1The large number of decrees of the polis of Iasos known to date1 has recently been enriched by the publication of a further substantial dossier by G. Maddoli2. These texts now offer scholars a quantity of material sufficient to reconstruct many aspects of the institutional structure of the city. The increase in the number of the decrees, together with the additional information obtainable from the study of prosopography, of palaeography and of the evolution of the epigraphical formulae in use, allows a reliable relative chronology of the texts to be established more easily than in the past3. Once the documentation can be read in chronological sequence we can glean valuable information about institutional developments. Here, attention will be paid to two themes in particular: 1) the functions of some of the most important city magistracies (archontes, neopoiai, prostatai, prytaneis) and their evolution over time4; 2) the number of phylai of the polis.

The archontes

2One of the most important pieces of information on Iasian institutions is the inscription in which the procedure for confiscating and selling the properties of the men who had conspired against Maussollos is set out (I. Iasos 1). This inscription, one of the most ancient to have survived, records the longest known list of Iasian magistracies. Mention is made of four archontes and as many tamiai and synegoroi, two astynomoi, six prytaneis and eleven priests of Zeus Megistos; a list of 34 people defined as hoide apo phyles follows, as well as a concise record of the acts of sale of the confiscated properties.

3The decree, enacted with great solemnity at a moment when the polis was in difficulty, shows clearly that the magistracy of the archontes, mentioned at the top of the list, was at this time the most important in Iasos5. Obviously, as the name itself suggests, this magistracy must have represented the highest authority of the city6 and, in the eyes of the powerful satrap, whom the Iasians wanted to reassure, must have acted as representatives of their polis.

4Even if most of their competences escape us, other Iasian inscriptions give indications of at least some of the specific tasks entrusted to the board of archontes. As a newly published inscription shows (c. mid-fourth century BC)7, it was their duty, for instance, to supervise the enrolment of new citizens into the phylai and patriai. In the same text, the archontes are also given the responsibility of having the honorific stele erected and of verifying that what the polis had decided would actually be inscribed on stone, although the decree makes it clear that it was the neopoiai (to be discussed later) who were to meet the costs of the inscribing and the publication of the stele. Other inscriptions reveal that the board of archontes had the right, like the prytaneis, to propose its own motions in the Assembly8, as is shown by the use of the expression ἀρχόντων γνώμη, present in inscriptions which can be dated back to the second half of the fourth and the first half of the third century BC9. In another newly published inscription, which dates back to the last decades of the fourth century BC, the archontes appear among the magistrates listed in the dating formula, immediately after the stephanephoros10. There are other cases in which, unfortunately, the texts do not allow us to understand whether the term archontes is used in a literal or in a collective and generic sense (i.e. referring to Iasian ‘magistrates’ as a whole)11. This is the case in a newly published inscription, where τοὺς ἐòνò[εσ]τηκότ[αςἄρχ]ον[τ]ας are assigned the task of satisfying whatever needs the honoured person might have12, and it is a problem especially in the Samian inscription honouring the Iasian brothers Gorgos and Minnion, philoi of Alexander the Great. Gorgos in particular, as the decree tells us, after the King’s proclamation from the East ἐπέστε[ι]λε εἰς Ἰασὸν πρὸς τοὺς ἄρχοντας, ὅπως οἱ κατοικοῦντες Σαμίων ἐν Ἰασῶι… (very detailed instructions follow about the return of the exiles to their own native country13). If we could only be certain that the term is used here in a literal sense, the impression that the Iasian archontes played a fundamental role in the relations between their city and the outside world would be confirmed. However, since we are dealing with an abbreviated version of the events – whose redaction moreover took place in Samos – we cannot take this notion as securely established.

5Most importantly, given the current state of the evidence, what appears to emerge clearly from the inscriptions is that the archontes are attested with certainty only in the most ancient Iasian documents, those that date from the Hekatomnid era and the first half of the third century BC14. The most recent text in which they are certainly mentioned belongs, in all probability, to the second quarter of that same century15. After that date, no epigraphic traces of the archontes remain16. In addition, as will become clear, some of the prerogatives these officials held appear to have been transfered to other magistracies by the beginning of the Hellenistic period.

