Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hellenistic Karia

 | 
Carbon Jan-Mathieu van Bremen Riet

Part six. Cities

New evidence from Aphrodisias concerning the Rhodian occupation of Karia and the early history of Aphrodisias

Angelos Chaniotis

Texte intégral

I wish to express my thanks to Riet van Bremen for her very helpful comments and to Benjamin Gray (All Souls College) for correcting my English.

The puzzles of Aphrodisias’ early history

  • 1 Smith 1996, 56. On Bellophoron see also P. Debord in this volume.
  • 2 Yildirim 2000 and 2004.
  • 3 Reynolds 1982, 1 and 164-5; Chaniotis 2004, 382.

1If the invention of a time machine allowed us to visit Aphrodisias some time in the late second century AD to ask its citizens when their polis was founded, we would probably get more information than we could use or trust. They would claim that their city was founded by Bellerophon, long before the Trojan War, and that, consequently, it was one of the oldest cities of Asia. Bellerophon is, in fact, called a ktistes in an inscription on the base of his statue, discovered a few years ago in Aphrodisias1. Some would say that their city was the city of Ninos, the legendary spouse of Semiramis. This legend, represented in the reliefs of the civic basilica in the late first century AD2, is also reflected in the tradition concerning the early name of Aphrodisias: Νινόη, ἀπὸ Νίνου (‘Ninoe, named after Ninos’). But, if we continued our journey backwards in time and made a stop in Aphrodisias two centuries earlier, in the late first century BC, we would get a different answer, closer to the truth, more pragmatic, but no less influenced by ideology. It would be the story kept in the family traditions of a group of elite families (γένος πρῶτον, λαμπρόν, ἐπισημότατον), who proudly mention in their epitaphs and honorary inscriptions that they were descended from the greatest ancestors, those who had jointly built (συνκτίζειν) the community (δῆμος, πόλις, πατρίς)3. But exactly because the achievement of these founders had a secured position in the citizens’ cultural memory, the authors of these inscriptions do not take the trouble to give us any further explanation concerning the exact nature and date of the process described as ‘jointly building the community, the city, the fatherland’. Should we risk continuing our trip, encouraged by this answer, and make a stop another two centuries earlier, in the late third century BC, we might not find any people who would understand our question.

  • 4 Reynolds 1982, no. 1; Errington 1987 (after 167 BC); I. Kibyra 2 (comments of Th. Corsten); Théria (...)
  • 5 Synoikismos: Reynolds 1986. Sympolity: Reynolds 1982, 11; Chaniotis 2004, 382-3; Reger 2004, 162-3

2The early history of Aphrodisias is a puzzle. The Plaraseis and the Aphrodisieis were a single demos when they swore the oath of a treaty with Kibyra and Tabai, but the date of this treaty is a debated issue: after 167 BC or after 129 BC4? Also unclear is the nature of the relationship between Plarasa and Aphrodisias. Were they bound by synoikismos, the joint foundation of a major settlement near the sanctuary of Aphrodite, or by sympolity, with Plarasa the senior partner and with two distinct communities and settlements5? And when was Aphrodisias granted the status of a polis? A new epigraphic find brings us a step further in answering the latter question, but also confronts us with new ones.

Rhodian commanders in Aphrodisias

  • 6 The two decrees for Rhodian officers will be jointly published by Joyce Reynolds and the present a (...)
  • 7 For example, Reynolds 1982, no. 5 (koinon of Asia); Roueché 1993, no. 72 (Ephesos); MAMA VIII, 418 (...)

3The upper part of a marble moulded stele (fig. 1) was found in 2003, reused in a wall of the workshops to the north of the bouleuterion, to the south of Aphrodite’s temple. Several Hellenistic inscriptions, all of them very fragmented, have been found here, probably spolia taken from the area of the sanctuary either after a destruction (e. g. during the attack of Labienus) or during major building works. This decree honours Damokrines, a Rhodian commander in Karia in c. 188-167 BC. The discovery of this text allows us to see that another very fragmentary decree found in 1964 also honours a (different) Rhodian commander6. The identity of the city that issued the two decrees is not revealed in the fragmentary texts, but the absence of a heading, as we would expect in documents of a foreign community published in the sanctuary of Aphrodite, and the absence of an ethnic name in the preamble of the decrees make clear that these are decrees of the local community. We know of decrees of foreign communities set up in Aphrodisias, probably in the sanctuary of Aphrodite, usually because they directly concerned this city or its citizens, but the community referred to as a polis in the decree for Damokrines can only be the local civic community (Aphrodisias or Plarasa and Aphrodisias)7. This find now proves that Aphrodisias – either by itself or together with Plarasa – was already a polis during the Rhodian occupation of Karia.

  • 8 Reger 1999, 89-90.
  • 9 Wiemer 2002, 254.

4The function of the Rhodian officers is described with the words ἀποσταλεὶς ὑπὸ Ῥοδίων ἡγεμὼν ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ Καρίαν τόπων. The references to their righteous conduct (καθαρῶς, μισοπονήρως) and to concord implies that they may have arbitrated in conflicts. Although our knowledge of how the Rhodians administered the Karian territories is very limited, G. Reger has argued that the Rhodians created an administrative structure, but also recognized the freedom of the poleis and regulated their relations with them through treaties8. H.-U. Wiemer, on the other hand, tentatively assumes that the Rhodians adopted the same system which they had used for the administration of the old Peraia9. The limited source material does not allow any general conclusions on this matter, and the new text rather suggests that the administration of Karia was influenced both by previous Rhodian practices and by the Seleucid administration.

