Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hellenistic Karia

 | 
Carbon Jan-Mathieu van Bremen Riet

Part six. Cities

Magistrates and phylai in late Classical and early Hellenistic Iasos

Roberta Fabiani

Texte intégral

I would like to thank Prof. Gianfranco Maddoli for the opportunity he has given to me to study the new material before its publication, as well as for his help and constant encouragement; I would also like to thank Prof. Massimo Nafissi for his always precious advice and Dr. Riet van Bremen for her fundamental help in translation.

  • 1 I. Iasos 1-6; 20-79. Pugliese Carratelli 1985c; 1987; 1989; Maddoli 2001.
  • 2 Maddoli 2007.
  • 3 On this theme I am preparing a volume with the provisional title I decreti onorari di Iasos: crono (...)
  • 4 Not every issue can be resolved here; some perspectives for further research will only be summaril (...)

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.

  • 5 This position and the relative frequency with which the archontes are mentioned support my convict (...)
  • 6 On this magistracy see P. J. Rhodes, NP 1, s.v. archontes, col. 1026-1028.

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.

  • 7 Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 8-10.
  • 8 Nevertheless, they were not the presidents of the Assembly: where they are listed, it is certain t (...)
  • 9 I. Iasos 24, l. 4; 27, l. 3; 59, l. 4.
  • 10 Maddoli 2007, no. 5, l. 2-5.
  • 11 This appears to be the case in I. Iasos 219, l. 8; 248, l. 55. On the dual meaning of the word see (...)
  • 12 Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1, l. 9-10; compare also I. Iasos 44, l. 2-3.
  • 13 IG XII, 6, 17, l. 16-19. Jost 1935,26 believes that the collective meaning of the term archontes w (...)

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.

  • 14 I. Iasos 1, l. 6-8; Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 9 and 17; I. Iasos 24, l. 4; 27, l. 3; 44, l. 2 (the d (...)
  • 15 I. Iasos 59. It is not certain whether the archontes are also mentioned in Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1 (...)
  • 16 During the conference, R. Ashton pointed out to me the existence of Hellenistic Iasian coins with (...)

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

  • 17 Haussoullier 1884.
  • 18 Hicks 1887, 116-18. His text is in I. Iasos 20.
  • 19 Gauthier 1990, who certainly provides the most reliable text. See now Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 9 (...)
  • 20 Gauthier 1990, 423-5.
  • 21 Among the prytaneis, mention is made of Epikrates [Hermo] kreontos (I. Iasos 20, l. 2; Gauthier 19 (...)
  • 22 For the two alternatives see Gauthier 1990, 430-1.
  • 23 According to the reliable reconstruction of Gauthier 1990,435 l. 4-6, they would be the officials (...)
  • 24 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 11-16.

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.

  • 25 See O. Schultheß, RE 16.2 (1935) s.v. Νεωποιοί, col. 2433-9; ThesCRA 5, 56-60 with bibliography.

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.

  • 26 In this city the board was led by a president or an eponym, as can be seen in the expression οἱ νε (...)
  • 27 See Busolt 1920, 502 n. 1. On Iasian neopoiai see also Oikonomos 1921-1922, 301-4, who thought tha (...)
  • 28 I. Iasos 220, l. 9-10; Le Guen-Pollet 1991, no. 41,135-9.
  • 29 I. Iasos 219. See also L. Robert, BE, 1973, no. 425,163-4.

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.

  • 30 Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 13-17.
  • 31 I. Iasos 2, l. 59; 31, l. 4-5 (in this case just one neopoies is mentioned); 33, l. 11-12 (one neo (...)
  • 32 I. Iasos 31, l. 4-5 uses the formula τὸν δὲ νεωποίην τὸν ἐνεστῶτα τὰ δεδογμένα, an expression prev (...)
  • 33 Indeed, it seems likely that it was the tamiai who supplied the neopoiai with money. This is not o (...)
  • 34 In the Hellenistic period they managed a fund, which, in one case at least, was partially derived (...)
  • 35 Temple of Zeus: I. Iasos 2, l. 59-61. Temple of Apollo: I. Iasos 42, l. 8-9; Maddoli 2007, no. 8, (...)
  • 36 Iasian inscriptions were frequently displayed in the agora and, more exactly ἐν τῆι παραστάδι (so (...)
  • 37 Martin 1951, 164-9; Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 117-19; Kenzler 1999,138. Murderers or other peop (...)