The ekklesiastikon and the magistracies connected with it: the neopoiai and prostatai

6Another inscription which is rich in information about Iasian institutional structures is I. Iasos 20, a very fragmentary text, first published by B. Haussoullier17, then by E. L. Hicks (on the basis of a transcription made by W. R. Paton)18 and finally republished with a commentary by Ph. Gauthier in 1990 as a result of the discovery of the squeeze made by the first editor19. The inscription which contains the decree concerning the payment of the ekklesiastikon was dated by Gauthier to the time of Alexander the Great20, but I think it may be better contextualized if dated towards the end of the fourth century BC (without being able completely to exclude the beginning of the third)21. Information concerning two other magistracies, the neopoiai and the prostatai, can be drawn from this text. We find prescribed in it that, after having received on the first day of the month 180 drachmas (or staters22) probably from the tamiai23 to be distributed among the citizens attending the ekklesia, every neopoies, on the days on which the Assembly meets and on the occasion of the archairesiai, at sunrise, should put out a vessel full of water, with a capacity of one metretes and with an opening as large as a broad bean, about seven feet above the ground. At sunrise the neopoiai must unplug the opening of the vessel so that the water begins to trickle out, thus turning the vessel into a waterclock, indicating the time-limit for entering the Assembly (and for receiving payment for attendance). They must then each seat themselves beside an urn at the entrance of the Assembly; each urn, which must be sealed by the prostatai and have an opening two fingers wide, must bear the name of one phyle. Every participant in the Assembly is to deliver his pessos, the token of his attendance, to the neopoies of his own phyle, after having inscribed on it his name and patronymic; the neopoies must then insert it into the urn24. The inscription is damaged in the final part, but it appears that at the end of the meeting the neopoies had the duty of distributing payment to those who had handed over their pessos; it is likely that during this procedure the prostatai had to carry out other tasks, but the absence of the lower part of the stone does not allow us to formulate more accurate hypotheses.

The neopoiai

7This decree emphasizes the existence of a very close link between the neopoiai and the phylai as well as the magistrates’ active role in the procedure concerning the payment of the ekklesiastikon.

8Generally, the neopoiai were a board of magistrates quite widespread in Greece, particularly on the islands and in Asia Minor. They were usually in charge of taking care of shrines in a material sense (building, restoration, care of the shrine’s anathemata), financial management and, in addition, meeting different kinds of expenses on behalf of the community25.

9Already in the earliest attestations, the Iasian neopoiai26 appear to be competent to deal with both religious and economic issues27. In the Classical period, an inscription concerned with the rights of the priest of Zeus Megistos entrusts them with dealing with the anathemata offered to the god28; a Hellenistic decree allows them, and any other polites who may so wish, to set up a financial project to acquire funds for the restoration of shrines29. These two pieces of evidence, chronologically distant from each other, underline that over time the neopoiai kept a constant authority over cult places, particularly regarding building and financial matters.

10Another task, assigned to them by the city with remarkable consistency over at least two centuries, also falls within this sphere. A recently published inscription, which on palaeographic criteria could be dated to the late Hekatomnid period, mentions the neopoiai as having the duty of meeting the costs of the inscribing and the publication of an honorific decree on a stele in a shrine (perhaps of Zeus). They obviously paid the costs for purchase of the stone and the work done by the stonecutter. However, the text assigns to the archontes the task of having the actual stele erected and of verifying that what the polis had decided was engraved on the stone30. At this time, therefore, the neopoiai were involved in the publication of decrees in accordance with the competences already indicated, for they are concerned with a building, more specifically a shrine, and their assignment is exclusively financial. But in the subsequent period their competence appears to have widened. From the end of the fourth century BC, the neopoiai increasingly feature as a constant presence in the inscriptions31, as the sole responsible body entrusted with the task of taking care of the publication of Assembly decrees on the stone; they no longer shared this duty with the archontes32, from whom they also appear to have inherited the supervision of the entire operation. For this purpose they received from the polis, probably from the tamiai33, sums of money34 which they then spent on erecting stelae or inscribing decrees on existing buildings, always within sacred contexts. They supervised the publication of decrees both in shrines (of Zeus, of Apollo, of Artemis, of Zeus and Hera35) and on buildings in the agora36, which, as is well known, represented a sacred area for the Greeks37.

11Therefore, it would seem that over time, probably from the last decades of the fourth century onwards38, the role of the neopoiai was enriched with a number of new competences39. They began to hold an office which had previously belonged to civil magistrates like the archontes; but especially, they seem to have moved away from the exclusive sphere of the sacred, as is suggested by the role they were attributed in the regulations concerning the payment of the ekklesiastikon. They were now also involved in political life, undertaking roles whose relation to the original religious duties we are no longer able to understand, and had to bear costs which went beyond the limits of the hiera.