Fig. 1. Decree for Damokrines, Rhodian commander in Karia.

  • 10 IG XII. 1, 49, l. 61; Jacopi 1932, 192 no. 20; Reger 1999, 97 n. 50 (on the date); Wiemer 2002, 25 (...)
  • 11 Jacopi 1932, 189 no. 18.
  • 12 Jacopi 1932, 192 no. 20; I. Rh. Per. 553 (= I. Pérée 3), 602, 731.
  • 13 SEG 39, 750.

5Rhodian commanders of Karia were already attested before the discovery of this text. They naturally ranked among the highest Rhodian magistrates. Their title was ἡγεμὼν/ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Καρίας10. It seems that the Aphrodisian inscription gives the unabbreviated form of this title. Similarly, the full title of the commander of the incorporated Peraia was στραταγὸς ἐπὶ τᾶς εἰς τὸ πέραν χώρας (coupled with καὶ χώρας τᾶς ἐν τᾶι νάσσωι)11, but the short forms στρατηγὸς ἐν τῶι πέραν12 and ἐς τὸ πέραν13 are also attested. The exact title of this commander is not without significance both for the date of the inscription and for understanding the Rhodian administration of Karia.

  • 14 Reger 1999, 80-1, with the sources. For example, στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας: Jacopi 1932, 195 no. 22;(...)
  • 15 Reger 1999, 81; cf. Bresson 1999a, 110. This distinction is unequivocal in IG XII. 1, 49, where th (...)
  • 16 Cf. Reger 1999, 80. For inconsistencies (or an evolution) see, e.g., ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας τᾶς ἐν τ (...)

6The use of the title ἁγεμών/ἡγεμών instead of στραταγός/στρατηγός may be of significance. Apparently, the Rhodians distinguished between the two terms, at least in the third and second centuries. Strategos seems to be used in connection with Rhodian territory (χώρα), both on Rhodes and in the incorporated Peraia14, whereas hagemon was the preferred designation for commanders in subject, and not incorporated, areas15. Although the limited and often undated material does not allow any certainty as to whether this terminology was consistently used, or whether it was subject to an evolution16, the term hegemon in the Aphrodisian inscription may be best explained as the common term used to refer to commanders in subject territories. The use of the full title, instead of the short form, may favour placing the inscriptions in the early period of the Rhodian occupation of Karia.

  • 17 IG XII. 6, 120: [σ]τρατηγὸς ἐπὶ Καρίας κατασταθείς (under Ptolemy II); cf. J. and L. Robert 1983, (...)

7The region commanded by the hegemon is designated οἱ κατὰ Καρίαν τόποι, not ἡ κατὰ Καρίαν χώρα or simply Καρία, as it is in the title of the commander of the Ptolemaic possessions in Karia (στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ Καρίας)17. This designation may be of significance. A possible explanation would be that the vague and complex expression reflected the fact that the borders of the newly acquired territory of Karia were not fixed, or not yet fixed, when the decrees were passed. The use of the word τόπος points, however, in another direction and suggests the adoption of Seleucid traditions. And this brings us to one of the thorniest issues of Hellenistic administrative history: the provincial administration of the Seleucids.

  • 18 Bengtson 1944, 9-12 and 22-3.
  • 19 RC 36 l. 13 with RC 37 l. 4.
  • 20 Bengtson 1944, 22-3, with reference to toparchs in the Imperial period (OGIS 752).

8H. Bengtson set out the hypothesis that in the Seleucid kingdom topos was the equivalent of ethnos, the designation of areas which did not have polis-institutions and were directly under the command of royal officials (according to Eduard Meyer’s formulation: ‘nichtstädtisch organisiertes und dem unmittelbaren Regiment der Reichsbeamten unterstelltes Land’)18. For example, the topoi under the command of Anaximbrotos were areas under the direct provincial administration of the kingdom, the poleis excluded19. Furthermore, Herman Bengtson offered the hypothesis that the satrapies were divided into hyparchies and these into further subdivisions under the command of toparchs20. The latter are, however, not attested earlier than the Imperial period.

  • 21 Malay 2004a; SEG, 54, 1353.
  • 22 Malay 2004a, 412.

9Hasan Malay recently published a dossier of documents found in the area of Philomelion in Phrygia which concern the appointment of Nikanor as high priest of the sanctuaries in the region beyond the Tauros (209 BC)21. The documents in this dossier give a very lucid picture of the hierarchical structure of the Seleucid administration, without, however, giving the titles of the officials. The king wrote to his vizier Zeuxis (lines 25-35); Zeuxis wrote to Philomelos, probably the governor of Phrygia, asking him to implement the king’s order (lines 20-24); Philomelos wrote to Aineas, a subordinate official, perhaps a ὕπαρχος (lines 16-19); Aineas’letter is addressed to Demetrios, possibly the official responsible for the area around the Killanion plain (cf. line 13: καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῶι περὶ Κιλ[λ]ανίωι τόπωι) with details concerning the publication of the documents in sanctuaries of the region (lines 6-18). Demetrios may have been a τοπάρχης or its equivalent22. Finally, Demetrios wrote to the ultimate recipient of the dossier, possibly a priest or a royal official responsible for the revenues of the sanctuary where the stele was erected (lines 1-5).

  • 23 Müller 2000.
  • 24 Cf. Bengtson 1944, 210-32 and Allen 1983, 96 (on the katoikiai).

