within the same chronological horizon, in the last third of the 3rd FHQWXU\%&DQGPRUHVSHFL¿FDOO\LQWKHVDQGV%& The earliest subscription list from the Peraia is the one from Thyssanous, which refers to repair works in the naos of Athena Kameiris (S1). From its letterforms, a date before 230 BC looks possible.42 In this case, the community set limits to the amounts of donations; though the minimum amount is not recorded, the maximum was set at 100 drachmas.43 This is far lower than the lavish donations made for the construction of the stoa in Kameiros shortly  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV after the earthquake of 223/222 BC, but on a similar scale as the contributions for the completion of this same project in Kameiros in ca. 170 BC. A subscription list from Phoenix (S5), which belonged to the deme of the Tloioi,44 provides evidence for the construction of a temple of Dionysos.45 As Dionysos’ cult is not attested in the list of priests that comes from Phoenix, this cult seems to have been newly introduced into the local community.46 The opening of the subscription manifests the central role of the deme in actively endorsing Dionysos’ cult after a vote in the assembly.47 The subscription presents some typical features of subscription lists: the name of the donor who donated land for the construction of the temenos and WKHWHPSOHLVUHFRUGHG¿UVWIROORZHGE\WKHQDPHVRIRWKHU contributors in descending order of the magnitude of their contributions. At the same time, the subscription presents an unusual feature in comparison to the other subscriptions under discussion: while most names followed by patronyms refer in all likelihood to demesmen of Tlos, three non-locals are also included among the contributors.48 In total, this subscription attracted 73 donors,49 who raised a total of between 3,315 and 3,335 drachmas, with individual donations ranging between 20 and 120 drachmas.50 Some of the donors seem to have come from well-off families that excelled in the political life of the Rhodian state,51 while others or their relatives were active members in the deme who showed WKHLUDFWLYHVXSSRUWLQRWKHUSURMHFWVRUE\KROGLQJRI¿FHV52 In 220 BC, the Syrnioi, another community in the Peraia,53SDVVHGDQKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHIRU(XDJLVGDXJKWHURI Kleusthenes (D1).54 Euagis donated a piece of land adjacent to the Sanctuary of Asklepios and made an endowment of  GUDFKPDV IRU WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI DQQXDO VDFUL¿FHV WR Asklepios and the other gods, which were followed by a banquet where the Syrnioi were to be hosted.55 Despite some uncertainty about the precise meaning of some lines,56 it seems clear that Euagis’ donation made funds available for the construction of the temenos (l. 19). That funding for the construction of the Sanctuary of Asklepios was an issue becomes apparent from another subscription list found in the area of Syrna and referring VSHFL¿FDOO\WRWKLVJRDO 6 $OWKRXJKWKHERG\UHVSRQVLEOH for opening up the subscription is not indicated in the preamble, in all likelihood the community of Syrna itself organized the subscription. In light of the number of lines preserved, it can be conjectured that the subscription attracted around 70 contributions. On the basis of the amounts recorded, 17 donations amounted to 900 drachmas, with half of this amount donated by three associations (i.e. 450 drachmas).57 This subscription affords us some unique glimpses into how different segments of the Rhodian society were mobilized to contribute towards a common end. Rhodian citizens as well as associations appear among the contributors. In particular, all names but four are recorded 161 without demotics. The donors recorded with their demotic are a Lindian from the deme of Klasioi (B9) and three Ialysians from the deme of Kryasioi (in the Peraia, B10, B13, B24). Names without a demotic probably belong to donors from the deme to which the community of Syrna belonged.58 Although the donors are Rhodian citizens, their SROLWLFDODI¿OLDWLRQLVUHODWLYHO\GLYHUVL¿HG7KH\FRPHIURP different demes, which in turn belong to different political communities.59 Moreover, this project secured generous contributions from three private associations.60 It can be tentatively suggested that these associations were active LQWKH3HUDLDDQGPRUHVSHFL¿FDOO\LQWKHDUHDRI6\UQD61 All three associations bear different names; yet they all share a feature in common regarding the way in which WKH\ ZLVKHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKHPVHOYHV DQG EH LGHQWL¿HG E\ others: they are all called a koinon of thiasitai.62 The term thiasitai stresses the religious dimension of the associations in question. Although the term thiasitai is among the most frequently used terms to designate members of a private association, it is otherwise conspicuously absent from Rhodian epigraphy, a region in which more than 100 associations were active in the Hellenistic period.63 It should therefore not be a mere coincidence that all three associations who contributed at Syrna bear a composite name that includes this term. Given the apparent religious context of the inscription – a subscription for the construction of the local Sanctuary of Asklepios – these associations may have deliberately underlined their devotion and adherence to the cult by adding an extra marker of religious observance as part of their self-representation. ,QEULHIWKHGRQRUV¶SUR¿OHLQWKHVXEVFULSWLRQOLVW±ORFDOV other demesmen from the Peraia, a demesman from the island of Rhodos, and three associations – plainly manifests a cross-community interest in the cult of Asklepios. Yet, it was the local community that principally augmented and endorsed the local cult of Asklepios: a native benefactress endowed the cult and expanded the physical space of the sanctuary, probably motivated to act benevolently after an appeal by the community itself;64 most other donors came from the local community; and lastly, the cult and especially the ensuing communal dining strengthened bonds among members of the local community. At the same time, the inclusion of other, non-local donors reveals the role of cult in constituting a platform for interaction and for the promotion of interrelations between different segments of the Rhodian state. The case of Syrna allows us to see how smaller communities, below the deme level responded to building projects. This case is not unparalleled in the Rhodian state. $FRPSDULVRQFDQEHGUDZQZLWKDQKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHIURP the island of Syme (D5), the latter probably part of the Kameirian deme of Kassareis in the Peraia.65 In 154 BC, the koinon of those residing in Syme – a body which did not constitute a deme on its own but rather a smaller local 162 6WHOOD6NDOWVD FRPPXQLW\±SDVVHGDQKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHIRUDEHQHIDFWRU Aristophanes from the Ialysian deme of Politai assumed the expenses of the repair of the Temple of Athena.66 The extent of the damage is meticulously illustrated in the inscription, something that demonstrates the emergency of the situation and at the same time further underscores Aristophanes’ benefaction.67 His benefaction came at a time when a public subscription altogether failed to raise the necessary funds, as the response of the local community to the deteriorating condition of the temple was largely lethargic.68 Aristophanes, an Ialysian, stepped up and paid for the restoration of the fallen walls in the sanctuary, the maintenance of which apparently fell under the responsibility of the local community.69 Moreover, he provided wooden beams and tiles for the roof of the temple.70 Aristophanes’ benefactions ZHUHUHZDUGHGE\WKHLVVXLQJERG\DVEH¿WWHGDEHQHIDFWRU that is by the award of a gold crown, the proclamation of honours in the local contests (+HUDNOHLD), and the erection of the stele.71 The identity of the issuing body – the koinon of those residing in Syme – and its institutional relation to the Rhodian state has been a matter of controversy in scholarship. Recently, Boyxen revisited the different views regarding this koinon.72 Constituting a smaller and different unit than that of a deme, the koinon was comprised of Rhodian citizens UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU GHPH DI¿OLDWLRQ VLQFH LW LQFOXGHG ERWK demesmen of the Kassareis and non-demesmen; it is highly unlikely that it included non-citizens.73 However, Boyxen maintains that a dichotomy should be drawn between the issuing body of the decree (koinon) and the body (NWRLQHWDL) that summoned Aristophanes to the HNNOHVLDand asked him to fund repair works in the Sanctuary of Athena.74 This dichotomy does not need to be retained, since one and the same body can be envisaged.75 The term NWRLQHWDL is quite semantically charged: as a derivative from the term NWRLQD, a territorial unit often encountered within Kameirian territory, it cannot refer to anything other than members of a ktoina. On the other hand, the term koinon covers a wide range of applications, from a federation or a deme to a private association, to mention just a few.76 Because of the different institutional realities with which the term koinon is vested, the YRFDEXODU\XVHGWRGH¿QHLWVPHPEHUVLVQRWVWDQGDUGL]HG RU¿[HGEXWFDQYDU\IURPRQHFDVHWRDQRWKHU,WVXI¿FHV to mention that in a private association, members of a koinon are often called thiasitai, emphasizing the role of religion in informing the identity of the group.77 In the case of Syme, an island that did not constitute a deme on its own, the koinon of the residents could well have been the principal political community of the island. Indeed, this is the only community known to have passed decrees in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, and its political