The prostatai

12At the present time, much more is known about the magistracy of the prostatai than about the neopoiai. In the Greek political lexicon the noun prostates was widespread and multifaceted40. To understand all the facets of this term, it is necessary to go back to the etymological and historical meaning of the word, ‘he who stands in front of’, from which developed further meanings such as ‘he who protects, takes care of, watches over someone else’. In Greek literary production of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, the word is clearly attested, especially in the sense of ‘political leader’. The opposition, in Athens, between προστάται τοῦ δήμου and προστάται τῶν γνορίμων as described in the Athenaion Politeia41 is well-known. But in many poleis the noun prostates, having been stripped of any connotation linking it to the struggle between political parties, and having acquired instead the meaning of ‘in charge of the protection’ of the entire citizen body, ended up designating either those magistrates who held the office of president of the boule and the ekklesia, or more generally those who were the city’s main magistrates and who often had the right to put forward proposals in the Assembly42.

13In Iasos, the prostatai appear to have been magistrates to whom was assigned the specific task of watching over, guaranteeing and protecting, the interests of the entire citizen body, thus closely following the name’s original meaning. They are mentioned for the first time in the ekklesiastikon inscription, where they appear alongside the neopoiai. In that text, as has already been seen, they are charged with sealing the urn for every phyle in which the citizens’ attendance pessoi must be inserted after they have been handed over to the neopoies43. Because the final part of the inscription is missing, it cannot be worked out whether the prostatai had other duties connected to this procedure, but it seems clear that they assisted the neopoiai throughout the phases of the entire operation; the presence of two different boards of magistrates was certainly intended to guarantee the absolute correctness of the procedure. It is clear that their role in this case was a supervisory one, with the specific duty of protecting the citizens: by their presence and by putting their seal on the urns, they ensured that the goods which the community made available would benefit only those who were entitled to receive them, namely the citizens; in addition, they were there to make sure that every single member of the demos had the chance to participate in polis deliberations44.

14The prostatai are mentioned in another context also connected with financial matters: the letter sent to the city of Iasos, at the beginning of the second century BC, by Laodike, wife of Antiochos III45, in which they are entrusted by the queen with carrying out the main aspect of her benefaction. They are to distribute the annual proceeds of the sale of part of the wheat which the queen had given to the city, in order to provide dowries for the daughters of needy citizens. In this case, too, therefore, it was they who guaranteed that the goods the community received in difficult circumstances would benefit the demos, especially those who were most in need.

15The role they held as protectors of the citizen body meant that in Iasian documents the prostatai were also closely involved with the granting of politeia to foreigners. In two cases dated to the Hellenistic period, they were specially entrusted by the Assembly with preparing a prographe to be presented to the boule and the demos regarding the granting of citizenship to foreign judges to whom a crown and proxeny had already been awarded46. As Ch. Crowther47 has correctly emphasized, these two texts clearly attest that in Iasos, too, the granting of politeia was done in two different stages. They also show, however, that the second stage, which was the crucial one, needed the intervention of the prostatai as probably the only competent authorities in these matters. Therefore, when, at the height of the Hellenistic period, we see a board, rather than private citizens presenting a petition to the prytaneis for the granting of citizenship, it should not surprise too much that the only board so attested is that of the prostatai, in one case acting jointly with the strategoi48. In all cases, their duty was consistent with their task of watching over the interests of the Iasian politai. They rewarded foreigners who had benefited the Iasian demos, and they bestowed carefully and judiciously the precious gift of politeia. Their function as guardians of the demos also explains why in an inscription they appear to be the authority to whom private citizens could apply (prosangheilai) in case of infringement of the law by priests or magistrates in charge of sacred matters49: they protected the demos against malpractices or abuses.