10If we know next to nothing about the significance of topoi under the Seleucids, there are several documents referring to topoi after the peace of Apamea in both states which took over former Seleucid territories: in the Attalid kingdom and now also in Rhodes. Since Eumenes II is known to have adopted the Seleucid system, e.g. as regards the office of high priest23, it should not be surprising if he – and the Rhodians – also adopted elements of Seleucid provincial administration24.

  • 25 Polyb. 21.46, 9-11.
  • 26 OGIS 339 = I. Sestos 1. Cf. OGIS 330. Cf. Bengtson 1944, 227-31; Allen 1983, 87-8; Loukopoulou 198 (...)
  • 27 IG XII. 8, 156 (c. 240 BC). Cf. Bengtson 1944, 227; 1952, 178-9.
  • 28 Latest edition: I.Prusa 1001 (with the comments of T. Corsten and a summary of earlier research). (...)
  • 29 I.Ephesos 201; SEG 26, 1238 (c. 150 BC); Allen 1983, 88.
  • 30 SEG 46, 1434 (c. 188-133 BC); Malay 1996, prefers the first interpretation, P. Gauthier, BE 1997, (...)

11The Attalid governor of the ‘province’ of Chersonesos, one of the areas acquired by the Attalids25, is referred to as the στρατηγὸς τῆς Χερρονήσου καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν Θράϊκην τόπων (late second century BC)26. The Θράϊκης τόποι predated the Attalid rule, since they already appear in the title of Hippomedon, a Ptolemaic commander (στρατηγὸς ἐφ᾿ Ἑλλησπόντου καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ Θράϊκης τόπων)27. Another Attalid officer, Korragos, had the title στρατηγὸς τῶν καθ᾿ Ἑλλήσποντον τόπων28. An Ephesian inscription honours Demetrios, who was στρατηγὸς ἐπί τε Ἐφέσου καὶ τῶν κατ᾿ Ἔφεσον τόπων29. Finally, a relatively recent find from Tralleis attests a στρατηγὸς Καρίας καὶ Λυδίας, τῶν κατὰ Ἔφεσον τόπων, who was either the commander of Karian and Lydian places around Ephesos or, more likely, the commander of Karia, Lydia, and the district around Ephesos30. This abundance of references to officers responsible for administrative units called τόποι can hardly be coincidental and seems to continue Seleucid practice. But what is a τόπος?

  • 31 For example, Bernand 1993 (for Egypt); Schuler 1998, 81-3 (for Asia Minor).
  • 32 Already Bengtson 1944, 230, assumed that the expression hoi kata ten Thraiken topoi did not includ (...)
  • 33 This is the case with Korragos (I.Prusa 1001).
  • 34 For a possible Ptolemaic parallel see the στρατηγὸς τῶν κατὰ Κυρήνην τόπων, restored in SEG 39, 19 (...)
  • 35 Hansen 1971, 186-7; Allen 1983, 92-4, on the contrary, assumes that the area designated as ἀπὸ τῶν (...)

12The term topos can have a variety of meanings31, but in connection with the Seleucid and Attalid administration it seems to refer to areas not belonging to the territories of poleis32. Although these officials did concern themselves with the affairs of poleis33, the Ephesian inscription clearly makes a sharp distinction between Ephesos as one entity (the polis and its chora) and the κατ᾿ Ἔφεσον τόποι as a separate entity; the latter must have been those parts of the hinterland of Ephesos which did not belong to Ephesian territory34. This interpretation is supported by the use of the term topos in the lists of ephebes from Pergamon, which distinguish a separate group of ephebes, those designated as apo topon. These ephebes seem to have been young men from communities or districts that were outside civic life35. Although a consistent use of the term topos cannot be taken for granted, it seems plausible that in Seleucid administration, as adopted by the Attalids and Rhodians, the term topos was used to designate areas outside the territories of poleis.

13In the light of this admittedly limited and not unequivocal evidence, we may assume that when the Rhodians were given the Seleucid territories in Karia they took over, if not Seleucid administrative practices, at least the designation of the areas not included in polis territories as οἱ κατὰ τὴν Καρίαν τόποι. An obvious advantage of this term was that it created the impression that the Rhodian general of Karia was responsible only for these areas and that the Rhodians respected the freedom of the poleis in Karia. This of course does not mean that the commanders sent to the kata Karian topoi were not also responsible for the free poleis of Karia or that they hesitated to intervene whenever necessary. If Aphrodisias had only recently acquired the status of a polis – i.e. after the peace of Apamea (see below) – then it was originally located in these topoi.

How did Aphrodisias become a polis?

  • 36 Chr. Jones attributed the creation of a polis in Aphrodisias to the initiative of Rome after the T (...)

14The new inscription shows that, contrary to earlier assumptions, Aphrodisias was already a polis during the Rhodian occupation of Karia36. The development of a polis in the vicinity of the old sanctuary of Aphrodite is a complex phenomenon. Assuming that a settlement had always existed in the vicinity of the sanctuary, we have to distinguish several different issues that need to be investigated: the name of the original settlement; the date at which the settlement was granted the status of polis; the date at which it was renamed Aphrodisias; the origin of the citizen population; the date at which Aphrodisias joined Plarasa to form one demos; and finally, the date at which the settlement was enlarged or rebuilt according to a grid plan. Some of these developments may have occurred simultaneously, but in order to avoid confusion each one should be treated separately. Unfortunately, the new inscription does not answer any of the aforementioned questions, and the hypothetical scenario presented here is not based on hard evidence.

The acquisition of polis status

  • 37 For example, Tyriaion: see Jonnes & Ricl 1997 (= SEG 47, 1745). Cf. P. Gauthier, BE 1999, 509; Sch (...)