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.

  • 38 The only two texts in which they appear that are certainly from the Classical period, still presen (...)
  • 39 A multiplicity of competences is also found in Kos. Indeed, some inscriptions show that, in the de (...)

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

  • 40 See H. Schaefer, RE Suppl. 9 (1962) s.v. προστάτης, col. 1287-1304; P. J. Rhodes, NP 10 (2001), s. (...)
  • 41 Arist. Ath. 28.1-3. See also Connor 1971, 110-15; Rhodes 1981, 88-9; 97; 344-61.
  • 42 See Rhodes & Lewis 1997: for Kalymna 220-3; for Kos 231-8; for Knidos 328-30; for Theangela 352-3.

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.

  • 43 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 12.
  • 44 Whatever might be the function of the ekklesiastikon: an incentive for participation or an instiga (...)

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.

  • 45 I. Iasos 4, l. 20-6. On this text see Nafissi 2001 and Ma 1999, no. 26, 329-35.

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.

  • 46 I. Iasos 73, l. 28-9, 56-7; 74, l. 26-7, 52-3 (in this case they probably acted together with the (...)
  • 47 Crowther 1995, 94-5.
  • 48 Compare I. Iasos 51, l. 2-3 (together with the strategoi); 73, l. 28-9, 55-7; Pugliese Carratelli (...)
  • 49 I. Iasos 219, l. 7.

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.

  • 50 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 12.
  • 51 For this purpose see Haensch 2006, 258, 262-3; at 264-6, the author underlines that originally the(...)
  • 52 For Knidos see Hornblower 1982, 116; Rhodes & Lewis 1997, 328-30; for Kos ibid. 231-8 with previou (...)
  • 53 See Errington 1993, no. 5, 24-7 with improvements by Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1995, nos. 525, 524-6, foll (...)
  • 54 See Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 3-10.
  • 55 Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1995, nos. 525, 524-6.
  • 56 When the decree (see Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 10-11) mentions the tasks assigned to the prostat (...)
  • 57 The strategoi are attested in Iasos in I. Iasos 4, l. 68-76; 74, l. 27 and 53; 264, l. 2-5; 267, l (...)
  • 58 See I. Iasos 4, l. 68-76 with new readings and improvements by Nafissi 2001, 115-28.
  • 59 I. Iasos 51, l. 2-3 and probably also in 74, l. 26-7, 52-3.
  • 60 See Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 12-15.
  • 61 I. Iasos 152, l. 28-9. Migeotte 1993, 285-6.
  • 62 Maddoli 2001, p. 19, l. 8-9 = SEG 51, 1506; Fabiani 2001, 93-100; on archives in the Greek world s (...)
  • 63 See Savalli 1985, 400-8; Faraguna 2005, 69-70. On the basis of Dem. 44.35 it would seem possible t (...)

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

  • 64 On these see Gschnitzer 1973.
  • 65 Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, II b = SEG 36, 982B, l. 2 – 3; II c = SEG 36, 982C, l. 3.
  • 66 On this issue see Gschnitzer 1973, 794-5; concerning Iasos, he is inclined to interpret the prytan (...)
  • 67 It is likely that the president of the Assembly was also the prytanis mentioned in the most ancien (...)
  • 68 This piece of information, which was partly deduced from the comparison of the prescript of I. Ias (...)
  • 69 I. Iasos 56, l. 2-4.
  • 70 See e. g. I. Iasos 4, l. 37-41; 23, l. 7; 25, l. 5-9; 26, l. 4; 36, l. 5; 41, l. 4.
  • 71 See above.
  • 72 See, for example, I. Iasos 32, l. 4-5 or 42, l. 3.
  • 73 This change is deduced from an examination of the evolution of the formulae; I refer for further d (...)
  • 74 As happens for instance in I. Iasos 4, l. 36-7, an inscription dating back to the beginning of the (...)
  • 75 This is the technical term used to indicate a written proposal put forward by someone who is not a (...)
  • 76 Swoboda 1890, 71, 109,116-17 insists on this role. In this sense, the procedure stated in I. Iasos(...)
  • 77 Such a procedure is recognizable where the expression πρυτάνεων γνώμη is followed by formulae such (...)