16In other words, the prostatai appear to have been involved in important and delicate issues and to have performed a role of great importance for the well-being of the polis. In addition, the fact that they held the demosia sphragis (used to seal the urns into which attendance pessoi had to be put according to the ekklesiastikon procedure50), a responsability normally assigned to the highest offices of the polis51, strongly suggests that in Hellenistic times they must have been the main Iasian magistracy (taking over this role from the archontes?), as was the case also in nearby poleis such as Kos and Knidos52. What has led to this conclusion is a comparison: immediately after Antiochos III (through Zeuxis) had taken over Euromos, very near Iasos, constitutional reforms took place in this city53. In particular, two new magistracies were created: that of the kosmoi and that of the prostatai tou demou. The former became the highest military authority, entrusted with the task of dealing with anything that concerned the security of the polis and of the territory; the kosmoi had, in addition, to keep the keys of the polis, take care of the phrouria, of military expeditions and of everything pertaining to the alliance with Antiochus III. No other magistracy held a higher power54. As Ph. Gauthier observed55, they played the role that was assigned to strategoi elsewhere. By contrast, the prostatai – possibly an already existing arche56 – became the highest civil authority. In fact, the new regulations established explicitly that the two boards had to work together and it is clear that they represented, in two different areas of polis life (military and civil), the main political point of reference for the sovereign. In Iasos the situation appears to have been analogous. Here too, there was a military authority, the strategoi (as in Euromos, at least from the beginning of the second century BC onwards57, they watched over the security of the territory and held the keys of the city58). At least in one case, they appear together with the civil magistracy of the prostatai, acting as proposers of the decree in honour of Teleutias of Kos59. The proposal shared by the two boards must have served to emphasize the particular significance of the merits of the honorand, merits which had led to an intervention with the boule and the Assembly by the two highest archai of the city in order to reward Teleutias with appropriate honours. The Euromos text also underlines the particular relationship the local prostatai had with the preservation of documents and the drawing up of the city’s official letters (the latter duty was, however, to be shared with the kosmoi60). This element, too, finds its parallel in Iasos, for it was to the prostatai that the ambassadors of the Technitai of Dionysos delivered the decree setting out their decision to let the Iasian polis enjoy the performances of some of their artists for free at a time of great economic difficulties, so that the agones could take place regularly61. They were clearly the magistrates who, as protectors and guardians of the citizen body, represented the demos in its relations with the outside world, and who kept and – if the comparison with Euromos is valid – produced the most important written documents of the city, mainly concerning foreign relations. As was discovered recently, the Iasian prostatai (whose official name must have been, as it was elsewhere, προστάται τοῦ δήμου) had their seat, called the archeion prostatikon (a building that also served as their archives), in the agora62. Here, the prostatai kept the files of their manifold activity. Given that their main duty was to guard and protect both the citizens and the concept of citizenship itself (made clear, among other things, by the task of sealing the urns of the different phylai on Assembly days, so that the ekklesiastikon money could not be abused but paid to those who were genuine Iasians because they were enrolled as members in the tribes) and that they had competence in granting politeia and, therefore, in supervising the inclusion of new citizens in the phylai (a task no longer assigned to the archontes: see above), I think that they must have kept the lists of citizens kata phylas63. Moreover, the connection between neopoiai (undoubtedly one for each phyle) and prostatai, as it appears in the regulations for the ekklesiastikon, proves not only the numerical identity of the two boards, but also the direct link between prostatai and phylai.

The prytaneis

17The prytaneis, a public office which was widespread in the Greek world64, are well attested in Iasos already in the earliest inscriptions65. They appear to be six in the already mentioned I. Iasos 1 (ll. 12-14). Although an answer has yet to be given to the question whether in the Karian polis they should be seen simply as a committee of the council, on the Athenian model, or as a real magistracy, following the example of Rhodes66, it is certain that, at least in the Hellenistic period, they served as presidents of the boule and of the demos gathered in assembly; indeed, where we have more explicit information, we see that one of their number always played the role of epistates of the ekklesia67. We now know for certain that they remained in office for a semester68, as was also the case, for instance, in Rhodes. This might be the reason why an inscription of the mid-third century BC lists these magistrates (no longer the archontes: see above) as part of the dating formula69. Furthermore, it is certain that, as far back as the beginning of the fourth century BC, they had the power to propose their own motions within the Council and, consequently, to the demos. This is proved by the frequent occurrence of the formula πρυτάνεων γνώμη70 in Iasian decrees. Until approximately the third century BC this right appears to have been shared with others (we also find motions presented as ἀρχόντων γνώμη71 and others put forward by a single individual, almost certainly a bouleutes, with the formula ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνου εἶπε72). But after this date, clearly as a consequence of a legal definition of the praxis relating to Assembly admission, the Iasian demos only approved motions presented as πρυτάνεων γνώμη73. This could be either on the prytaneis’ own initiative74 or following an ephodos75 (by private citizens, bouleutae, or other magistrates76), in which case they assumed responsibility for it and promoted it as if it was their own initiative77.