15It has been observed that the power vacuum between the defeat of Antiochos III at Magnesia and the establishment of the rule of the Attalids and the Rhodians in his former dominions encouraged the population of settlements without the status of polis to claim this status for themselves37. This power vacuum would have been a good opportunity for the inhabitants of the settlement near the sanctuary of Aphrodite to claim for their community the status of polis. That this claim was raised after the peace of Apamea is plausible – the more so since we lack any earlier reference to a polis here – but we cannot a priori exclude an earlier date.

The original name of Aphrodisias

  • 38 Yildirim 2000 and 2004.
  • 39 Chaniotis 2004, 393.
  • 40 See Chaniotis 2004, 393, for the references.
  • 41 Dedication of a smith: Chaniotis 2004, 392-3 no. 11. Dedication of a woman (found in 2006, unpubli (...)

16According to the local historian Apollonios, Aphrodisias’earlier name was Ninoe. This tradition, also reflected by the representation of Ninos in the reliefs of the civic basilica in the late first century AD38, is connected with the indigenous place-name Nineuda (or Nineudon)39, from which the epithet of Zeus Nineudios derives. From recent epigraphic finds we may infer that Zeus Nineudios was a popular local deity. Unlike Aphrodite, to whom not a single dedication in fulfilment of a vow exists, Zeus Nineudios was the god to whom simple people addressed their prayers in time of need. His cult is known from the inscription on the epistyle of a building dedicated to him in the late Hellenistic period, from inscriptions mentioning his priest Dionysios (first century AD)40, and from two personal acts of worship: the dedication of statuettes in fulfilment of vows made by a smith (first century BC) and by a woman for the well-being of her son (first century BC/AD)41. The convergence of epigraphic evidence (Nineudios = ‘Zeus of Nineuda/Nineudon’), iconography (Ninos), and local historiography (Ninoe) supports the assumption that the settlement at Aphrodisias was originally known under the indigenous name Nineuda (or Nineudon).

17The name Aphrodisias is an artificial construction. Unlike a name such as Aphrodision (sc. hieron), it does not stress vicinity to a sanctuary, but the existence of a settlement: Aphrodisias, i.e., polis or kome. It is far more probable that a new name was artificially created to designate a polis rather than a kome. For this reason, we may assume that the name of the settlement changed when it was awarded the status of polis – a major break in the history of this area.

The creation of the demos of Plarasa and Aphrodisias

  • 42 The paper by C. Schuler in this volume rather suggests Rhodian influence. On the contrary, Wiemer (...)

18The existence of the separate ethnics Aphrodisieis and Plaraseis shows that Aphrodisias and Plarasa must have co-existed as separate communities, presumably as separate poleis, for some time. The joining of the two communities in a sympolity (or in a synoikismos) must have occurred later than the original grant of polis status, whether still during the Rhodian occupation and under Rhodian influence or not, cannot be determined42. Neither the earliest coinage, generally dated to the late second century BC, nor the earliest inscription mentioning the demos of Plarasa and Aphrodisias (c. 167-129 BC or later) can narrow the time span within which this occurred.

  • 43 Livy 38.13. Decree: Erim 1969, 92-3 no. 1; Drew-Bear 1971, 286-8 and 1972, 435-6. Coinage: MacDona (...)
  • 44 Livy 38.13: et inde (sc. Antioch on the Maeander) ad Gordiutichos quod vocant processum est. Ex eo (...)
  • 45 Dated by Drew Bear 1972, 436, to the late second or early first second century BC, but R. van Brem (...)
  • 46 Drew-Bear 1972, 441-3, plausibly accepts the latter assumption. R. van Bremen asked me to discuss (...)
  • 47 See the discussion by Robert and Robert, La Carie, 18 with note 2 and Drew-Bear 1972, 440-1. See a (...)
  • 48 Published by J. Reynolds, IAph 8.209. Reynolds does not exclude an identification of Plyara with A (...)

19The relationship of Aphrodisias to two other neighbouring communities, Gordiou Teichos and Plyara, in the early period of its history is equally hard to determine. Gordiou Teichos is known as an independent community from its coinage, a reference in Livy, an honorary decree of the Plyareis for Agroitas, a man from Gordiou Teichos, which was found at Aphrodisias, and a brief mention of a foundation legend by Stephanus of Byzantium43. Livy’s information that Gordiou Teichos was located a three days’journey to the west of Tabai, on the way to Antioch on the Maeander, places it somewhere near Aphrodisias44. This location is confirmed by an honorary decree for the Gordioteichites Agroitas, set up in Aphrodisias in the second century BC (or earlier)45. The decree states that the Plyareis were to send an embassy to Gordiou Teichos and inform the assembly about the honours decreed for their citizen. The final part of the decree, with the provisions concerning its publication, is not preserved, but we may assume that the Plyareis requested the publication of the decree in Gordiou Teichos. The inscription found at Aphrodisias is either a pierre errante from Gordiou Teichos or, more probably, a (third) copy of the decree – besides those of Plyara and Gordiou Teichos – dedicated in the most important sanctuary of this area, i.e. in the sanctuary at Aphrodisias46. Neither the location of Gordiou Teichos nor that of Plyara is known47. Plyara is known as a separate polis only from the aforementioned decree. The only other (indirect) reference to this community is a dedication to Kore Plyaris, found reused in the theatre at Aphrodisias48. Presumably, these small poleis were incorporated into Aphrodisias in the late first century BC.