role is further accentuated by the fact that the decrees were introduced by the hierothytai ੂİȡȠșȣIJ઼Ȟ ȖȞઆȝĮ  UHOLJLRXVRI¿FLDOVDWWHVWHGLQVHYHUDOSROLWLFDOFRPPXQLWLHV across the Rhodian state.78 The term NWRLQHWDL could thus be explained in a similar manner: it placed emphasis on the notion of territory as a key element in forming the identity of members of this koinon, whose residential status and attachment to Syme was explicitly displayed LQ WKHLU QDPH IJઁ țȠȚȞઁȞ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞ ȈȪȝĮȚ țĮIJȠȚțȠȪȞIJȦȞ  Aristophanes, the Ialysian benefactor, could well have been permanent or non-permanent resident in Syme, which formed part of Kameirian territory, and hence, a member of this koinon.79 If so, this koinon underlines the mobility of Rhodian citizens within the state and how they could WUDQVFHQG WKH ERUGHUV RI SROLWLFDO DI¿OLDWLRQ ZKHQ DZD\ from their local deme.80 'HVSLWH WKH VLJQL¿FDQFH RI VXEVFULSWLRQV DV HYLGHQFH for building works, they often fail to inform us about the reasons that necessitated them. Decrees, on the contrary, can illuminate the background that gave rise to these works. As ZHKDYHDOUHDG\VHHQWKHKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHIRU$ULVWRSKDQHV fully outlined the extent of damage in the Sanctuary of Athena, the delay of the community to respond effectively DQG SURPSWO\ DQG ¿QDOO\ $ULVWRSKDQHV¶ FUXFLDO UROH LQ subsidizing restoration works. In a similar manner, a decree issued by the deme of Bybassioi in 160 BC provides evidence for the embellishment of the Sanctuary of Hemithea in Kastabos before the mid2nd century BC.81 At the same time, it offers us similar glimpses into the ways in which a sanctuary proved to be an important locus of interaction between different communities. Despite the fact that the stele contains one of the longest GHFUHHVIURPWKH3HUDLD OLQHVORQJ RQO\WKH¿UVWVHYHQ lines can be read with a fair degree of certainty (ll. 1–7), while another ten lines (ll. 64–73) have been heavily restored in parallel with another decree from the site.82 The stele’s poor state of preservation prevents us from gaining a full understanding of the precise content of the decree. Yet some observations can nevertheless be made: the deme of the Bybassioi passed honours for a benefactor who in all likelihood came from the deme of Amos.83 In particular, the conclusion of the decree (lines 59–85) contains references to Amos and the Sanctuary of Apollo Samnaios.84 Bresson suggested that the mention of Apollo Samnaios could be explained in light of the connection between Apollo and Hemithea in the mythical past.85 However, a pragmatic explanation for this reference is provided by the decree itself. As the honorand came from Amos, a deme other than the one issuing the decree (i.e. Bybassos), the Bybassioi – the issuing authority – formally informed the Amioi about the honours they passed for their demesman. It is reasonable to suggest that among the honours granted to the benefactor was the erection of two stelai; one was to be set up in the Sanctuary of Hemithea (the preserved stele) and another in the Sanctuary of Apollo Samnaios in Amos.  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV Lines 3–6 expose the reasons that prompted the benefaction:86 issues related to lodging that were caused by the increased popularity of the festival of the Kastabeia.87 Unfortunately, the concrete steps taken to meet these issues in a satisfactory way were stated in the part of the stele that is now badly damaged.88 From the references in the decree to repairs, the encaustic technique, tiles, and the buying up of some things, it seems that building works were eventually FDUULHGRXWLQWKHVDQFWXDU\DQG¿QDQFLDODVVLVWDQFHWRZDUGV this end came from the benefactor from Amos.89 As we have already seen, within the Rhodian state sanctuaries attracted the benevolence of individuals whose SROLWLFDODI¿OLDWLRQQHHGQRWEHIURPWKHGHPHLQWKHWHUULWRU\ of which the sanctuary was located. What mattered was the DXJPHQWDWLRQRIWKHFXOWIRUWKHEHQH¿WRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ in general. The importance of this inscription is manifold. It clearly demonstrates that in 160 BC, the sanctuary underwent a phase of embellishment in the wake of the popularity of the local festival, a popularity that apparently transcended the borders of the local community in line with Diodorus’ account of the wide appeal of the cult.90 Moreover, the deme of Bybassos appears to be the body responsible for the maintenance of the sanctuary and the organization of the festival. As we have seen, the benefactor in 160 BC was in all likelihood from Amos. Among the architectural inscriptions that have come to light in the site, two can be attributed to non-locals; an individual from the deme of Hygassieis in the Peraia dedicated the easternmost building which was situated along the precinct wall,91 and two Halikarnassian architects built a small temple in the sanctuary.92 According to the results of the survey conducted in the past decade by the University of Marburg, the archaeological record shows at least two major building phases prior to 160 BC in the Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos.93 After the establishment of the cult sometime in the archaic period, W. Held has recently argued in favour of a phase in the mid-4th century BC under the Hekatomnids, when the sanctuary comprised three small temples. 94 Another major phase dates to the early 3rd century BC and entailed the construction of an Ionic peripteral temple and the demarcation of the terrace with a screening wall that enclosed two of the earlier small temples together ZLWK¿YHQHZaediculae.95 Architectural inscriptions have been connected to both the mid-fourth-century phase and early third-century phase. 96 Architectural dedications, concerning entire buildings but also individual elements like columns, exemplify the generosity and reverence of individual donors towards the cult.97 Together with the evidence of stamped roof tiles, since some of them can be precisely dated to the last third of the 3rd century BC,98 building activity in the sanctuary seems to have been under way for nearly two centuries, from the mid-4th century BC down to 160 BC. 163 On account of the diversity of the donors’ origins, Held is of the view that the Sanctuary of Hemithea enjoyed a federal status among the communities in the Chersonesos.99 These communities are presumed to have been organized in a koinon that helped them sustain a distinct “Karian” identity, with the sanctuary forming their religious centre.100 The honorific decree for the benefactor from Amos, however, does not strike one as something exceptional or out of the norm, if placed in context, i.e. in comparison to other building activities in sanctuaries in the Rhodian state, as illustrated by decrees and subscriptions. As we have seen, the architectural infrastructure of sanctuaries in the 5KRGLDQ3HUDLDZDVRQRFFDVLRQ¿QDQFLDOO\VXVWDLQHGE\ non-demesmen, associations, and foreigners. To return to the decree: a Bybassios, i.e. a member of the local community, raised the issue of the inadequacy of the sanctuary’s facilities in the assembly of his deme, which was responsible for the maintenance of the sanctuary. Funding for building works was secured by a demesman from the nearby deme of Amos and his benefaction was adequately acknowledged by the Bybassioi themselves with the reward of honours. As in the case of Aristophanes in Syme, the pool RIEHQHIDFWRUVWUDQVFHQGHGIRUPDODI¿OLDWLRQVDWWKHGHPH level; the cult of Hemithea and the prestige of the festival (Kastabeia) was a matter of the highest concern for the local community, which could seek help from anyone capable of SURYLGLQJ¿QDQFLDODVVLVWDQFH Ramparts and walls Four inscriptions considered here attest to repair works for defence purposes: one subscription list (S2) and three decrees (D2, D3, and D6). Unlike projects in sanctuaries whose funding was often entrusted to the benevolence of a broader segment of the population, the upkeep of fortifications seems to have fallen directly under the responsibility of a specially designated official of the Rhodian state, the HSLVWDWHVDQRI¿FLDOZLWKDZLGHUDQJHRI GXWLHV7KHLQYROYHPHQWRIRI¿FLDOVLQWKHXSNHHSRIZDOOV highlights the importance of a well-maintained defence system for local communities. Such a defence system was prone to damage and deterioration mainly on account of two external factors: natural disasters, e.g. earthquakes, and military attacks or sieges. Of the four inscriptions DWWHVWLQJWRWKHUHSDLURIIRUWL¿FDWLRQVDQGRUUDPSDUWVRQH is connected to the imminent danger of an attack (D6), while the rest were necessitated by the extensive damage caused by earthquakes (S2, D2 and D3). The havoc that was wreaked by the earthquake that hit Rhodos in 223/222 BC is recorded by ancient authors.101 While Polybius comments on how the Rhodians managed to turn this natural catastrophe to their advantage by securing unprecedented amounts of cash, material supplies, and human resources from abroad, contemporary epigraphy 164 6WHOOD6NDOWVD elucidates how Rhodian society in particular responded to this event.102 As this evidence demonstrates, the city also DSSHDOHG WR LWV FLWL]HQV IRU ¿QDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFH 7KH VWHOH that contains the subscription list for the repair of walls DQG WRZHUV LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LQIRUPDWLYH DV LW WHVWL¿HV WR WKH extraordinary amounts donated by individuals and to the elite social status of these persons (S2).103 Eight individuals recorded in a stele that would have originally contained the names of 10 to 12 individuals contributed at least 20,000 drachmas each. One donation is made in kind – the construction of an