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.

  • 78 Iasian judges, returning from Kalymna, address the prytaneis to report the outcome of their missio (...)
  • 79 Also in Rhodes the prytaneis were entrusted with the task of sending and receiving foreign and cit (...)

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

  • 80 On the phylai in general see Roussel 1976 (still valuable); Funke 1993; Gehrke 2000; B. Smarczyk, (...)
  • 81 The only name for a phyle known for certain is Epikreidai (I. Iasos 238), though whether it is ori (...)
  • 82 I. Iasos 1, l. 18-30.
  • 83 I. Iasos 20, l. 14 and 16.
  • 84 I. Iasos 5.
  • 85 So far, Iasian inscriptions suggest that the enrolment of new citizens in the phylai and patriai w (...)
  • 86 I. Iasos 47, l. 4; 51, l. 29; Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 9 and 18.1, l. 7. This prerogative of the Ia (...)
  • 87 I. Iasos 47, l. 4; the patrie is also attested in Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1, l. 7. The latter inscrip (...)

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.

  • 88 Hicks 1887, 105-6; compare Swoboda 1890, 72; Bilabel 1920, 120; Jost 1935, 22-3, 36; Cassola 1957, (...)
  • 89 On the legendary foundation of Iasos (a first Argive ktisis allegedly followed by a Milesian re-fo (...)
  • 90 Gschnitzer 1973, 791-3.
  • 91 Compare I. Iasos 1, l. 12-14; 37, l. 1-4; 56, l. 2-4; perhaps 53, l. 1-4; probably I. Iasos 20, l. (...)
  • 92 One prytanis is attested in Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, II b = SEG 36, 982B, l. 2-3; II c = SEG 36, (...)
  • 93 In I. Iasos 82, l. 2-7 the prytaneis become nine if we consider, as was usually the case, the epis (...)

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.

  • 94 Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 27-30 and Maddoli 2007, no. 25. B, l. 4-5.
  • 95 I. Iasos 264, l. 1-5.
  • 96 I. Iasos 252; the dedication, put up to commemorate the conclusion of works, also includes the arc (...)
  • 97 I. Iasos 59, l. 4-7 and Maddoli 2007, no. 5, l. 2-5. Their number is not certain in I. Iasos 24 (s (...)
  • 98 I. Iasos 1, l. 6-8.
  • 99 The number four for the phylai in the Classical period can be corroborated from other evidence. In(...)
  • 100 As is well known, four is the classic number of Ionian tribes and of the original phylai of Athens (...)
  • 101 See n. 82. A mythical Argive foundation has also been attested (see also n. 90).

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.

  • 102 Müller 1995, 51.
  • 103 Among the voices within this debate see Quaß 1993; for a different opinion see, among others, Habi (...)

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.

  • 104 Nawotka 2003, 19-25.
  • 105 Cf. Maddoli 2007, no. 5 with I. Iasos 56.
  • 106 See above n. 17.

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.

  • 107 I. Iasos 1, l. 3.
  • 108 Diod. 19.75.5; see Billows 1990, 120-1.
  • 109 See Diod. 19.61.3-4; on this theme see Billows 1990, 197-230; Bencivenni 2003, 169-201, espec. 185
  • 110 On the relationship between Iasos and the Lagidai see most recently Giovannini 2004 and Migeotte 2 (...)
  • 111 Diod. 19.62.1-2.
  • 112 Diod. 19.105.1.
  • 113 See Billows 1990, 200-3.
  • 114 See for instance Bencivenni 2003, 105-49.

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.

  • 115 Maddoli 2007, no. 5.
  • 116 On the creation of new phylai in honour of important persons see Habicht 1970, 153-5. It has been (...)
  • 117 Alexander had many relations with Iasos; a great favour that the sovereign granted to the city was (...)
  • 118 Blümel 1997, 137, l. 4-6; SEG 47, 1563.

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.