The origin of the settlers

  • 49 See the paper by C. Ratté in this volume.
  • 50 Appian BC 1.97. There are also two Lydian inscriptions of the fourth century: Carruba 1970 and an (...)
  • 51 On Apollonios see Chaniotis 2003, 80.

20The origin of the settlers is very hard to determine since we lack contemporary sources. At present, only the onomastic material can provide some clues. The recent survey in the area around Aphrodisias has revealed a strong presence of small settlements, most probably of indigenous population, in the Hellenistic period49. A Delphic oracle allegedly given to Sulla refers to Aphrodisias as a city of the Karians50. The local historian Apollonios, the source of Stephanus of Byzantium for Aphrodisias, refers to his city as that of the Leleges51. However, the onomastic material gives the impression that the driving force behind the elevation of Aphrodisias to a polis were military settlers and not the indigenous landowners of the adjacent regions.

  • 52 Besides the wide-spread ‘Lallennamen’ (Ἀπφία, Ἀπφιάς et sim.), Blümel 1992b, 30 registers only a f (...)
  • 53 Ἀρχιμήδης: Reinach 1906, 109-10 no. 29; Θεαίτητος: Reinach 1906, 96-7 no. 11: Πραξιτέλης: MAMA VII (...)
  • 54 MAMA VIII, 479 (second to third century AD).
  • 55 Cormack 1964, 24 no. 31.

21Among the prominent Aphrodisian families, including those that claimed to have played a role in the building of the city, we find no characteristic Karian or Anatolian names, and such names are in fact quite rare altogether in the inscriptions of Aphrodisias52. Although this may well be the result of the ‘epigraphic habit’, this does not change the impression that there was a predominance of Greek settlers. The few Hellenistic inscriptions acquaint us with men with traditional Greek names. A fragmentary list of names found in 2003 reused in the sculptors’ workshop and roughly dated to the second century BC (fig. 2) – one of the earliest inscriptions at the site – is a good example. There is not a single name that one would not expect in a Greek city on the coast of Asia Minor or in mainland Greece: Apollonios, Eudoxos, Xenokrates, Leonteus, Zenobios, Zenon, and Diagoras. Another Hellenistic inscription, this time from a Hellenistic settlement at Adamharmanı, to the southeast of Aphrodisias, gives the very traditional Greek name Hippagorides, a patronymic of Hippagoras. Traditional names survived well into the Imperial period, e.g. Archimedes, Solon, Praxiteles, and Theaitetos53. A nice example is provided by an honorary inscription for Attalos, a man very conscious of his family traditions, who gives the names of four of his forefathers: Attalos himself has a Macedonian name, his father has the ethnic name ‘the Macedonian’ (Makedon), the other names (Aristeas, Alexandros, Apollonides) are less specific54. Another Aphrodisian has the typical Macedonian name Amyntas55.

Fig. 2. List of names of the second century BC, found reused in the sculptors’workshop.

  • 56 Δαμοκράτεια: Reinach 1906, 260-1 no. 154; Εὔδαμος: MAMA VIII, 412; Λυκίδας: Reinach 1906, 132-4 no (...)
  • 57 Ἀτραπάτης: MAMA VIII, 532; Μιθραδάτης: MAMA VIII, 462 (and in an unpublished inscription); Νάρδος:(...)

22But we are not dealing exclusively with Macedonian settlers. A mixed origin is suggested by names with a Doric form (e.g. Eudamos, Lykidas, Damokrateia), which seem to have been imported from the Doric cities of the Dodekanese and Karia56. The few Iranian names can best be attributed to the descendants of Iranians who had served in the Seleucid army57. Unfortunately, the onomastic material is primarily contained in inscriptions of the Imperial period and, consequently, only in part reflects the situation in the Hellenistic period.

Creating an urban centre

  • 58 Ratté 2002, esp. 10.

23The last question, the date of the city plan, is even harder to answer. Aphrodisias was a grid-planned town of the Hellenistic type58. The date of the city plan has not yet been determined. It may date to the initial founding of the polis, or to a later period, e.g. when the sympolity or synoikismos with Plarasa was initiated, or to the late first century BC, after the destruction of part of the city by Labienus and at the same time as the monumental development of the agora.

  • 59 Chaniotis 2004, 378-9 no. 1; SEG 54, 1020.

24The epigraphic material can only provide some uncertain clues. The proud references by elite families to the contribution of their ancestors to the building (synktizein) of the polis supports an early date. The earliest reference to such ancestors is found in an honorary decree for Hermogenes that certainly antedates the principate of Augustus and can be dated to the mid-first century BC at the latest59. The process described as synktizein must have occurred at least two generations earlier, and this brings us back to the late second century at the earliest. However, although this verb is certainly connected with the creation of an urban centre, it does not necessarily imply the use of a grid plan.

  • 60 Earliest reference to the agora: Reynolds 1982, no. 8, l. 93 (39 BC). The cult of Hestia Boulaia, (...)

25The creation of a city plan may have been motivated by the grant of polis status. Polis status requires public buildings, and there is no doubt that the Aphrodisians constructed them, since all the essential buildings of a Hellenistic polis existed long before the establishment of the Principate: the agora, the bouleuterion, and the gymnasium60. But the city plan may be the result of an enlargement of the city caused by the sympolity with Plarasa (cf. syn-ktizein ton demon).

  • 61 Appian, BC 1.97.