entire tower – and stands out in terms of the magnitude of the donation as well as the way in which it is displayed on the stele.104 Whereas the subscription list from Rhodos sheds light on the mobilization of wealthy members of the community to fund the restoration of walls and towers, all other documents in which the repair of walls and ramparts is mentioned KLJKOLJKWWKHSLYRWDOUROHRIRI¿FLDOVLQWKHLUXSNHHS,Q7HORV (D2), Aristomenes, the hierapolos,105 was responsible for the repair of walls, which had collapsed during an earthquake (ll. 6–7).106+HVXFFHHGHGLQKDQGOLQJSXEOLF¿QDQFHVIDLUO\ during strenuous times for the city. Acting with zeal and philotimia, Aristomenes saw to the repair of all damaged EXLOGLQJVLQDJRRGDQGDGYDQWDJHRXVPDQQHU țĮȜ૵ȢțĮ੿ ȜȣıȚIJİȜ૵Ȣ O   OLEHUDOO\ ਕʌȡȠijĮıȓıIJȦȢ O   SURYLGLQJ monies towards these expenses and rendering his services ZLWKGHWHUPLQDWLRQ OțĮșૃĮਫ਼IJઁȞȤȡİȓĮȞਥȞʌ઼ıȚȞਥțIJİȞો ʌĮȡİȤȩȝİȞȠȢ +LVKDQGOLQJRISXEOLF¿QDQFHVDVZHOODVKLV strenuous efforts towards the required repair works counted among the many honourable services offered that motivated the gratitude of the community. $Q KRQRUL¿F GHFUHH IURP .DPHLURV SURYLGHV DQRWKHU LQVWDQFH LQ ZKLFK RI¿FLDOV ZHUH DFWLYHO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH XSNHHS RI WKH UDPSDUWV 7KH KRQRUL¿F GHFUHH IRU Philokrates, “one of the most important documents the city of Rhodos has yielded”,107 provides explicit evidence about the damage to the ramparts of Kameiros in the earthquake of 198 BC.108 The long cursus honorum it contains enumerates Philokrates’ services to Kameiros – hieropoios, agonothetes, secretary of the mastroi and epistates – down to his appointment as damiourgos.109 Philokrates, in his capacity of epistates, took concrete steps towards the reconstruction of the peripolion, that is, the ramparts that protected the urban centre.110 Despite the IDFWWKDWSXEOLFRI¿FLDOVRIWHQDVVXPHGH[SHQVHVGLUHFWO\ UHODWHGWRWKHLURI¿FH3KLORNUDWHVGRHVQRWVHHPWRKDYH personally contributed towards the repair of the ramparts.111 Instead, Philokrates’ role as an epistates was concerned with the overall management and supervision of the works: IDUPLQJRXWZRUNVWRFRQWUDFWRUVZLWK¿[HGGHDGOLQHVWKLV measure ensured that the works would be completed within a concrete timespan. Before Philokrates was appointed epistates, it could be inferred that repair works in the peripolion had been subject to delays, apparently caused by a lack of proper scheduling of works; Philokrates now HQVXUHG WKDW D VSHFL¿F GHDGOLQH ZRXOG EH DVVLJQHG IRU DOO WKRVH LQYROYHG ,W ZDV RQO\ GXULQJ KLV WHUP LQ RI¿FH that works in the peripolion were completed due to his effective and successful management of the proper order of business.112 7KH KRQRUL¿F GHFUHH IRU 3DPSKLOLGDV SDVVHG E\ WKH ktoina of Potidaieis in Karpathos constitutes a case in which the upkeep of the defence system is closely linked to an external threat, that of attacks during the Second Cretan War.113 Dated shortly after the end of hostilities (153 BC), the decree constitutes a cursus honorum for Pamphilidas, enumerating all the services he rendered towards the community. In particular, in his capacity as epistates for two years, Pamphilidas assiduously took care of the upkeep RI WKH IRUWL¿FDWLRQ V\VWHP ochyrosis  DQG WKH IRUWL¿HG settlement (peripolion).114 Pamphilidas’ oversight of the IRUWL¿FDWLRQ V\VWHP DQG WKH SHULSROLRQ WRJHWKHU ZLWK KLV actions during the hostilities, resulted in the safety of the IRUWL¿HGVHWWOHPHQW O  In all these three cases discussed above (Telos, Kameiros, .DUSDWKRV  RI¿FLDOV HIIHFWLYHO\ GHDOW ZLWK PDQDJHPHQW issues related to the upkeep or repair of the ramparts. The ODQJXDJHRIWKHGHFUHHVGRHVQRWKLQWDWFRQFUHWH¿QDQFLDO DVVLVWDQFHIURPWKHRI¿FLDOV\HWWKHLUVXFFHVVIXOFRQGXFWRI WKHRI¿FHXQGHUVWUHQXRXVDQGRUGDQJHURXVWLPHVDFFRXQWV for the award of honours. What these decrees further underline is that the maintenance of the defence system was a major civic duty across the Rhodian state. Funerary enclosures and other facilities (associations) The impetus behind building activities discussed above came IURPWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHDQGLWVVXEGLYLVLRQV7KHUHLVVXI¿FLHQW evidence to illustrate that the upkeep or repair of buildings and facilities was also in the interest of private associations, agents who were active in shaping the urban fabric in the city of Rhodos. One decree (D7) and two subscriptions (S6 and S7) referring to building works originate from private associations. A koinon of eranistai (D7) awarded honours to a benefactor from Kyrene for his undertaking of some repair works, but the fragmentary state of preservation of the stele does not let us glean anything further than that.115 The two subscriptions referring to repair works and emanating from associations in the city of Rhodos are much more illuminating. As they are both dated after the eponym of the Rhodian state – the priest of Helios – they can be ¿UPO\ ¿[HG LQ WLPH DQG WKXV WKHLU KLVWRULFDO FRQWH[W FDQ be reconstructed with a fair degree of certainty.116 These subscriptions came in the wake of the disastrous earthquake  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV that hit Rhodos and Karia in 198 BC.117 This period of emergency necessitated immediate and drastic action. The objective of both subscriptions was the repair of the funerary precincts of the associations in question. In the time of the priesthood of Theuphanes, when the earthquake of 198 BC hit Rhodos, the association of eranistai acted remarkably promptly (S6). The decree was passed in the month of Hyakinthios. It was precisely during this month that associations in Rhodos held an annual commemorative service for deceased members, and visited their funerary monuments.118 It was apparently during one of these visits that members of the association witnessed the extent of the damage to the funerary monuments and took immediate measures to restore them, just a few months after the earthquake occurred.119 The opening of a subscription can thus be easily explained by the emergency of the situation: the enclosure wall demarcating the association’s funerary precinct as well as the funerary monuments had collapsed. A similar picture is outlined by the subscription list that was opened a few years later, in 190 BC, by another association composed of foreigners, whose funerary precinct in the necropolis of Rhodos was also apparently damaged by the earthquake of 198 BC (S7).120 Again, the purpose of the subscription was to repair the enclosure wall and to furnish it with a door. As eight years had passed since the time of the earthquake, it would seem that the damage was not as extensive as in the case of the association of eranistai. Yet monuments that were heavily shaken by the earthquake would surely have been in a state, if not of collapse, then at least of serious deterioration eight years later. More importantly, in a dense and crowded area such as the Rhodian necropolis, where funerary properties could change owners or risked being encroached upon by others, it was very important to clearly demarcate the boundaries of the property with a strong precinct wall and at the same time to ensure that uninvited or unexpected visitors were not welcome – hence the need for doors.121 In both subscriptions, the leader of the association is UHFRUGHG ¿UVW DPRQJ WKH FRQWULEXWRUV ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV ERWK VXEVFULSWLRQV UHÀHFW WKH KLHUDUFKLFDO VWUXFWXUH RI WKH associations in question.1220RUHVSHFL¿FDOO\GHVSLWHWKHIDFW that members of the association of eranistai pledged to give money for repair works, in the end it was the archeranistes, Menekrates from Kibyra who assumed all the expenses on his own.123 In the case of the other koinon, the contribution of the archeranistes Xouthos from Antiochia did not exceed that of other donors.124 Both cases underline the care taken by associations for the upkeep of funerary premises after damage caused by natural disasters.125 As a collective effort was made to restore funerary premises, funerary space emerges as a primary locus of interaction for Rhodian associations.126 165 Conclusions Rhodos, with its insular and mainland territories, offers an ideal case to explore how communities within and beyond the polis level responded to building projects and thus to the improvement and embellishment of the built environment. :LWKLQWKLVJHRJUDSKLFDOO\IUDJPHQWHG\HWSROLWLFDOO\XQL¿HG area, practices were closely interconnected and similar patterns can be highlighted. Works on civic buildings or civic amenities are strikingly absent from the epigraphic record as it now stands. Despite the oddities of survival, this pattern should not be accidental. It shows that across the institutional framework of the Rhodian state, from smaller polities to the old cities, security (e.g. ramparts) and religion (e.g. sanctuaries) were of prime importance: communal donations and individual euergetism sustained and enhanced military and sacred architecture. Furthermore, within private associations – integral parts of Rhodian society yet not constitutional parts of the state – funerary space emerged as a locus of prime importance for associational life. Viewed as “a feature of public life” and “quintessential acts of civic generosity”, communities across the Rhodian state often resorted to this mean of public appeal as an effective way to raise funds. Subscriptions can thus provide a solid benchmark against which to assess the degree and extent of participation of the citizenry or of the community in public life.127 Rhodian subscriptions are quite informative in this respect; they highlight the mobilization of different segments of Rhodian society and institutions, be it on the level of the state, city, deme, community, or