Notes

1 I. Iasos 1-6; 20-79. Pugliese Carratelli 1985c; 1987; 1989; Maddoli 2001.

2 Maddoli 2007.

3 On this theme I am preparing a volume with the provisional title I decreti onorari di Iasos: cronologia, istituzioni, storia (Fabiani, in preparation). A series of useful considerations on this issue can also be found in Delrieux 2005. However, since the data he had at his disposal were not as abundant as mine, he was able only to offer a number of preliminary considerations.

4 Not every issue can be resolved here; some perspectives for further research will only be summarily indicated and reserved for a fuller treatment in the study mentioned in n. 4.

5 This position and the relative frequency with which the archontes are mentioned support my conviction that they were an ordinary and traditional magistracy of Iasos, pace Heisserer 1980,182, who thinks they were instead a board of extraordinary magistrates summoned only in exceptional circumstances.

6 On this magistracy see P. J. Rhodes, NP 1, s.v. archontes, col. 1026-1028.

7 Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 8-10.

8 Nevertheless, they were not the presidents of the Assembly: where they are listed, it is certain that none of them functioned as epistates (see. I. Iasos 24; 27; 59).

9 I. Iasos 24, l. 4; 27, l. 3; 59, l. 4.

10 Maddoli 2007, no. 5, l. 2-5.

11 This appears to be the case in I. Iasos 219, l. 8; 248, l. 55. On the dual meaning of the word see also Rhodes (above, n. 7).

12 Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1, l. 9-10; compare also I. Iasos 44, l. 2-3.

13 IG XII, 6, 17, l. 16-19. Jost 1935,26 believes that the collective meaning of the term archontes was used in this context.

14 I. Iasos 1, l. 6-8; Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 9 and 17; I. Iasos 24, l. 4; 27, l. 3; 44, l. 2 (the dating of this text is uncertain, but it is engraved on the same stone as I. Iasos 30, an inscription which certainly goes back to the time of Alexander the Great, who is named in it). Maddoli 2007, no. 5, l. 2 and I. Iasos 59, l. 4 certainly date to the early Hellenistic period.

15 I. Iasos 59. It is not certain whether the archontes are also mentioned in Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1 (see above), a decree dating back to the same day on which I. Iasos 32, in honour of the Macedonian Eupolemos the son of Potalos, was approved, a decree which I consider to be approximately datable to the second quarter of the 3rd century BC (on this topic see Fabiani 2009).

16 During the conference, R. Ashton pointed out to me the existence of Hellenistic Iasian coins with the legend ΑΡΧ-ΟΝΤΕ[Σ]: on this see Ashton 2007 (at the moment it is not possible to suggest a more exact dating for the coins). I am very grateful to him for this information.

17 Haussoullier 1884.

18 Hicks 1887, 116-18. His text is in I. Iasos 20.

19 Gauthier 1990, who certainly provides the most reliable text. See now Rhodes & Osborne 2003, no. 99,508-13. On the ekklesiastikon inscription see also Delrieux 2001 and the contribution by K. Konuk in this volume.

20 Gauthier 1990, 423-5.

21 Among the prytaneis, mention is made of Epikrates [Hermo] kreontos (I. Iasos 20, l. 2; Gauthier 1990,435, l. 2), whose name is also found in I. Iasos 37, l. 2 and 53, l. 2 as well as in Maddoli 2007, no. 12. B, l. 1, texts which are datable between the end of the 4th and perhaps the beginning of the 3rd century BC. For a more accurate chronological contextualization, see further Fabiani, in preparation.

22 For the two alternatives see Gauthier 1990, 430-1.

23 According to the reliable reconstruction of Gauthier 1990,435 l. 4-6, they would be the officials entrusted to deliver to the neopoiai the money for distribution among those present at the meeting. Every tamias probably had to give it to a single neopoies. See also below n. 34.

24 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 11-16.

25 See O. Schultheß, RE 16.2 (1935) s.v. Νεωποιοί, col. 2433-9; ThesCRA 5, 56-60 with bibliography.

26 In this city the board was led by a president or an eponym, as can be seen in the expression οἱ νεωποῖαι οἱ σὺν Ἀνθέσφορωι (Maddoli 2001, p. 19, l. 3-5; SEG 51, 1506; for similar formulae compare Hansen 1991,237). On the other hand, it is likely that τοὺς νεωποίας τοὺς ἐπ’ Ἠγύλλου (I. Iasos 62, l. 10, with psilosis) refers to the neopoiai in office during the year when Hegyllos was stephanephoros.