26Appian gives us the text of a Delphic oracle given to Sulla in 88 BC and urging him to make a dedication in Aphrodisias, ‘under snowy Tauros, where the Karians inhabit a long (?) city, which has received its name from Aphrodite’ (Ταύρου ὑπὸ νιφόεντος, ὅπου περιμήκετον ἄστυ Καρῶν, οἳ ναίουσιν ἐπώνυμον ἐξ Ἀφροδίτης)61. Metrical oracles from Delphi are never to be trusted, but they do reflect traditions and memories. Perhaps this oracle reflects the collective memory of the building of the town of Aphrodisias according to a grid plan.

Notes

1 Smith 1996, 56. On Bellophoron see also P. Debord in this volume.

2 Yildirim 2000 and 2004.

3 Reynolds 1982, 1 and 164-5; Chaniotis 2004, 382.

4 Reynolds 1982, no. 1; Errington 1987 (after 167 BC); I. Kibyra 2 (comments of Th. Corsten); Thériault 1996, 82-5 (after 129 BC); cf. Reger 2004, 163.

5 Synoikismos: Reynolds 1986. Sympolity: Reynolds 1982, 11; Chaniotis 2004, 382-3; Reger 2004, 162-3.

6 The two decrees for Rhodian officers will be jointly published by Joyce Reynolds and the present author. For the convenience of the reader I give the text of the decree for Damokrines; the restorations (underlined letters) are based on the text of the second decree: Ἀρχόντων γνώμη· ἐπειδὴ Δαμοκρίνης | Ῥόδιος ἀποσταλεὶς ὑπὸ Ῥοδίων ἡγε|μὼν ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ Καρίαν τόπων κα|[θα] ρῶς καὶ μισοπονήρως τὴν ἀναστρο|[φὴν ἐποιήσατο ἀξίως τοῦ] πέμψαντος | [αὐτὸν δήμου, προνοῶν ὅπω]ς πάντες ο|[ἱ δῆμοι? τῆι βελτίστηι κατ]αστάσει ὑ|[πάρχωσι καὶ ἐν ὁμονοία πολιτ]εύωνται·| [παραγενόμενος δὲ καὶ εἰς τὴν π]όλιν ἡμῶν | [τὴν ἀναστροφὴν ἐποιήσατο με] τὰ πάσης | [ἐπιμελείας τοὺς διαφερομένους] τῶ[ν πο|λιτῶν---].

7 For example, Reynolds 1982, no. 5 (koinon of Asia); Roueché 1993, no. 72 (Ephesos); MAMA VIII, 418 (unknown city); below, n. 43 (Plyareis).

8 Reger 1999, 89-90.

9 Wiemer 2002, 254.

10 IG XII. 1, 49, l. 61; Jacopi 1932, 192 no. 20; Reger 1999, 97 n. 50 (on the date); Wiemer 2002, 254-5.

11 Jacopi 1932, 189 no. 18.

12 Jacopi 1932, 192 no. 20; I. Rh. Per. 553 (= I. Pérée 3), 602, 731.

13 SEG 39, 750.

14 Reger 1999, 80-1, with the sources. For example, στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας: Jacopi 1932, 195 no. 22; I. Lindos 153, 172; στραταγὸς ἐπὶ τὰν χώραν: IG XII. 1, 49, l. 25; στραταγήσας ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας: IG XII. 1, 701; Jacopi 1932, 199 no. 31; SEG 39, 750; στραταγὸς ἐπὶ τὸ πέραν (the incorporated Peraia): IG XII. 1, 49, l. 27; στραταγήσας ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας τᾶς ἐν τᾶι νάσ(σ)ωι: IG XII. 1, 701; I. Lindos 325. I take νᾶσος in the phrase χώρα ἁ ἐν τᾶι νάσωι to be the island of Rhodes and not a region in the Peraia called Νᾶσσος (cf. the demotic name Νάσσιος in IG XII. 1, 290); cf. van Gelder 1900, 254.

15 Reger 1999, 81; cf. Bresson 1999a, 110. This distinction is unequivocal in IG XII. 1, 49, where the stratagoi and the hagemones are clearly distinguished. From this text, van Gelder 1900, 253-5, inferred that the stratagos of the Peraia had under his command the hagemones of Lykia, Karia, and Kaunos; Wiemer 2002, 255, leaves the question open. Although there may have been a difference in rank, the hagemones of Lykia, Karia, and Kaunos were not subordinate officers; cf. Bresson 1999a, 110 with n. 98-9. For the term, see, e.g., ἁγεμὼν εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ Φύσκον καὶ Χερσόνασον: I.Rh.Per. 357, 507, 508 (= I.Pérée 52, 23, and 24); ἁγησάμενος ἐπὶ Χερσονάσου καὶ Σύμας: I.Lindos 189; ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Καύνου: IG XII. 1, 49, l. 59; ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Λυκίας: IG XII. 1, 49 l. 63; [ἁγεμονεύοντος ἐπ]ὶ Λυκίας: I.Lindos 160, l. 7; ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Ἀρτούβων τε καὶ Παραβλείας: SGDI 4276. On the hagemon epi Lykias see Bresson 1999a, 110.

16 Cf. Reger 1999, 80. For inconsistencies (or an evolution) see, e.g., ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας τᾶς ἐν τᾶι νάσωι (instead of στραταγός): Jacopi 1932, 190 no. 19; cf. ἁγεσάμενος ἐπὶ τᾶς χώρας κατὰ πόλεμον: IG XII. 1, 44; στρατηγὸς ἐν τῶι πέραν (instead of ἁγεμών): I.Rh. Per. 602 (?) and 731 (first century BC); cf. στραταγήσας ἐπὶ τὸ πέραν κατὰ πόλεμον: IG XII. 1, 1036 = I. Lindos 151 (but τὸ πέραν may be the incorporated Peraia).