association. Not only individuals or families responded to public appeals, but also local communities and, occasionally, private associations. Except for one subscription list from the city of Rhodos that attests to the mobilization of the upper echelons of 5KRGLDQVRFLHW\LQWKHUHVWRUDWLRQRIWKHIRUWL¿FDWLRQZDOOV after the earthquake of 223/222 BC (S2), the epigraphic record paints an otherwise uniform picture: in cases of emergencies, following an earthquake (Telos: D2, Kameiros: ' RUDQDWWDFN .DUSDWKRV' RI¿FLDOVZHUHUHVSRQVLEOH for the maintenance of ramparts. Praised for the supervision RI ZRUNV RU KDQGOLQJ RI SXEOLF IXQGV KRQRUL¿F GHFUHHV XQGHUOLQHWKHDSWLWXGHRIFLYLFRI¿FLDOVLQGHDOLQJHIIHFWLYHO\ with emergencies that put public security at stake. The analysis of the evidence at hand allowed us to trace interrelated practices at the deme (S1, S 5, D1, D4) and sub-deme (S4, D5) levels, especially in communities across the Peraia. Vicinity as well as mobility of donors may have prompted communities to act in a similar manner when it came to the support and augmentation of religious life. Communities of different degrees of institutional attachment to the Rhodian state strived to support cults in their territory, not only at the level of the deme (e.g. Thyssanous: S1, Phoenix: S5, Bybassos: D4) but also at that of the ktoina (e.g. Syrna: S4 and D1, Syme: D5). Thus, the 166 6WHOOD6NDOWVD epigraphic record evokes a rich and diverse religious life; some cults were charged with clear political overtones of the community in question (Athena Kameiris in Thyssanous: S1), others mirrored the popularity of cults in the island of Rhodos itself or in neighbouring areas (Dionysos in Phoenix: S5, Asklepios in Syrna: S4 and D1, Athena in Syme: D5), and others were well rooted in the local tradition (Hemithea LQ.DVWDERV' 5HJDUGOHVVRIWKHSROLWLFDODI¿OLDWLRQRU VRFLDO VWDWXV RI WKH GRQRU FXOWV HQMR\HG ¿QDQFLDO VXSSRUW from broad segments of Rhodian society. We can thus begin WRYLHZVXEVFULSWLRQOLVWVDQGKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHVSHUWDLQLQJWR building projects as an orchestrated and multi-level effort to sustain and develop the infrastructure for a fully operational religious life. $W¿UVWJODQFHWKHDPRXQWVUDLVHGE\VXEVFULSWLRQVORRN relatively modest (e.g. Thyssanous: S1, Syrna: S4, Phoenix: S5, Kameiros: S 8, Kameiros: S9), something that would point to works of a rather limited scale or complementary character (e.g. Kameiros: S8). Alternatively, funds could be drawn from other sources, as is clearly illustrated in the FDVHRI6\UQDZKHUHDVXEVFULSWLRQOLVW 6 DQGDQKRQRUL¿F decree for a local benefactress (D1) relate to the same project, namely works in the sanctuary of Asklepios. Communities resorted both to individual euergetism as well as collective efforts to raise funds. Not all subscriptions were successful, however. An unsuccessful effort of the community in Syme to raise funds by means of a subscription for repair works in the Sanctuary of Athena led the community to resort to the generosity of Aristophanes, a benefactor from the Ialysian deme of Politai. Likewise, a benefactor from the deme of Amos contributed to the improvement of the Sanctuary of Hemithea located in the deme of Bybassos. These examples from Bybassos and Syme clearly illustrate the mobility of donors in the Peraia around the 2nd century BC, a practice which is also easily traceable LQWKHSUR¿OHRIGRQRUVLQWKHVXEVFULSWLRQOLVWVRIWKHUG century BC. In Syrna (S4), three associations, as well as individuals from different Rhodian demes, contributed to construction works in the Sanctuary of Asklepios. Locals as well as non-locals provided funds for the construction of the Temple of Dionysos in Phoenix (S5). Endorsement of religious life through donations (either through subscriptions or benefactions) was not a prerogative of the members of the community in the territory where the shrine was located. Instead, Rhodian citizens, regardless of their GHPHDI¿OLDWLRQDQGRFFDVLRQDOO\QRQORFDOVFRQWULEXWHGWR building works in sanctuaries in the Peraia. This comes as a VWULNLQJFRQWUDVWZLWKWKHH[FOXVLYHO\.DPHLULDQDI¿OLDWLRQ of donors contributing to building projects in Kameiros.128 Apparently, a strong sense of local identity was attached to the transformation of sacred space in Kameiros. Indeed, the old city of Kameiros provided the physical and ritual space for reunions or meetings of the all demes and communities within Kameirian territory. Collective efforts and individual euergetism transcended the boundaries of small communities, while a strong sense RI UHJLRQDOLVP GLFWDWHG WKH SUR¿OH RI FRQWULEXWRUV ZKHQ projects were undertaken at a “city” level (i.e. Kameiros). Overall, contributions to building works served to augment not only the prestige of the local sanctuary or the community, but implicitly also of the political entity to which benefactors and other donors belonged, whether formally (Rhodians) or informally (non-local residents). By looking at the nature of building works and the way in which building projects were funded within the Rhodian state it was possible to trace interrelated as well as divergent attitudes towards the built environment on multiple levels. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 Material that dates to the Roman period is left out and is listed below: e.g. two decrees from Lindos that date to the Roman period have been left out (Lindos II 449: repair of the Sanctuary of Asklepios in Rhodos; IG XII,1 832: repair works in the Sanctuary of Athena); a decree for a benefactor ZKR¿QDQFHGWKHUHSDLURIDQandron after its collapse during an earthquake (,5KRG3HU 110 = 3pUpH 159); a number of inscriptions from Kameiros about construction or repair works (7& 64; 7& 64a + 7& Suppl. 197; 7& 64b; 7& 57; 7& 75); an KRQRUL¿FLQVFULSWLRQIRUDEHQHIDFWRURIDSULYDWHDVVRFLDWLRQ as a result of his pledge to contribute to the repair of funerary monuments and other facilities (IG XII,1 937); a subscription list of members of an association for the repair of graves and the supply of building material ($6$WHQH ± >±@ 322, no. 5 and 6(*30, 1003). This last list is dated after the priest of Helios, Dikaios, whom Badoud (2015, 185, A 76) suggests to associate either with a descendant of Stratokles VRQ RI 'LNDLRV ZKR ZDV DFWLYH LQ WKH ¿UVW KDOI RI WKH VW century BC, or with a Dikaios mentioned in an unpublished Imperial inscription – this inscription is wrongly attributed to Bargylia by Migeotte (2013, 123–124). The Knidian Peninsula constituted the westernmost boundary of the territory and Kaunos the northeastern boundary. The Rhodian Peraia is often referred to in modern scholarship as the “incorporated Peraia” in juxtaposition to territories in Karia and Lykia that were included in the Rhodian state after the Treaty of Apameia in 189 BC and referred to as the “subject Peraia”; see Fraser & Bean 1954, 51–54. For the political institutions of Rhodos, see Gabrielsen 2000, 193. Already in 1900, van Gelder advocated an inclusive and integrative approach to the material at hand for the history of Rhodos, setting the paradigm for later studies on Rhodian history; for an assessment of van Gelder’s contribution, see Wiemer 2010. Recently, Nathan Badoud (2015) and Benedikt Boyxen (2018) have systematically and consistently applied an inclusive approach in their respective works on Rhodian chronology and foreigners in Rhodos. In the paper, I directly cite the ID number of inscriptions listed in Tables 12.1 & 12.2 where references for individual inscriptions are given. Texts that do not describe or specify the nature of the subscription or benefaction are not treated here. In his classic work  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV on public subscriptions, Leopold Migeotte devotes a whole chapter to subscription lists from the island of Rhodos, yet subscriptions from the Rhodian Peraia were excluded, since they emanated from civic subdivisions or private associations and not from the old cities or the city of Rhodos, Migeotte 1992, 4–7. 7 The dedication of Kleandridas and Timotheos sons of $OH[LPDFKRV WKHODWWHULGHQWL¿HGZLWKDSULHVWRI+HOLRV LV inscribed on the lintel of the doorway that led from the pronaos to the Temple of Athena in Lindos (Lindos II 71). The date of the inscription has now been moved from ca. 295 BC to ca. 260 BC, Badoud 2015, 227.  /LSSROLV±±0HO¿ 9 Two subscriptions from the Sanctuary of Athena Lindia that appealed to a large section of the citizen body, as well as to foreigners and associations, date to the Hellenistic period: Migeotte 1992, no. 39 (for the restoration of the adornment of the cult statue of Athena and the supply of sacred vessels, ca. 325 BC) and Migeotte 1992, no. 40 (for the supply of gold crowns for Athena, Zeus and Nike, ca. 115 BC). 10 The date of the famous earthquake that hit Rhodos and destroyed the Colossus should be placed in 223/222 BC and not in 227/226 BC as 20th-century scholarship has maintained. A detailed argument on this chronological matter was presented as part of a paper entitled, ‘Highs and lows RIHDUWKTXDNHVDQG5KRGLDQFKURQRORJ\DQKRQRUL¿FGHFUHH from Telos’, in The Proceedings of the Third North American Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy Washington, D.C., Inscriptions and the Epigraphic Habit, 5–7 January 2020; this will be published by Skaltsa separately. 