27 See Busolt 1920, 502 n. 1. On Iasian neopoiai see also Oikonomos 1921-1922, 301-4, who thought that these magistrates were six; in fact he was convinced that the six men named in I. Iasos 20, l. 2-4 were neopoiai and not, as Gauthier 1990 rightly understood, six prytaneis.

28 I. Iasos 220, l. 9-10; Le Guen-Pollet 1991, no. 41,135-9.

29 I. Iasos 219. See also L. Robert, BE, 1973, no. 425,163-4.

30 Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 13-17.

31 I. Iasos 2, l. 59; 31, l. 4-5 (in this case just one neopoies is mentioned); 33, l. 11-12 (one neopoies); 35, l. 11; 38, l. 6-7 (one neopoies); 42, l. 8-9; 43, l. 12-13; 44, l. 3-4 (one neopoies); 46, l. 7-8; 47, l. 4-5; 48, l. 10-12; 50, l. 11-12; 55, l. 2 (one neopoies); 60, l. 19-20; 61, l. 8-10; 62, l. 9-11; 63, l. 1-3; 82, l. 22-6 and in many other cases. See also Jost 1935, 36. The most usual formula became τὸ δὲ ψήφισμα ἀναγράψαι τοὺς νεοποίας ἐν/εἰς + designation of place.

32 I. Iasos 31, l. 4-5 uses the formula τὸν δὲ νεωποίην τὸν ἐνεστῶτα τὰ δεδογμένα, an expression previously used in a similar way with reference to the special assignment of the ἄρχοντες in Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 15-17: τὰ δεδογμ[ένα τῆι πόλ]ει ἀναγεγράψεται ἐπιμε[ληθῆναι τοὺς ἄ]ρχοντας τοὺς ἐνεστεῶτα[ς].

33 Indeed, it seems likely that it was the tamiai who supplied the neopoiai with money. This is not only suggested by the restoration of Gauthier 1990,435, l. 4-6 concerning the ekklesiastikon (on this point see above), but also by comparing the decrees Maddoli 2007, no. 20. B and Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 1 = SEG 41,929; if in the former the formula πòόρους δὲ ὑπάρχειν τοὺς ἀποδεδειγμένους τοῖς νεωποίαις καὶ εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ ἀναλώματα (l. 17-18), without the specification εἰς τὴν ἀναγραφήν which is always found (see e.g. Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 2 = SEG 41,930, l. 21-23; no. 3 = SEG 41,931, l. 10-12), suggests that the neopoiai had to provide for the payment of the expenses both for the publication and the crown, in the latter l. 30-33 seem to imply that the tamiai were assigned the task of supplying the money needed for paying for the crowns of the honorands by asking for a loan: obviously the neopoiai did not have sufficient funds and it was the tamiai who had to find them. In Delphi, too, the Naopes, an important committee concerned with building works at the sanctuary, managed money assigned to them by other officials (La Coste-Messelière 1974,199-201).

34 In the Hellenistic period they managed a fund, which, in one case at least, was partially derived from the twelfth part paid on the sale of local wine (Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 1 = SEG 41,929, l. 3-6) and, in another case, from the panegyrikòn (Maddoli 2007, no. 20. B, l. 17-18). These sums were set aside by Iasos under the εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ ἀναλώματα – if this is the correct interpretation, as it seems to me, of the formula πόρον δὲ ὑπάρχειν εἰς τὴν ἀναγραφήν τοῦ ψηφίσματος τὸν ἀποδεδεγμένον τοῖς νεωποίαις καὶ εἰς τὰ λοιπὰ ἀναλώματα that is found in some inscriptions: Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 2 = SEG 41, 930, l. 21-3; no. 3 = SEG 41,931, l. 38-40; Maddoli 2007, no. 25. B, l. 10-12. It is interesting that in the Hellenistic period prudential clauses existed that prevented the νεωποῖαι from spending money already committed in previous decrees (πόρους δὲ ὑπάρχειν… ἐξοικονομηθήντων τῶν πρότερον ἐψηφισμένων and analogous formulas): Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 1 = SEG 41, 929, l. 32-4; no. 2 = SEG 41, 930, l. 29-32; no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 10-13, 47-50.