17 IG XII. 6, 120: [σ]τρατηγὸς ἐπὶ Καρίας κατασταθείς (under Ptolemy II); cf. J. and L. Robert 1983, 128-9. The same title is restored by Marek 1982 in an inscription from Halikarnassos (third century BC; SEG 32, 1112, l. 2-3: [ἀποδεδειγμένος] | στρατηγὸς ἐ[πὶ Καρίας]), where we should rather restore κατασταθείς instead of ἀποδεδειγμένος. A. Bresson has informed me that he restores [στρα]τηγὸς κατασταθεὶς ἐπὶ τῆς [Καρίας κ]αὶ τῆς π[ροσ]χώρου in an unpublished inscription from Xystis (under Ptolemy II).

18 Bengtson 1944, 9-12 and 22-3.

19 RC 36 l. 13 with RC 37 l. 4.

20 Bengtson 1944, 22-3, with reference to toparchs in the Imperial period (OGIS 752).

21 Malay 2004a; SEG, 54, 1353.

22 Malay 2004a, 412.

23 Müller 2000.

24 Cf. Bengtson 1944, 210-32 and Allen 1983, 96 (on the katoikiai).

25 Polyb. 21.46, 9-11.

26 OGIS 339 = I. Sestos 1. Cf. OGIS 330. Cf. Bengtson 1944, 227-31; Allen 1983, 87-8; Loukopoulou 1987, 70-2.

27 IG XII. 8, 156 (c. 240 BC). Cf. Bengtson 1944, 227; 1952, 178-9.

28 Latest edition: I.Prusa 1001 (with the comments of T. Corsten and a summary of earlier research). Cf. Allen 1983, 88-91; Loukopoulou 1987, 71.

29 I.Ephesos 201; SEG 26, 1238 (c. 150 BC); Allen 1983, 88.

30 SEG 46, 1434 (c. 188-133 BC); Malay 1996, prefers the first interpretation, P. Gauthier, BE 1997, 526, the latter (‘la Carie et la Lydie et le district d’Éphèse’).

31 For example, Bernand 1993 (for Egypt); Schuler 1998, 81-3 (for Asia Minor).

32 Already Bengtson 1944, 230, assumed that the expression hoi kata ten Thraiken topoi did not include the Greek cities. Polyb. 18.51.3 does not contradict this assumption.

33 This is the case with Korragos (I.Prusa 1001).

34 For a possible Ptolemaic parallel see the στρατηγὸς τῶν κατὰ Κυρήνην τόπων, restored in SEG 39, 1903 (c. 150-100). The κατὰ Κυρήνην τόποι are of course not the territory (χώρα) of the polis of Kyrene.

35 Hansen 1971, 186-7; Allen 1983, 92-4, on the contrary, assumes that the area designated as ἀπὸ τῶν τόπων is the city of Pergamon.

36 Chr. Jones attributed the creation of a polis in Aphrodisias to the initiative of Rome after the Third Macedonian War and the end of the Rhodian domination (Jones 1999, 100).

37 For example, Tyriaion: see Jonnes & Ricl 1997 (= SEG 47, 1745). Cf. P. Gauthier, BE 1999, 509; Schuler 1999. Reger 1999, 91-3, argues that the Rhodians consistently promoted the independence of the Greek cities mainly in order to serve their own interests. For a more cautious assessment, see Wiemer 2002, 252-60.

38 Yildirim 2000 and 2004.

39 Chaniotis 2004, 393.

40 See Chaniotis 2004, 393, for the references.

41 Dedication of a smith: Chaniotis 2004, 392-3 no. 11. Dedication of a woman (found in 2006, unpublished): Μελιτίνη ὑπὲρ ΕΕ[c. 5]χίου τοῦ υἱοῦ Διὶ Νινεò[υδίῳ κατ᾿ εὐχ]ήν.

42 The paper by C. Schuler in this volume rather suggests Rhodian influence. On the contrary, Wiemer 2002, 257, claims that the Karian cities enlarged their territory only after the end of the Rhodian occupation. This is a generalisation based on the case of Antioch on the Maeander (IG XII. 6, 6) and on the assumption that the synoikismos of Aphrodisias and Plarasa should be dated to the period after 167 BC; there is no evidence for the latter assumption.

43 Livy 38.13. Decree: Erim 1969, 92-3 no. 1; Drew-Bear 1971, 286-8 and 1972, 435-6. Coinage: MacDonald 1976, 10 no. 359 and 1992, 27, with further references. Gordiou Teichos: Robert 1937, 554 n. 3; Steph. Byz. s.v. Γορδίου τεῖχος· πόλις [---] Μίδου κτίσμα, ἀπὸ τοῦ παιδὸς Γορδίου ὁ πολίτης Γορδιοτειχίτης.

44 Livy 38.13: et inde (sc. Antioch on the Maeander) ad Gordiutichos quod vocant processum est. Ex eo loco ad Tabas tertiis castris perventum (account of the march of Cn. Manlius Vulso through the Maeander valley in 189 BC).

45 Dated by Drew Bear 1972, 436, to the late second or early first second century BC, but R. van Bremen (pers. comm.) is certainly right in assuming a much earlier date on the basis of the letter forms (late third or early second century BC).