11 Six inscriptions discussed here are dated after the priest of Helios (see Table 12.5 for the dates). To give a few examples: the decree from Syrna (D1) was usually dated to the 2nd century BC (contra%|UNHUZKRKDGVXVWDLQHGDGDWH between 240 and 225 BC; his view met with the Roberts’ criticism in %( 1978, no. 23); its date has now been securely moved to the eponymic year of Hagesippos (221/220 BC; Badoud 2015, 165, A 5, 242, 255). In light of this decree, a subscription list (S4) referring to the same building project can now be securely placed around 221 BC (Badoud 2015, 242), while earlier its date ranged from the 3rd down to the 1st century BC. In addition, two subscriptions from Kameiros 6 DQG 6  ZHUH GDWHG LQ WKH ¿UVW KDOI RI WKH QG FHQWXU\ BC (Migeotte 1992, nos 43–44), while now their date should more precisely be placed around 170 BC, Badoud 2015, 223, 224. In addition, a decree from Syme (D5) was loosely dated in the 2nd/1st century BC (Constantakopoulou 2012, 312), but has now been securely placed in 154 BC, the year of the priesthood of Sosikles (155/154 BC: Badoud 2015, 178, A 56, 239; cf. Winand 1990, 115–116). The earthquake of 223/222 BC provides a reasonably secure WHUPLQXVSRVWTXHP for the subscriptions from the city of Rhodos (S2) and Kameiros (S3). 12 D4 in Table 12.2 with references. Fraser & Bean (1954, 27) attributed this decree to the Rhodian state, Bean 1966, 65. The Roberts were initially in doubt about the issuing authority (%( 1955, no. 215), while later (%( 1979, no. 471) they endorsed the view according to which the decree was issued E\WKH5KRGLDQVWDWH)RUDQDWWULEXWLRQWR$PRVVHHùDKLQ & Engelmann (1979, 219; cf. 6(* 29, 1065), following a 13 14 15 16 17  19 20  22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 167 view expressed by Bean & Cook (1957, 60), which however cannot be sustained, see n. 13 below. Bresson 1991, 70, cf. %( 1955, no. 215; Badoud 2015, 177, A 51. Gabrielsen (1994, 134, no. 42) leaves the attribution open when he discusses the decree related to the Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos. Gabrielsen 1994, 122–125. ,5KRG3HUO਩įȠȟİȈȣȡȞȓȠȚȢOO±țȣȡȦșȑȞ_>IJȠȢ IJȠ૨įİIJ@Ƞ૨ȥĮijȓıȝĮIJȠȢFI*DEULHOVHQ IG;,,OO±įİ>į@ંȤșĮȚ>IJ@૶țȠȚȞ૵ȚțȣȡȦ_>ș੼ȞIJȠ@ ȢIJȠ૨įİIJȠ૨ȥĮij઀ıȝĮIJȠȢ Cf. Gabrielsen 1994, 124–125. )RU WKH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI WKH VWRD IUDPLQJ WKH 6DQFWXDU\ RI Athena and Zeus on the acropolis with the stoa of the inscriptions see ClRh II, 183; Migeotte 1992, 128; Caliò 2004, 438; 2011, 350. For the excavations see ClRh VI–VII, 223–249. Coulton 1976, 61, 243; Caliò 1996. )RUDQLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIWKHVHVXLWHVRIURRPVZLWKhestiatoria used for the meetings of local magistrates (mastroi) and for RI¿FLDO EDQTXHWV GXULQJ WKH 3DQDWKHQDLD VHH &DOLz  351–352; 2012, followed by Livadiotti 2017, 233. The retaining wall of the terrace has a height of ca. 5 m. Coulton 1976, 62. The construction of the stoa has been placed in the last quarter of the 3rd century BC (Caliò 2004, 436–437; 2011, 343; Rocco 2018, 19). In the light of prosopographic evidence, Badoud (2015, 223) dated the subscription S3 shortly after the earthquake of 227 BC, a date that should now be lowered to 223/222 BC (see n. 10). For a possible involvement of workPHQIURP$OH[DQGULDLQWKHUHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQRIXUEDQVSDFHLQ Kameiros, see Caliò 2004; 2008, 67; 2010, 8–9; 2011, 352. Badoud 2015, 223, 301. Caliò (2004, 448; 2011, 351) has interpreted the term chresteria as denoting utensils used in the stoa, probably in connection to dining, in light of a OH[ VDFUD from Tymmos (Kameirian deme in the Peraia) where chresteria are also PHQWLRQHGLQFRQQHFWLRQWRDVWRDDQGGLQLQJDIWHUVDFUL¿FH ,5KRG3HU 201. 7&  OO ± ਥʌĮȖȖİ઀ȜĮȞIJȠ įઆıİȚȞ Ȥȡ੾ȝĮIJĮ _įȦȡİ੹Ȟ İੁȢ IJ੹ȞțĮIJĮıțİȣ੹ȞIJ૵Ȟ_ȤȡȘıIJȘȡ઀ȦȞțĮ੿IJ૵ȞਥȜ઄IJȡȦȞțĮ੿_İੁȢ IJ੹ȞਦıIJ઀ĮıȚȞIJ૵Ȟį੺ȝȦȞ&DOLz 7&OO±>ʌ@ȡȠĮȚȡȠ઄ȝİȞȠȚIJ੺ȢIJİIJȚ>ȝ੹Ȣ@_>IJ@૵Ȟșİ૵Ȟ țĮ੿IJ੹ʌȠIJ¶ਕıij>੺@_>Ȝ@İȚĮȞȀĮȝȚȡİ૨ıȚıȣȖțĮIJĮ_>ı@țİȣ੺ȗİȚȞ 7&  OO ± IJȠ઀įİ ʌȡȠĮȚȡȠ઄ȝİȞȠȚ ਥʌĮ઄ȟİȚȞ _ IJ੺Ȣ IJİ IJ૵Ȟ șİ૵ȞIJȚȝ੹ȢțĮ੿IJ੹Ȟ_ʌĮȞ੺ȖȣȡȚȞIJ૵ȞȆĮȞĮșȘȞĮ઀ȦȞ The subscription attracted a Kameirian deme (Loxidai), 12 individual donors, as well as two families. As the names are not followed by demotics and as the name of the deme is UHFRUGHG¿UVWDPRQJWKHGRQRUVLWORRNVSUREDEOHWKDWWKLVVWHOH contained only donors from the deme of Loxidai, Migeotte   Q  6RPH RI WKH GRQRUV KHOG FLYLF RI¿FHV LQ Kameiros in the third quarter of the 3rd century BC, notably WKH RI¿FH RI GDPLRXUJRV e.g. Lykaon son of Smindyridas, Sosikrates son of Sokrates and Oulias son of Mnasitimos); IRUGLIIHUHQWYLHZVRQWKHGDWHVRIWKHVHRI¿FLDOVVHH%DGRXG 2015, 223 and Castelli 2017. Ellis-Evans underlines the ideological connotations of the language of subscriptions, stressing that invitations for 168 32 33  35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  6WHOOD6NDOWVD contributions could be considered as shameful (2012, 109, n. 8). In Rhodian subscriptions, the donors are often referred WR DV IJȠȓįİ ʌȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ D IRUPXOD WKDW XQGHUOLQHV WKHLU willingness to donate without being compelled to do so, Ellis-Evans 2012, 116. In another fragmentary inscription from Rhodos (6(5 ZHHQFRXQWHUDSKUDVHVLPLODUWRਙȞİȣ ʌĮȡĮțȜȒıȚȠȢ WKRXJK LW LV QRW HDV\ WR HOXFLGDWH WKH SUHFLVH context, except that contributions were also at stake. The stele is only partially preserved. The deme of Arioi contributed 50 drachmas (7& 159 l. 8), while Kritoboulos son of Aristombrotidas donated 100 drachmas on behalf of himself and his family (ll. 9–12). This individual together with other members of his extended family contributed to another contemporary building project (S9), discussed below. 7&6XSSOEOțİȡĮȝ઀į>Į@Ȣȡ࢝țĮ੿țĮȜȣʌIJોȡĮȢȡ࢝ 7KH ¿UVW OLQHV RI VXEVFULSWLRQ 6 ZKLFK ZRXOG VSHFLI\ LWV purpose, are missing. Migeotte (1992, 350) places this subscription among small- to medium-scale subscriptions. He estimated the value of the tile donation in light of tile prices found in the Delian building accounts: as a pair of tiles cost 5 obols, the donation of 100 pairs of tiles in Kameiros would amount to 83 drachmas and 2 obols, nearly three times the value of the largest cash contributions, Migeotte 1992, 132, n. 101 with references. Migeotte 1992, no. 44. The stele is only partly preserved. Migeotte (1992, 130) estimates the total number of donors as ca. 80. The following demotics are attested: Arioi, Herieis, Lelioi, Rogkidai, Palaiopolitai, Phagaioi, Plarioi and Silyrioi, all in the island of Rhodos; and Amnistioi, Kassareis, Tloioi, and Tymnioi in the Peraia. In S3 the deme of Loxidai contributed 2000 drachmas (7& 158 l. 9), while in S8 the deme of Arioi contributed 50 drachmas (7& 159 l. 8). In S9 the name of the association (6DUDSLDVWDLKRLHQ.DPLURL) explicitly underlines its connection to Kameiros. Two more inscriptions (7& 84 l. 14, 171 BC and 7& 78 ll. 10–11, ca. mid-1st century BC) in which this association is attested point to its longevity for over a century. See n. 9 above. Both decrees date after the eponym of the Rhodian state, see Table 12.5 with references. On the basis of the presence of two different sigmas in the inscription (sigma with parallel bars and open-bar sigma) Bresson dated the inscription to a transitional period in the 3rd century BC, Bresson 1991, 126. The date of this inscription, however, can be narrowed down. Both shapes of sigmas are attested in 75, 8 D, which dates ca. 261–238 BC, while 75, 8 E, dating from 229 to 223 BC, contains only parallel or closed-bar sigmas. Thus, the inscription from Thyssanous can be dated to around the mid-3rd century BC or at least before the 230s BC. $VWKHVWHOHEUHDNVRIIDIWHUWKH¿UVWUHFRUGHGQDPHRIDGRQRU the internal arrangement of the list is beyond reconstitution. Ellis-Evans (2012, 111) suggests that the practice to set limits on minimum and maximum amounts aimed at drawing “attention away from the amount given and towards the act of giving itself”. In addition, Chaniotis (2012, 99) underlines that, “the control of the volume of donations aimed to limit WKHVRFLDODQGSROLWLFDOLQÀXHQFHRIGRQRUV´ 44 For the location of the deme of the Tloioi in Phoenix, see Hiller von Gaertringen 1902, 143–146. 45 Bresson (1991, 145) dates this inscription around 255–226 BC, while Badoud (2015, 241) lowers the date to 220–210 BC. 46 ,5KRG3HU103 = 3pUpH 148. This inscription is dated around ca. 250–240 BC, Bresson 1991, 139; Badoud 2015, 241. 47 ,5KRG3HU  $ O  IJȠ઀įİ IJȠ૨ į੺ȝȠȣ ȥĮijȚȟĮȝ੼ȞȠȣ țĮIJĮıțİȣ੺ıĮȚIJઁȞȞĮઁȞIJȠ૨ǻȚȠȞ઄ıȠȣ 48 In contrast to demesmen from Tlos whose names are followed by the patronyms, non-locals are recorded with their personal name followed by the ethnic; two Rhodian metics – one from Selge (,5KRG3HU 101 A ll. 24–26) and another from Armenia (,5KRG3HU 101 B l. 28) – and one Stratonikeian-Rhodian (,5KRG3HU 101 B l. 32). Reger (1999, 83–84, 93) has argued that Stratonikeia came under Rhodian power after the later 240s BC and before 201 BC. 49 There is another subscription list that originates from Phoenix, though its purpose is unknown (,5KRG3HU102). It is considered contemporary to the subscription list under discussion RQ JURXQGV RI WKH KRPRQ\PV %OPHO    GDWHV WKH inscription to the 3rd century BC, while Badoud (2015, 241) dates it to ca. 200 BC. 50 Boyxen 2018, 220, n. 185. In seven instances, individuals made donations on behalf of their families, while in two instances kinship relations can be reconstructed in terms of onomastics. For example, Nikasagoras son of Boulakrines (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 3) who donated the land, should be the father of Boulakrines son of Nikasagoras (A l. 37) who donated 50 drachmas. Furthermore, in light of their shared patronym, two brothers seem to have contributed to the project, while the son of one of them also appears among the contributors: Hieron son of Aristombrotos (A l. 14, 100 drachmas), Hieronymos son of Aristombrotos (A l. 15, 100 drachmas) and the son of the latter, Aristombrotos son of Heronymos (B l. 15, 30 drachmas), see Bresson 1991, 143. 