18It is likely that, in their role as presidents of the Council and of the Assembly, the prytaneis also performed the duties of receiving the representatives which the city had sent abroad78 as well as of receiving and hearing foreign delegations. According to I. Iasos 152, ll. 28-35 the ambassadors of the Technitai of Dionysos delivered to the prostatai the decree recording the koinon’ s decision to support Iasos, but they subsequently went to the boule and the demos in order to present and justify their decision (and at this stage the mediating role of the prytaneis must have been absolutely essential)79.

The phylai

19In most of the ancient Greek poleis, the phylai were an important subdivision of the civic body, which determined the participation of the politai in the political, administrative, military and religious life of the community80. This was also the case in Iasos where, since the Classical period, inscriptions attest not only that the phylai81 were involved in public auctions of land82, but also that, at least in the Hellenistic period, they were involved in summoning the Assembly83, could award honours of their own84 and, above all, had the task (as in Miletos and in the rest of Ionia) to sanction, and testify to, full and legitimate membership of the Iasian citizen body: in Iasos those who were awarded politeia had to be enrolled (as far as we know either by lot or by free choice)85 in a phyle86 and a patrie87.

20It has usually been stated that there were six Iasian phylai88, as had, until the Classical period, been the case in Miletos, Iasos’ powerful neighbour and its mythical co-founder89. This conviction is based on the consideration that in Iasos the number of the prytaneis was often six and on the assumption that, as elsewhere, there was a direct numerical connection between these officials and the phylai90, each of whom would provide one prytanis to the board. But there is evidence which points in a different direction. For although it is true that most inscriptions attest six prytaneis91, other texts attest instead the presence of one, two, three, four, five, seven, eight92, or even nine (in one case, though this is probably misleading)93. Even admitting the existence of occasional variations or changes in the procedure adopted for selecting prytaneis, these cases, especially those where the number of magistrates is seven or eight, show a variability which is unlikely to be consistent with the hypothesis according to which they were chosen on the basis of the subdivision of the civic body into six phylai. It is therefore clear that in order to obtain reliable information on the number of the phylai, we must look at the other boards of magistrates, whose structure appears to have been more fixed.

21We have seen in particular how strong the link was between the phylai and the boards of neopoiai and prostatai. For the present, no information is available about the number of the former, but the number of the latter is known. Thanks to two inscriptions, one long known, the other newly published, we know that the prostatai were five in number94. The two inscriptions can be dated approximately, on paleographic grounds, between the end of the third and the beginning of the second century BC. At the height of the Hellenistic period, the Iasian tribes, therefore, must have been five in number. This conclusion is corroborated further by the fact that there were still five strategoi95; by the appointment of five epimeletai for the restoration of the boule and the archeion at the beginning of the second century BC96; and, particularly, by the fact that the number five is attested with certainty, at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, also for the archontes97. In I. Iasos 1, of the Hekatomnid period, however, the archontes are still four in number98. We observed earlier that the number four features prominently in this inscription (the tamiai and the synegoroi also numbered four) as does its submultiple two (astynomoi). It seems to me that such numerical comparisons, together with the fact that after the Hekatomnid period boards of magistrates with four members are no longer attested, suggest that, in the transition from the Hekatomnid to the Hellenistic period, the number of the city phylai changed from four to five99. The number four may go back to an Ionian model (there are other elements – dialect, calendar, cults – which suggest a culturally Ionian origin for Iasos100), but this is far from certain and very likely another explanation has to be found, not least because the one known phyle-name of Epikreidai is obviously not Ionian101.

Conclusions

22Although the overall picture cannot be defined closely in terms of chronology, nor the exact shape of institutional development understood in detail, there are elements which seem to suggest that Iasos, when passing from the late Classical to the early Hellenistic period, underwent a number of institutional transformations. If some of these were certainly the result of real reforms, others must have represented simple adjustments to the city’s documentary and political-administrative praxis.

231. The defining and consequent tightening of procedures for admission to the Council and to the Assembly were certainly the result of a reform. My study of the evolution of the formulae shows that, starting from approximately the mid-third century BC, it was only the prytaneis, no longer the other bouleutai or the archontes, that had the right to present motions to the demos. Very likely this change was the outcome of the tendency, in the Hellenistic period, towards a progressive specialization of the competences assigned to the different magistracies102. It remains to be seen whether it may also have had a political dimension, intentional or not. The theme should therefore be analyzed further in the light of the present lively debate on ‘democracy’ in the Hellenistic period103.