46 Drew-Bear 1972, 441-3, plausibly accepts the latter assumption. R. van Bremen asked me to discuss the possibility that Gordiou Teichos is an earlier name of Aphrodisias. The iconography of the coins of Gordiou Teichos is very similar to that of Aphrodisias (the cult images of Aphrodite and Zeus) except for the different ethnic (Drew-Bear 1972, 441-2; MacDonald 1992, 27, 71 type 35). Since the coinage of Gordiou Teichos is earlier than that of Aphrodisias, which only starts sometime in the late second or early first century (MacDonald 1992, 1), it could indeed be argued that the coinage of Aphrodisias continued that of Gordiou Teichos, when Gordiou Teichos was renamed Aphrodisias; this would also explain the discovery at Aphrodisias of the honorary decree for a citizen of Gordiou Teichos. However, I exclude this possibility, as it was tacitly excluded by all previous commentators on the decree. First, the local historian Apollonios of Aphrodisias, the author of a local history of Karia and the source of Stephanus of Byzantium on Aphrodisias (s.v. Ninoe), gives a list of earlier names of Aphrodisias (Megale Polis, Lelegon Polis, Ninoe); neither Gordiou Teichos nor Plyara is among them. On the contrary, Gordiou Teichos, for which Stephanus gives a separate foundation myth (see n. 43), seems to have been presented as a city in Phrygia and not in Karia (see Robert 1937, 554 n. 3; Drew-Bear 1972, 440 with n. 40). Second, if we accept the identification of a bearded figure on the frieze of Lagina with Gordis, the eponymous hero of Gordiou Teichos (Robert 1937, 552-5), the fact that he stands next to the personifications of Aphrodisias and Plarasa suggests vicinity rather than identity. Third, the period in which Gordiou Teichos existed as an independent community, i. e. probably the entire second century, seems to overlap – at least in part – with the period in which an independent and obviously separate community designated as the δῆμος τῶν Πλαρασέων καὶ Ἀφροδισιέων is attested (see n. 4 above); the chronology of the evidence is admittedly uncertain. Finally, only one single coin of Gordiou Teichos has been found in Aphrodisias (MacDonald 1976, 10 no. 359), as opposed to three of Attouda and 58 of Plarasa/Aphrodisias.

47 See the discussion by Robert and Robert, La Carie, 18 with note 2 and Drew-Bear 1972, 440-1. See also n. 48 below.

48 Published by J. Reynolds, IAph 8.209. Reynolds does not exclude an identification of Plyara with Aphrodisias: ‘it must certainly have been a nearby place and some of the evidence suggests that it may have been Aphrodisias under an earlier name. This inscription can be taken to support this view’. See, however, n. 46 above. If we accept Nineuda/Nineudon as Aphrodisias’ earlier name, this leaves no room for yet another name. Reynolds tentatively dates the text to the second century BC, without excluding a much later date. The cursive letter forms and the use of a ligature (l. 1) suggest a date in the Roman Imperial period.

49 See the paper by C. Ratté in this volume.

50 Appian BC 1.97. There are also two Lydian inscriptions of the fourth century: Carruba 1970 and an unpublished text found in 2007.

51 On Apollonios see Chaniotis 2003, 80.

52 Besides the wide-spread ‘Lallennamen’ (Ἀπφία, Ἀπφιάς et sim.), Blümel 1992b, 30 registers only a few possible instances of indigenous names in inscriptions of Aphrodisias (Αβα, Ακασσων, Γεις, Μακος, Μοϊς, Περινγας/Πετινγας, Πηδισας, Πιττας). One may add Ἄδρστος: see van Bremen 2010. An Anatolian ‘couleur locale’ is recognizable in the names Κάϊκος (MAMA VIII, 435) and Χρυσάωρ (Reinach 1906, 123-4 no. 51).

53 Ἀρχιμήδης: Reinach 1906, 109-10 no. 29; Θεαίτητος: Reinach 1906, 96-7 no. 11: Πραξιτέλης: MAMA VIII, 414; Σόλων: Reynolds 1982, no. 6.

54 MAMA VIII, 479 (second to third century AD).

55 Cormack 1964, 24 no. 31.

56 Δαμοκράτεια: Reinach 1906, 260-1 no. 154; Εὔδαμος: MAMA VIII, 412; Λυκίδας: Reinach 1906, 132-4 no. 62. Cf. the Dorian genitive Ἐπικράτευς in a grave epigram inscribed on a round funerary altar (first century BC) found in 2007 (Chaniotis 2009). Ἀγροίτας of Gordiou Teichos (see n. 45), may be another imported name (several attestations in LGPN IIIb), as R. van Bremen pointed out to me.

57 Ἀτραπάτης: MAMA VIII, 532; Μιθραδάτης: MAMA VIII, 462 (and in an unpublished inscription); Νάρδος: MAMA VIII, 543; Φαρνάκης: CIG 2827 (CIG: Φαρμάκου, corrected by P. J. Thonemann, pers. comm.).

58 Ratté 2002, esp. 10.

59 Chaniotis 2004, 378-9 no. 1; SEG 54, 1020.

60 Earliest reference to the agora: Reynolds 1982, no. 8, l. 93 (39 BC). The cult of Hestia Boulaia, attested in an inscription found in 2003 (late second to early first century BC), presupposes the existence of a boule and a bouleuterion. The Hellenistic gymnasium is mentioned in Reynolds 1982, nos. 28 and 29 (= MAMA VIII, 406). For its possible location west of the bouleuterion see Chaniotis 2008, 71.

61 Appian, BC 1.97.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Decree for Damokrines, Rhodian commander in Karia.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2834/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 47k
Légende Fig. 2. List of names of the second century BC, found reused in the sculptors’workshop.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2834/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 29k

Auteur

All Souls College, Oxford

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540