51 Badoud (2015, 192) postulates that Boulakrines, a priest of Helios known only from amphora stamps and whose priesthood is placed in ca. 256 BC, should be the father and grandfather of Nikasagoras son of Boulakrines (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 3) and Boulakrines son of Nikasagoras respectively (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 37). Furthermore, Simylinos son of Minnion (I.Rhod. 3HU 101 A l. 12) and Simylinos son of Euphragoras (I.Rhod. 3HU%O FDQUHVSHFWLYHO\EHLGHQWL¿HGZLWKDSULHVWRI Apollo in a dedication from Kameiros (7& 44a 1–2) and with the priest of Helios attested in amphora stamps (Badoud 2015, 193, D15). Rhodippos son of Nikagoras (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 6) is attested as priest of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus in Kameiros in 214 BC (7& 41 l. 18) and priest of Sarapis (7& 43 col. II l. 12) in 208 BC, while his father Nikagoras son of Rhodippos is attested as an hieropoios in Phoenix (,5KRG3HU 103 l. 30). A grandson of Teisagoras son of Aristombrotos (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 11) is attested in 7& 157 l. 4 (ca. 125 %&  >7LPDVL@NUDWHV VRQ RI$JHVLGDPRV ,5KRG3HU 101 B l. 14) is attested as an epistates in 227 BC (7& 38 l. 23) and as an hieropoios in 211 BC (7& 42 l. 11). Kleonymos, son of Timasipolis and adopted son of Kleomenes (,5KRG3HU 101 B ll. 35–36), is attested as an hieropoios in 253 BC (75, 30). Therefore, donors of the list led an active political life within and beyond (e.g. Kameiros) the boundaries of their community.  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV 52 Nine homonyms appear in the list of priests (,5KRG3HU103; see n. 46 above), while in the subscription list ,5KRG3HU 102 VHHQDERYH ZKRVHSXUSRVHLVQRWDWDOOFOHDU¿YHKRPonyms appear. In particular, the following individuals served as hieropoioi: Teisagoras son of Aristombrotos (,5KRG3HU 101 A l.11), Hieronymos son of Aristombrotos (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 15), Pythippos son of Epikrates (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 41), Sopateros son of Thrasyboulos (B 3), Aristombrotos son of Hieronymos (B 15), Hieroteles son of Alexidamos (I.Rhod. 3HU 101 B l, 20), while Timasitheos son of Timasianax (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 18) was prytanis (,5KRG3HU 103 l. 1). The following individuals contributed to both subscriptions: Timasipolis son of Timomachos (,5KRG3HU 101 A l. 49, ,5KRG3HU. 102 l. 17), Philokrates son of Hierophanes (,5KRG3HU. 102 l. 29), Hierokles son of Timasipolis (I.Rhod. 3HU 101 B l. 7, ,5KRG3HU. 102 l. 25), Timarchos son of Euphranor (,5KRG3HU 101 B l. 8, ,5KRG3HU 102 l. 33), Timachidas son of Euphranor (,5KRG3HU 101 B l. 26, I.Rhod. 3HU 102 l. 34), Timostratos for of Kleisimbrotidas (I.Rhod. 3HU 102 l. 34). 53 Syrna did not constitute a deme, but a community within a territory that was part of a deme. As Syrna lies on the east coast of the Chersonesos, not far away from the Lindian deme of Amos, it is reasonable to assume that it was part of Lindian territory. Further support that Syrna was part of Lindian territory is provided by Badoud’s analysis of the adoption formulae, Badoud 2015, 247. Bresson (1991, 92) considers Syrna a NWRLQD. 54 D1. The decree was passed in Badromios of 220 BC. It is dated after the eponymous priest of Helios, Hagesippos, (221/220 BC), see Badoud 2015, 255, 268. 55 ,5KRG3HU 303 ll. 5–14. 56 Cf. 6(* 14, 691. 57 One association in particular offered 300 drachmas (I.Rhod. 3HU 302 A ll. 4–6), securing for itself a prominent place high up in the stele after the names of three individual contributors. The contributions of the other two associations (,5KRG3HU 302 A ll. 17–18, 33) were still of a relatively great magnitude, with donations amounting to 100 and 50 drachmas respectively, far surpassing several individual contributions that typically ranged between 10 and 30 drachmas. 58 Cf. Bresson 1991, 90. 59 Lindian from the deme of Klasioi: ,5KRG3HU 302, B 9; Ialysians from the deme of Kryasioi (in the Peraia): I.Rhod. 3HU302 B 10, 13, 24. 60 ,5KRG3HU 302 A 4–7, 17–18, 33. 61 All three associations are recorded in column A ll. 4–6, 17–18, 33. 62 This word has also been restored as part of the third name: $ O  șȚ@Įı>ȚIJ઼Ȟ țȠȚ@ȞҕઁȞ 7KLV UHVWRUDWLRQ LV LQFOXGHG LQ ,5KRG3HU 302 but not in 3pUpH 58. 63 For an overview of associations in Rhodos, Maillot 2015. 64 In lines 4–5 (,5KRG3HU WKHSDUWLFLSOHʌȡȠĮȚȡ>İ@ȣ>ȝȑȞĮ@ reveals Euagis’ deliberate intention to donate land and subsidise the cult. This participle emulates the vocabulary used in the subscription list from the same community (,5KRG3HU OIJȠȓįİʌȡȠĮȚȡȠȪȝİȞȠȚ DVWDQGDUGIRUPXODRI5KRGLDQ subscription lists, Ellis-Evans 2012, 116. 169 65 The deme geographically closest to Syme on the mainland is the deme of Kassareis, which is why Fraser & Bean (1954, 86, 140; cf. Boyxen 2018, 66) suggested that it might belong to it. Moreover, the most frequently attested demotic in Syme is that of Kassareis. 66 The decree was passed in the priesthood of Sodamos, see Table 12.5 with references. For Aristophanes’ benefaction: IG;,,$OO±ੁ>į@઀ĮȚIJ੹_਩ȡȖĮਥʌĮȖȖİ઀ȜĮIJȠțĮ੿ ıȣȞİIJ੼Ȝİıİ ʌȠIJİʌĮȖȖİ઀ȜĮIJȠ _ į੻ țĮ੿ ȟȣ>Ȝ@Ȧıİ૙Ȟ IJ઼Ȣ ıIJ੼ȖĮȢ IJ੹ʌȠIJȚ>į@İંȝİȞĮțĮ੿țİȡĮ_ȝȦıİ૙ȞIJİȜ੼ıȝĮıȚIJȠ૙ȢĮਫ਼IJȠ૨ 67 IG ;,, $ OO ± ʌȠȞ੼ıĮȞIJંȢ IJİ IJȠ૨ ȞĮȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ਥȞ IJ઼Ț ਙțȡĮȚ IJȠ૨ _ IJ઼Ȣ ਝș੺ȞĮȢ țĮ੿ ਥȖȖ઀>ȗ@ȠȞIJȠȢ ıȣȞʌİIJİ૙Ȟ įȚ੹ IJઁਥȟ૵ıșĮȚ_IJȠ઀ȤȠȣȢ>į@઄ȠIJંȞIJİțİ઀ȝİȞȠȞʌȠIJ¶ਕȞĮIJȠȜ੹ȢțĮ੿ IJઁȞʌȠ_IJ੿ȝİıĮȝȕȡ઀ĮȞ 68 IG ;,,  $ OO ± țĮ੿ İੁȢ IJ੹Ȟ ਥʌȚıțİȣ੹Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૨ ȖİȞȠȝİȞ઼Ȟ _ ਥʌĮȖȖİȜȚ઼Ȟ ਫ਼ʌં IJİ țȠȚȞ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ੁįȚȦIJ઼Ȟ IJ઼Ȣ į੻ ਥʌȚıȣȞĮȖȦ_Ȗ઼ȢIJȠ૨įȚĮijંȡȠȣȖȚȞȠȝ੼ȞĮȢʌȠȜȣȤȡȠȞ઀Ƞȣ 69 The motion was introduced by the hierothytai (ll. 2–3: ੂİȡȠșȣIJ઼Ȟ ȖȞઆ_ȝĮ  DQG WKLV FOHDUO\ SRLQWV WR WKH LQYROYHment of the local community in the maintenance of the cult. $ULVWRSKDQHV KRZHYHU ZDV QRW SROLWLFDOO\ DI¿OLDWHG WR WKH deme to which Syme belonged. He may have resided in Syme though; yet for the local community Aristophanes is treated as an Ialysian. 70 IG;,,$OO±ʌȠIJİʌĮȖȖİ઀ȜĮIJȠ_į੻țĮ੿ȟȣ>Ȝ@Ȧıİ૙Ȟ IJ઼ȢıIJ੼ȖĮȢIJ੹ʌȠIJȚ>į@İંȝİȞĮțĮ੿țİȡĮ_ȝȦıİ૙ȞIJİȜ੼ıȝĮıȚIJȠ૙Ȣ Įਫ਼IJȠ૨ 71 IG XII,3 1270 A ll. 20–26, B ll. 4–12. 72 Boyxen 2018, 67–69 with earlier scholarship. Fraser & Bean (1954, 140) thought that the NRLQRQ comprised Rhodians who were not demesmen of Syme, a view endorsed by Jones 1987, 264 § 49; Meier 2012, 275. Guarducci thought that the koinon constituted a ktoina (1935, 423). Constantakopoulou (2012, 316–318) suggested that the koinon included citizens and non-citizen residents. 73 Boyxen 2018, 69; contra Constantakopoulou 2012, 316, 318. 74 Boyxen 2018, 69 following Gabrielsen (1997, 216 n. 92) on this view. IG ;,, $ OO ± ʌĮȡĮțȜȘșİ੿Ȣ _ ਥȞ IJ઼Ț ਥțȜȘı઀ĮȚਫ਼ʌઁIJ૵ȞțIJȠȚȞİIJ઼Ȟ 75 Gabrielsen (1997, 216 n. 92), to support his argument in favour of the existence of two different bodies, brought into the discussion a Roman inscription from Thyssanous (,5KRG3HU 157 = 3pUpH 132 ll. 11–14) where the residents of Thyssanous appear as a distinct body from the ktoina of 6WUDSLDWDL. However, in the case of Thyssanous, the ktoina has a distinct name that sets it apart from the body of the residents in Thyssanous. In the decree from Syme, the term ktoina does not appear as such; it is only in connection to the assembly (HNNOHVLD) that the noun NWRLQHWDL is used instead. 76 Cf. Mackil 2013 with a focus on federal states and leagues more broadly, Taylor and Vlassopoulos 2015, 29–30. 77 For example, members of the koinon of the 3RVHLGRQLDVWDL in Delos were called thiasitai (,'pORV 1520 l. 86). 78 Besides the decree discussed here, the other decree passed by this koinon is IG XII,3 1269 dated in the 3rd century BC. 79 On the notion of non-permanent migration of Athenian demesmen within Attica, Taylor 2011. 170 6WHOOD6NDOWVD 80 In the edition of IG and in subsequent discussions of the text (Constantakopoulou 2012) the term 3ROLWDL in line 17 is taken to refer to Ialysian demesmen, non-residents LQ 6\PH OO ± țĮ੿ ıȣȞİIJ੼Ȝİıİ ਕȞĮȖĮȖઆȞ _ IJİ IJȠઃȢ ʌĮȡİʌȚįĮȝȠ૨ȞIJĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȆȠȜȚIJ઼Ȟ ਥʌ੼įİȚȟİ IJ੹ _ ਩ȡȖĮ țĮ>Ȝ@૵Ȣ ȖİȖȠȞંIJĮǜ ,QP\YLHZLWVKRXOGUDWKHUUHIHUWRQRQSHUPDQHQW UHVLGHQWV RI 6\PH FLWL]HQV RI WKH 5KRGLDQ VWDWH IJȠઃȢ ʌĮȡİʌȚįĮȝȠ૨ȞIJĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȠȜȚIJ઼Ȟ  ,I VR WKHQ $ULVWRSKDQHV invited all those of the citizens who happened to be in Syme to witness the embellishment of the sanctuary. 81 For this decree, D4, see Table 12.2 with references. The decree is dated after the priesthood of Peisistratos in 160 BC; for the date see Table 12.5 with references. For the controversy over the issuing authority see notes 12 and 13 above. 82 In total, 34 lines (lines 17–51) are not legible at all. Restorations are made in light of ,5KRG3HU 402 = 3pUpH 45. 83 Cook & Bean (1966, 65) proposed to identify the Leonidas who is mentioned in line 65 with the honorand. Bresson (1991, 72) accepted this interpretation.  7KHGHPHRI$PLRLKDVEHHQUHVWRUHGLQOLQH IJ@ઁȞį઼ȝȠȞ IJઁȞਝ>ȝ઀ȦȞ" OLQHV IJ>Ƞ@૨ਝʌંȜȜȦȞȠȢIJȠҕ૨ȈĮȝȞĮ઀Ƞȣ DQG 85 (IJҕȠҕ૨ҕ ȈĮȝҕȞҕĮ઀Ƞȣ  FRQWDLQ UHIHUHQFHV WR WKH 6DQFWXDU\ RI Apollo Samnaios. For a priest of Apollo Samnaios at Amos, ,5KRG3HU 358 = 3pUpH 54. 85 On this view, Bresson 1991, 72.  ,Q WKH SDVW WKH WHUP țȜȚıȓĮ KDG GLYLGHG VFKRODUV¶ RSLQLRQ but see now Renberg (2016, 302–303) who has convincingly argued that the term indicates lodging for the reception during the Kastabeia. 87 Thus confirming Diodorus’ account (5.62–63) that the cult was favoured not only by locals, but also by regional LQKDELWDQWVDQGWKRVHIRUHYHQIXUWKHUDZD\IJȚȝ઼ıșĮȚʌĮȡ੹ ʌ઼ıȚIJȠ૙ȢȑȞȋİȡȡȠȞȒı૳«ਥȞį੻IJȠ૙Ȣ੢ıIJİȡȠȞȤȡȩȞȠȚȢਥʌ੿ IJȠıȠ૨IJȠȞ ਩ȜĮȕİ IJઁ ੂİȡઁȞ ਙȣȟȘıȚȞ IJોȢ ਺ȝȚșȑĮȢ ੮ıIJİ ȝ੽ ȝȩȞȠȞ ʌĮȡ੹ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਥȖȤȦȡȓȠȚȢ țĮ੿ IJȠ૙Ȣ ʌİȡȚȠȓțȠȚȢ IJȚȝ઼ıșĮȚ įȚĮijİȡȩȞIJȦȢ ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ ȝĮțȡ੹Ȟ ȠੂțȠ૨ȞIJĮȢ İੁȢ Į੝IJઁ ijȚȜȠIJȓȝȦȢijȠȚIJ઼ȞIRUWKHFXOWRI+HPLWKHD'HERUG 37–38, 41–45. 