242. A series of changes, which are more difficult to interpret, concerns the magistracy of the archontes. As we saw, some of their competences became the prerogative of other archai. Towards the end of the fourth century BC the neopoiai gradually assumed responsibility for the inscribing on stone of decrees, whose publication had been decided. Previously this had been a task which fell within the remit of the archontes. This may well have been a simple adjustment to the political-administrative praxis. Perhaps the considerable increase in the anagraphai of decrees104 suggested that these important officials should be freed from a task which was more and more perceived as a routine one. As a result, it was assigned to a minor magistracy which already held competences within that specific sphere. When, in the third century, the prytaneis were occasionally present in decrees alongside the stephanephoros (but no longer the archontes) in the dating formula, we could imagine a simple, although important, change in drafting habits105. On the other hand, a genuine reform may explain the fact that, as far as is known, in the Hellenistic period it was no longer the archontes but the prostatai, protectors of the politai and in charge of granting politeia to foreigners, that supervised the enrolment of new citizens in the phylai. A later reform, as we saw, certainly led to the disappearance of the archonton gnomai. It should also be pointed out that, from approximately the middle of the third century BC, we entirely lose track of the archontes in inscriptions. It would therefore appear that the role of this magistracy changed progressively, for reasons which, for the time being, cannot be accurately determined. Whatever became its role, it did not show up in the city’s decrees: the main and most eloquent documentary source of Iasian Hellenistic history. It is, however, likely that such changes hide a reduction in the archontes’ original importance (see below). The archontes, however, did not altogether disappear from the political scene of the city; for they continue to be attested to in coins106.

253. The important regulations for the payment of the ekklesiastikon undoubtedly constituted a real reform, as part of which the city appears to have involved the neopoiai in functions that lay outside their original competences in charge of sanctuaries. The strongly democratic character of this decision, designed to allocate a misthos to those participating in the Assembly, suggests a link between this and what appears to be another reform – namely, the introduction of a new magistracy, the prostatai, in the city. In a number of contexts such a board showed competences in managing money for the benefit of the people and presented itself as protector and guardian of the demos. In my view, it cannot have existed at the time of the Iasian conspiracy against Maussollos, for otherwise it would not have been absent from the long list of magistrates involved in the confiscation and sale of goods τῶν ἐπιβουλευσάνεων not only Μαυσώλλωι but also τῆι Ἰασέων πόλει107; if they had existed at the time, they could not have been omitted from a text which declares that it acts according to the will and in the defence of the polis. Therefore, the prostatai, appearing for the first time in the ekklesiastikon regulations, must have been created after the Hekatomnid period and an especially suitable context for their creation was the passing of this reform. It is likely that the decision to provide payment for participation in the Assembly and the setting up of a magistracy entrusted with protecting the demos were the outcome of one and the same democratic reform (to which, perhaps, we might also ascribe the exorbitant increase in decrees inscribed on stone). This reform may be connected with the democratic propaganda of certain diadochoi, in search of favour and support within Greek cities, in the last decade or so of the fourth century BC. We may think of Antigonos Monophtalmos (who controlled the city from at least 313 to c. 309 BC)108. We are well informed not only about his propaganda but also about his tangible commitment to autonomy and freedom of the Greek poleis (which was mainly evident in Asia Minor)109. However, we cannot entirely exclude Ptolemy (to whom Iasos was probably bound from c. 309 BC until, at least, 301 BC110), who, both in 314111 and in 311112, declared his commitment in favour of the autonomy of the Greek poleis. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that, in more than one circumstance, the son of Lagos certainly did not meet the obligations he had undertaken verbally113 and in the well-documented case of Cyrene, he certainly encouraged a political system which was not democratic at all114. As far as we can tell, then, from the moment of their first appearance, the prostatai appear to be the highest civil magistracy in Iasos. It is likely that their creation is one of the keys for interpreting the apparent decline in the role of the archontes.

264. We may ask whether this democratic reform was perhaps connected with another change identified in this study. Without any shadow of a doubt, the Iasian tribes passed from four to five. Only the moment when this happened is uncertain. The number four is attested in Hekatomnid times. Five tribes are known for the first time in an inscription datable to the last third of the fourth century BC115. Creating and dedicating phylai in honour of sovereigns or satraps who had granted great favours to cities was a fairly common act116; therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that it had been demanded in honour of Alexander117 or of Asander (to whom a phyle was dedicated in Latmos118). However, it is also possible that a new tribe was created as proof of gratitude towards whomever, at the end of the fourth century, promoted politics geared to fostering the democratic life of the city. If the hypotheses that have here been defended are right, either Ptolemy I or, more probably, Antigonos Monophtalmos, might be seen as likely candidates.