88 Still, references to repairs (,5KRG3HU401 l. 8) and tiles (l.  VXI¿FHWRGHPRQVWUDWHWKDWZRUNVZHUHXQGHUWDNHQ  %HDQ  LVRIWKHYLHZWKDWWKHYHUEıȣȞĮȖȠȡȐȗȦLQ line 12 probably refers to the purchase of land adjacent to the sanctuary. Bresson (1991, 71–72) put forward that the benefactor helped the Bybassioi construct a building for lodging. +RZHYHUKLV¿QDQFLDODVVLVWDQFHFRXOGKDYHEHHQOLPLWHGWR the restoration of existing facilities. 90 See n. 87 above. 91 ,5KRG3HU 451 = 3pUpH 38. It is uncertain to which of the old three cities (Ialysos, Lindos or Kameiros) the deme Hygasieis belonged, Badoud 2011, 538. 92 ,5KRG3HU. 452 = 3pUpH 37. 93 Vom Karischen Bund zur griechischen Polis. Archäologischer Survey in Bybassos und Kastabos auf der Karischen Chersones: https://www.uni-marburg.de/de/fb06/archaeologie/forschung/laufende-projekte/bybassos-tuerkei (last accessed 24/4/2019). 94 Held 2015. 95 Cook & Plommer 1966, 168–170; Held 2013; 2015. However, Debord’s view (1982, 44–45) that the peripteral temple should be dated to the 2nd century BC cannot be sustained in light of the evidence at hand. On the sanctuary and its building phases see Wilkening-Aumann in this volume. 96 Held (2013, 96; 2015, 184) has now dissociated the block carrying a dedicatory inscription to Hemithea by Philion son of Philondas from Hygassos (,5KRG3HU 451 = 3pUpH 38 = Bean 1966, 58–59 no. 1) from the main temple and instead attributed it to the larger of the two ‘East buildings’ on the east of the terrace. Moreover, he has also revised the date of the inscription from early Hellenistic times up to the mid-4th century BC, Held 2015, 184. Likewise, he has dissociated the inscribed block carrying a dedicatory inscription by two Halikarnassian architects (,5KRG3HU452 = 3pUpH 37 = Bean 1966, 59 no. 92) from the precinct-wall, and instead attributed it to the epistyle of the naiskos V located in the southeast corner of the terrace, Held 2015, 185; Held & Wilkening-Aumann 2015, 84. 97 Architectural dedications:,5KRG3HU 451 = 3pUpH 38; I.Rhod. 3HU 452 = 3pUpH 37; ,5KRG3HU 459 = 3pUpH43; inscribed plinths: ,5KRG3HU 454 = 3pUpH 36; 6(* 63, 885. 98 Badoud has revisited the reading of the stamped tiles from Kastabos, Badoud 2017, 22. 99 Wilkening 2008; Held 2009, 121–122. 100 For the koinon of the Chersonesians, Held 2009, 121–122. The evidence for this koinon is meagre, with only three LQVFULSWLRQVLQWRWDODOOXGLQJWRLWDQKRQRUL¿FLQVFULSWLRQIRU an athlete dating to the 2nd/1st century BC (,5KRG3HU. 555 = 3pUpH DQGWZRKRQRUL¿FLQVFULSWLRQVIRU7)O$JORFKDUWRV dating to ca. AD 80–90 (Lindos II 384b, cf. 6(* 40, 668; 6(* 54, 721; 6(* 54, 723). As the Chersonesos forms a distinct geographical region that comprised different political communities (e.g. Lindian demes, Kameirian demes, etc.) it is reasonable to assume that by Roman times residents in this area transcended the political boundaries set by the political structure of the Rhodian state (i.e. demes) and referred to themselves as Chersonasioi (6(* 40, 668 ll. 6–7; 6(* 54, 723 l. 3), thus placing emphasis on the regional dimension of their identity. This does not need imply a formal organization with a sanctuary as the cult centre. 101 Polyb. 5.88–90. 102 Migeotte 2000, 149 who thinks that part of Hieron II’s and Gelon’s 75 talents went to repair the walls. 103 Migeotte has estimated that this subscription would have raised more than 250,000 drachmas, Migeotte 1992, no. 37 and p. 338; 2000, 149. 104 For example, the construction of a tower was undertaken by Hagesandros son of Mykion, a prominent Lindian, who served as priest of Poseidon Hippios around 229 BC, Badoud 2015, 88. Badoud (2015, 88–89) has recently put forward that the homonymous honorand on the Lindian Acropolis (Lindos II 169) should be one and the same person. Chaniotis (2012, 97) has noticed that Hagesandros’ donation stands out from the rest in terms of content (i.e. donation for the construction of an entire tower) and arrangement (the donation is listed under a special heading followed by a vacant space).  7KLV RI¿FH VHHPV WR SUHGDWH WKH LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI 7HORV to the Rhodian state, as indicated by a decree of Telos  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV acknowledging Koan assistance in a reconciliation case (IG XII,4 132, ca. 300 BC). A 2nd century AD attestation RIWKLVRI¿FH 6(* 3, 715) speaks of its longevity in Telian political structures. The decree in question makes explicit that the handling of sacred affairs and monies was a major SDUWRIWKLVRI¿FH  7KHLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIWKHHDUWKTXDNHLQTXHVWLRQKDVGLYLGHG scholars into two camps; those who identify the earthquake with that of traditionally dated in 226 BC (Stavrianopoulou 1997, 83, 86, 9; Meier 2012, 278) and those who support an LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ ZLWK WKH HDUWKTXDNH RI  %& 9DQ *HOGHU 1900, 5; Hiller von Gaertringen 1931, col. 785; Maier 1959–1961, 181; more recently, Badoud 2015, 166). For Robert, there was no conclusive evidence to associate this HDUWKTXDNHZLWKDQ\VSHFL¿FGDWH 5REHUWQ  Badoud, (2015, 166), who argued in favour of the later date (i.e. 198 BC), tried to dissociate Aristomenes’ benefactions IURP KLV RI¿FHKROGLQJ $V , KDYH DUJXHG HOVHZKHUH VHH n. 10), the structure of the decree itself allow us to maintain the view that Aristomenes’ benefactions are inextricably conQHFWHGWRKLVRI¿FH FIDOVR)U|KOLFK±ZKRLV of the view that the decree was passed shortly after the end RI$ULVWRPHQHV¶RI¿FH DQGWKHHDUWKTXDNHPHQWLRQHGLQWKH decree is that of 223/222 BC. 107 75, 21; Badoud 2015, 104. 108 Badoud 2015, 107. That the earthquake mentioned in the decree is that of 198 BC is made explicit by the reference to the priesthood of Theuphanes, whose priesthood is now dated LQ%&OO±ʌİʌIJȦțં_IJȦȞIJİIJ૵ȞIJİȚȤ੼ȦȞįȚ੹IJઁȞ ȖİȞંȝİȞȠȞ ıİȚıȝઁȞ _ ਥʌ¶ ੁİȡ੼ȦȢ Ĭİȣij੺ȞİȣȢ țĮ੿ ਕȞȦȤ઄ȡȠȣ ੕ȞIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ʌİ_ȡȚʌȠȜ઀Ƞȣ 2Q WKH HDUWKTXDNH RI  %& VHH Habicht 2003, 556–557, with references to Justin 30.4 and ,6WUDWRQLNHLD 4. See also n. 122 below. 109 For a revision of Philokrates’s long and successful career that spans a period of nearly 20 years, see Skaltsa forthcoming. 110 For the term, see Meier 2012, 272, n. 404 and Schuler 1998, 45–49. 111 Meier (2012, 272) thinks that a donation is unlikely: “Eine Schenkung ist unwahrscheinlich. Sie wäre in der Inschrift nicht unerwähnt geblieben”. 112 75,OO±ʌȡȠ_İȞȠ઀ȘıİȞ੖ʌȦȢIJȠ૙ȢĮੂȡȠȣȝ੼ȞȠȚȢਥʌ੿IJ઼Ȣ ʌȠȜȣȤİȚȡ઀_ĮȢ ȤȡંȞȠȢ ʌȠIJȚȖȡ੺ijȘIJĮȚ țĮ੿ țĮIJ੹ țĮȚȡઁȞ ਪțĮıIJĮ ıȣȞ_IJİȜોIJĮȚIJ૵Ȟ਩ȡȖȦȞ 113 D6 in Table 12.2. Badoud refers to this text in connection to the priesthood of Pythodoros (2015, 178). He is of the view that the decree was issued shortly after the end of the hostilities (i.e. Second Cretan War, 155–153 BC); Pythodoros was a priest in 153 BC or soon afterwards. 114 6\OO3OO±Įੂȡİșİ੿Ȣįҕ>੻@ਫ਼ʌઁ>IJ઼ȢțIJȠ઀ȞĮȢ"ਥʌȚıIJ੺IJĮȢ@ _>ਥ@ij¶ਪIJȘį઄ȠIJ઼ȢIJҕİੑȤȣȡ>આıȚȠȢਖȝ૵ȞțĮ੿IJȠ૨@_ʌİȡȚ>ʌȠ@ Ȝ઀Ƞȣ ʌȡȠİȞંİȚ ʌ>ĮȡİȤંȝİȞȠȢ ʌ઼ıĮȞ ਥțIJ੼@_Ȟҕ İ ȚĮȞ țĮ੿ țĮțȠʌĮș઀ĮȞ  7KHYHUEਥʌȚıțİȣȐȗȦLVDWWHVWHGWZLFHLQWKLVRWKHUZLVHSRRUO\ preserved decree (,5KRG3HU 155 ll. 8, 11). 116 S6 dates after the priesthood of Theuphanes, which can now be dated with certainty in 199/8 BC (Badoud 2015, 174, A 40). S7 is dated on account of the priesthood of Sodamos, which is now placed in 191/0 BC (Castelli 2017, 171 24) contra Badoud (2015, 178, A 55, 214) who favoured a date in 188/7 BC. 117 Until recently there was ambiguity about the earthquake mentioned in S6; see Migeotte (2013, 118) who is not conclusive about the earthquake. 118 For example, it was in the month of Hyakinthios that the koinon of Haliadai and Haliastai (IG XII,1 155, II ll. 66–69) met in the funerary precinct of the association and proclaimed honours to benefactors. Moreover, both associations under discussion resolved to repair their funerary monuments in the month of Hyakinthios. 119 Habicht (2003, 557) claims that the earthquake occurred “at the same time as the conference at Nikaia on the Malian gulf”, that is in the fall of 198 BC (Justin 30.4.1–3). However, Justin only speaks of the year and the decree of Stratonikeia (,6WUDWRQLNHLD 4 ll. 16–17) passed in the Xanthikos (March) of the 23rd regnal year of Philip V (198 BC) makes explicit that by that time the earthquake had already hit this area. 120 All members contributing to the subscription are foreigners from Antiocheia (two donors), Sikyon, Ephesos (two donors), Cappadocia, Ilion and Gargara. See also Boyxen 2018, 171, n. 98. 121 For example, the funerary complex (Kountouri plot) that has been meticulously published by V. Patsiada probably belonged WR D IDPLO\ LQ WKH ¿UVW EXLOGLQJ SKDVH ¿UVW KDOI RI WKH QG century BC) before changing ownership in the second (second half of the 2nd century BC) and third building phases (second half of the 1st century BC/1st century AD), Patsiada 2013, 243–245. 122 The order in which the names were listed shows that status rather than wealth was at stake within the group. Cf. Maillot 2012, 244; Boyxen 2018, 132–134 on the concept of social hierarchy and subscriptions in associations in Rhodos. 123 IG;,,OO±ȂİȞİțȡ੺IJȘȢȀȚȕȣȡ੺IJĮȢਕȞȠȚțȠįȠȝ੾ıİȚȞ IJઁȞIJȠ૙ȤȠȞ_țĮ੿IJ੹ȝȞĮȝİ૙ĮIJȠ૙Ȣੁį઀ȠȚȢਕȞĮȜઆȝĮıȚ 124 For example, the contribution of the archeranistes Xouthos amounted to 20 drachmas (6(* 53, 822 l. 17), while Myron from Ephesos contributed 30 drachmas (l. 19).  7KHKRQRUL¿FGHFUHHRIWKH6DED]LDVWDL for Ariston, a benefactor from Syracuse, further underlines the importance placed on the maintenance of funerary premises (6(* 33, 639) in the late 2nd and early 1st centuries BC for Ariston was honoured for his virtue and for taking care of the graves. 126 Boyxen 2018, 171–175. 127 Ellis-Evans 2012, 107. 128 In two different subscription lists from Kameiros (S3 and S8), the deme of Loxidai and the deme of Arioi contributed accordingly. An unknown building project in Kameiros (S9) attracted contributions from individuals belonging to various Kameirian demes (both in the island and the Peraia) as well as a private association with vested interests in Kameiros itself. Bibliography Badoud, N. 2011: L’intégration de la Pérée au territoire de Rhodes, in N. Badoud (ed.), 3KLORORJRV'LRQ\VLRV0pODQJHVRIIHUWVDX SURIHVVHXU'HQLV.QRHSÀHU, Genève, 533–565. Badoud, N. 2015: Le temps de Rhodes. Une chronologie des LQVFULSWLRQV GH OD FLWp IRQGpH VXU O¶pWXGH GH VHV LQVWLWXWLRQV, 9HVWLJLD0QFKHQ 172 6WHOOD6NDOWVD Badoud, N. 2017: ,QVFULSWLRQVHWWLPEUHVFpUDPLTXHVGH5KRGHV 'RFXPHQWV UHFXHLOOLV SDU OH PpGHFLQ HW H[SORUDWHXU VXpGRLV Johan Hedenborg, Stockholm. Bean, G.E. 1966: The inscriptions, in J.M. Cook & W.H. Plommer, 7KH6DQFWXDU\RI+HPLWKHDDW.DVWDERV, Cambridge, 58–65. Bean, G.E. & J.M. Cook 1957: The Carian coast 3, %6$ 52, 58–146. %OPHO:  'LH ,QVFKULIWHQ GHU UKRGLVFKHQ 3HUDLD, IGSK 38, Bonn. %|UNHU &  =XU 'DWLHUXQJ HLQLJHU ,QVFKULIWHQ DXV GHU rhodischen Peraia, =3(28, 35–39. Boyxen, B. 2018: )UHPGH LQ GHU KHOOHQLVWLVFKHQ 3ROLV 5KRGRV =ZLVFKHQ1lKHXQG'LVWDQ], Klio Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 29, Berlin–Boston, MA. Bresson, A. 1991: 5HFXHLOGHV,QVFULSWLRQGHOD3pUpHUKRGLHQQH 3pUpHLQWpJUpH , Paris. Caliò, L.M. 1996: Camiro. Storia degli scavi. La grande stoa, in M. Livadiotti & G. Rocco (eds), La presenza italiana nel 'RGHFDQHVRWUDLOHOLO/DULFHUFDDUFKHRORJLFD/D conservazione. Le scelte progettuali, Catania, 60–66. &DOLz /0  /R ੂİȡȠșȪIJİȚȠȞ H OD IXQ]LRQH GHOOD ıIJȠȐ GL Camiro, 3359, 436–459. &DOLz /0  8Q DUFKLWHWWR D 5RGL $PSKLORFKRV ¿JOLR GL Laago, 6\OORJH(SLJUDSKLFD%DUFLQRQHQVLV6, 59–68. Caliò, L.M. 2010: La koinè architettonica tolemaica in Egeo meridionale, in L. Caliò (ed.), 6FDPEL PRELOLWj LQGLYLGXDOH HG HODERUD]LRQH FXOWXUDOH QHOOH LVROH GHOO¶(JHR PHULGLRQDOH WUDWDUGR(OOHQLVPRHG,PSHUR, BA online, n.s., Roma, 4–22. Caliò, L.M. 2011: The Agora of Kamiros. A hypothesis, in A. Giannikouri (ed.), 7KH $JRUD LQ WKH 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ IURP Homeric to Roman times, Athens, 343–355. Caliò, L.M. 2012: Il pasto collettivo nei santuari dell’Egeo meridionale: struttura e forme di partecipazione, 7KLDVRV 1, 35–46. &DVWHOOL7/DFKURQRORJLHGHVpSRQ\PHVUKRGLHQVGHOD¿Q du IIIe s. et du premier tiers du IIe s. Nouvelles hypothèses, 5($ 119, 3–24. Chaniotis, A. 2012: Public subscriptions and loans as social capital in the Hellenistic city: reciprocity, performance, commemoration, in P. Martzavou & N. Papazarkadas (eds), (SLJUDSKLFDO $SSURDFKHV WR WKH 3RVWFODVVLFDO 3ROLV )RXUWK &HQWXU\%&WR6HFRQG&HQWXU\$', Oxford, 89–106. Constantakopoulou, C. 2012: Beyond the polis: island NRLQD and other non-polis entities in the Aegean, 5($ 114.2, 301–321. Cook, J.M. & W.H. Plommer 1966: 7KH6DQFWXDU\RI+HPLWKHD at Kastabos, Cambridge. Coulton, J.J. 1976: 7KH$UFKLWHFWXUDO 'HYHORSPHQW RI WKH *UHHN 6WRD, Oxford. Debord, P. 1982: $VSHFWVVRFLDX[HWpFRQRPLTXHGHODYLHUHOLJLHXVH GDQVO¶$QDWROLHJUpFRURPDLQH, Leiden. Ellis-Evans, A. 2012: The ideology of public subscriptions, in P. Martzavou & N. Papazarkadas (eds), (SLJUDSKLFDO$SSURDFKHV WR WKH 3RVWFODVVLFDO 3ROLV )RXUWK &HQWXU\ %& WR 6HFRQG &HQWXU\$', Oxford, 107–122. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001: &KURQRORJLH GpWDLOOpH HW UpYLVpH GHV pSRQ\PHV DPSKRULTXHV UKRGLHQV GH  j  DY -& HQYLURQ3UHPLHUELODQ, BARIntSer 990, Oxford. Fraser, P.M. & G.E. Bean 1954: 7KH5KRGLDQ3HUDHDDQG,VODQGV, Oxford. )U|KOLFK3/HVFLWpVJUHFTXHVHWOHFRQWU{OHGHVPDJLVWUDWV ,9H±,HUVLqFOHDYDQW-&, Genève. Gabrielsen. V. 1994: Subdivisions of the state and their decrees in Hellenistic Rhodes, &O0HGLDHY 45, 117–135. Gabrielsen, V. 1997: 7KH1DYDO$ULVWRFUDF\RI+HOOHQLVWLF5KRGHV, Studies in Hellenistic Civilisation 6, Aarhus. Gabrielsen, V. 2000: The Synoikized 3ROLV of Rhodes, in P. FlenstedJensen, T.H. Nielsen & L. Rubinstein (eds), 3ROLV  3ROLWLFV 6WXGLHVLQ$QFLHQW*UHHN+LVWRU\, Copenhagen, 177–205. Guarducci, M. 1935: Note di antichità Rodie, Historia 9, 421–435. Habicht, C. 2003: Rhodian amphora stamps and Rhodian eponyms, 5($ 105, 541–578. Held, W. 2009: Die Karer und die Rhodische Peraia, in F. Rumscheid (ed.), 'LH.DUHUXQGGLH$QGHUHQ, Bonn, 121–134. +HOG:+HLOLJWPHUXQGORNDOH,GHQWLWlWDXIGHUNDULVFKHQ Chersones, in P. Brun et al. (eds), (XSORLD/D/\FLDHWOD&DUWH DQWLTXHV G\QDPLTXHV GHV WHUULWRLUHV pFKDQJHV HW LGHQWLWpV, Bordeaux, 93–100. Held, W. 2015: Hemithea von Kastabos. Eine karische +HLOJ|WWLQ LKU .XOWELOG XQG LKUH 6FKZHVWHUQ LQ % %HFN Brandt, S. Ladstätter & B. Yener-Marksteiner (eds), 7XUP XQG 7RU 6LHGOXQJVVWUXNWXUHQ LQ /\NLHQ XQG EHQDFKEDUWHQ Kulturlandschaften, Wien, 179–185. Held, W. & C. Wilkening-Aumann 2015: Vom karischen Bund zur griechischen Polis. Archäologischer Survey in Bybassos und Kastabos auf der karischen Chersones, in A. Matthaei & M. Zimmermann (eds), 8UEDQH6WUXNWXUHQXQGEUJHUOLFKH,GHQWLWlW im Hellenismus, Die hellenistische Polis als Lebensform 5, Freiburg: 74–98. +LOOHUYRQ*DHUWULQJHQ)$QKDQJEHUGLH7ORHUHermes 37, 143–147. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1931: s.v. Rhodos, 5( Suppl. 5, 731–840. Jones, N.F. 1987: 3XEOLF 2UJDQLVDWLRQ LQ $QFLHQW *UHHFH $ 'RFXPHQWDU\6WXG\, Philadelphia, PA. Lippolis, E. 1988–1989: Il santuario di Athana a Lindo, $6$WHQH 64–65, 97–157. Lippolis, E. 1996: Lindo, in M. Livadiotti & G. Rocco (eds), La SUHVHQ]D LWDOLDQD QHO 'RGHFDQHVR WUD LO  HO LO  /D ricerca archeologica. La conservazione. Le scelte progettuali, Catania, 52–60. Livadiotti, M. 2017: Hestiatoria nel Dodecaneso, in C. Masseria & E. Marroni (eds), 'LDORJDQGR6WXGLLQRQRUHGL0DULR7RUHOOL, Pisa, 231–241. Mackil, E. 2013: The Greek Koinon, in P.F. Band & W. Scheidel (eds), 7KH2[IRUG+DQGERRNRIWKH6WDWHLQWKH$QFLHQW1HDU (DVWDQG0HGLWHUUDQHDQ, Oxford, 304–323. Maier, F.G. 1959–1961: *ULHFKLVFKH 0DXHUEDXLQVFKULIWHQ, Heidelberg. Maillot, S. 2012: La formalisation des réseaux de mobilité méditerranéens. Remarques sur les associations à l’époque hellénistique, in L. Capdetrey & J. Zurbach (eds), 0RELOLWpV JUHFTXHV 0RXYHPHQWV UpVHDX[ FRQWDFWV HQ 0pGLWHUUDQpH GH O¶pSRTXH DUFKDwTXH j O¶pSRTXH KHOOpQLVWLTXH, Bordeaux, 235–260. Maillot, S. 2015: Foreigners’ associations and the Rhodian state, in V. Gabrielsen & C.A. Thomsen (eds), 3ULYDWH$VVRFLDWLRQV DQGWKH3XEOLF6SKHUH, Copenhagen, 136–182.  %XLOGLQJSURMHFWVLQWKH5KRGLDQVWDWHORFDOG\QDPLFVDQGLQWHUUHODWLRQV Meier, L. 2012: 'LH )LQDQ]LHUXQJ |IIHQWOLFKHU %DXWHQ LQ GHU KHOOHQLVWLVFKHQ3ROLV, Mainz am Rhein. Melfi, M. 2019: Sanctuaries and the Hellenistic polis: an DUFKLWHFWXUDODSSURDFKLQ50RUDLV'/HƗR '5RGUtJXH] Pérez (eds), *UHHN$UWLQ0RWLRQ, Oxford, 14–22. Migeotte, L. 1992: /HV VRXVFULSWLRQV SXEOLTXHV GDQV OHV FLWpV JUHFTXHV, Genève. Migeotte, L. 2000: Les dépenses militaires des cités grecques: essai de typologie, in J. Andreau et al. (eds), eFRQRPLH$QWLTXH/D JXHUUHGDQVOHVpFRQRPLHVDQWLTXHV, Entretiens d’archéologie et d’histoire 5, Saint-Bertrand-de-Comminges, 145–176. Migeotte, L. 2013: Les souscriptions dans les associations privées, LQ3)U|KOLFK 3+DPRQ HGV Groupes et associations dans OHV FLWpV JUHFTXHV ,,,H VLqFOH DY -& ± ,,H VLqFOH DS -&, Genève, 113–127. Patsiada, V. 2013: ȂȞȘȝİȚȫįİȢIJĮijȚțȩıȣȖțȡȩIJȘȝĮıIJȘȞİțȡȩʌȠȜȘ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ ȈȣȝȕȠȜȒ ıIJȘ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȘȢ İȜȜȘȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ IJĮijȚțȒȢ ĮȡȤȚIJİțIJȠȞȚțȒȢȇȩįȠȢ$WKHQV Reger, G. 1999: The Relations between Rhodes and Caria from 246 to 167 BC, in V. Gabrielsen et al. (eds), Hellenistic Rhodes: 3ROLWLFV&XOWXUHDQG6RFLHW\, Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 9, Aarhus, 76–97. Renberg, G.H. 2016: :KHUH 'UHDPV 0D\ &RPH ,QFXEDWLRQ 6DQFWXDULHV LQ WKH *UHFR5RPDQ :RUOG, Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 184, Leiden–Boston, MA. Robert, L. 1978: Documents d’Asie Mineure, BCH 102, 395–543. Rocco, G. 2018: Sacred architecture in Hellenistic Rhodes, in K. +|JKDPPDU 0/LYDGLRWWL HGV  6DFUHGDQG&LYLF6SDFHV LQWKH*UHHN3ROHLV:RUOG, Thiasos 7.2, Roma, 7–37. ùDKLQ d  + (QJHOPDQQ  ,QVFKULIWHQ DXV GHP 0XVHXP von Bodrum, =3( 34, 211–220. 173 Schuler, C. 1998: /lQGOLFKH 6LHGOXQJHQ XQG *HPHLQGHQ LP KHOOHQLVWLVFKHQ XQG U|PLVFKHQ .OHLQDVLHQ, Vestigia 50, 0QFKHQ Skaltsa, S. forthcoming: The perils of absolute and relative chronology: the career of a notable Rhodian from Kamiros, in A. Rasmussen & C.A. Thomsen (eds), )HVWVFKULIWIRU9LQFHQW*DEULHOVHQ. Stavrianopoulou, E. 1997: Die Prosopographie von Telos, 7HNPHULD 3, 79–151. Taylor, C. 2011: Migration and the demes of Attica, in C. Holleran and A. Pudsey (eds), 'HPRJUDSK\DQGWKH*UDHFR 5RPDQ :RUOG 1HZ ,QVLJKWV DQG $SSURDFKHV, Cambridge, 117–134. Taylor, C. & K. Vlassopoulos 2015: Introduction. An agenda for the study of Greek history, in C. Taylor & K. Vlassopoulos (eds), &RPPXQLWLHVDQG1HWZRUNVLQWKH$QFLHQW*UHHN:RUOG, Oxford, 1–31. van Gelder, H.E. 1900: Geschichte der alten Rhodier, Haag. Wiemer, H.-U. 2010: Structure and development of the Rhodian Peraia: evidence and models, in R. Van Bremen & J.-M. Carbon (eds), Hellenistic Karia, Paris, 415–434. Wilkening, C. 2008: Das Hemithea-Heiligtum von Kastabos ± HLQ %XQGHVKHLOLJWXP" LQ / 6FKPLGW  $ %DQWHOPDQQ (eds), )RUVFKHQ%DXHQDQG(UKDOWHQ-DKUEXFK, Berlin–Bonn, 98–105. Wilkening-Aumann, C. forthcoming: The Temple of Hemithea at Kastabos and the ‘Ionian Renaissance’, in J. Lund, P. Pedersen, B. Poulsen (eds), .DULDDQGWKH'RGHNDQHVH&XOWXUDO ,QWHUUHODWLRQVLQWKH6RXWKHDVWHUQ$HJHDQFD%&±$', The Danish Institute at Athens, January 24–26, 2018. Winand, J. 1990: /HV KLpURWK\WHV 5HFKHUFKH LQVWLWXWLRQQHOOH, Brussels.