35 Temple of Zeus: I. Iasos 2, l. 59-61. Temple of Apollo: I. Iasos 42, l. 8-9; Maddoli 2007, no. 8, l. 7-8; 18.1, l. 6-7; 20. A1, l. 14-15; 20. B, l. 14; 21, l. 12-13. Temple of Artemis: Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 1 = SEG 41, 929, l. 28-30. Temple of Zeus and Hera: Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 2 = SEG 41, 930, l. 28-9; no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 9-10 and 46-7; no. 4 = SEG 41, 932, l. 37-9; Maddoli 2007, no. 25. A1, l. 10-11.

36 Iasian inscriptions were frequently displayed in the agora and, more exactly ἐν τῆι παραστάδι (so in I. Iasos 48, l. 11; 50, l. 12), often followed by more precise information such as τῆι πρὸ τοῦ ἀρχείου (see e.g. I. Iasos 30, l. 12) or τῆς στοᾶς τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος (see e.g. I. Iasos 43, l. 11) or τοῦ βουλευτηρίου (I. Iasos 55, l. 2).

37 Martin 1951, 164-9; Thompson and Wycherley 1972, 117-19; Kenzler 1999,138. Murderers or other people considered as contaminated and impure were not allowed in. For this purpose see Dem. 22.77; 23.37 and 80; 24.60 and 103. On feast days sacred vessels containing water for purification were put at the entrances of the agora (Aeschin. 3.176; compare Poll. Onom. 7.96).

38 The only two texts in which they appear that are certainly from the Classical period, still present them as wholly involved in the religious sphere (I. Iasos 220; Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 12-14).

39 A multiplicity of competences is also found in Kos. Indeed, some inscriptions show that, in the demos of Halasarna, the napoiai had equally close relationships with the phylai, their cults and their shrines, with the duty of engraving decrees on stelai (Pugliese Carratelli 1963-1964; on this document s. Savalli 1985,401-3; Faraguna 2005, 76-7; on the napoiai in Kos see also Hallof & Habicht 1998, 117; Parker & Obbink 2001, 257-61), but they were also authorized to propose motions at the Assembly of the demos (Sherwin-White 1978, 182-3).

40 See H. Schaefer, RE Suppl. 9 (1962) s.v. προστάτης, col. 1287-1304; P. J. Rhodes, NP 10 (2001), s.v. Prostates, col. 450.

41 Arist. Ath. 28.1-3. See also Connor 1971, 110-15; Rhodes 1981, 88-9; 97; 344-61.

42 See Rhodes & Lewis 1997: for Kalymna 220-3; for Kos 231-8; for Knidos 328-30; for Theangela 352-3.

43 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 12.

44 Whatever might be the function of the ekklesiastikon: an incentive for participation or an instigation to punctuality. On this matter see Gauthier 1990, 439-41; Tuci 2007, 110-11.

45 I. Iasos 4, l. 20-6. On this text see Nafissi 2001 and Ma 1999, no. 26, 329-35.

46 I. Iasos 73, l. 28-9, 56-7; 74, l. 26-7, 52-3 (in this case they probably acted together with the strategoi). On this procedure see Savalli 1981, 625-7.

47 Crowther 1995, 94-5.

48 Compare I. Iasos 51, l. 2-3 (together with the strategoi); 73, l. 28-9, 55-7; Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 3 = SEG 41,931, l. 27-30; Maddoli 2007, no. 25. B, l. 3-5.

49 I. Iasos 219, l. 7.

50 Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 12.

51 For this purpose see Haensch 2006, 258, 262-3; at 264-6, the author underlines that originally the demosia sphragis was used mainly to seal vessels, just as happened with the Iasian kibotia.

52 For Knidos see Hornblower 1982, 116; Rhodes & Lewis 1997, 328-30; for Kos ibid. 231-8 with previous bibliography. On democracy in Kos see most recently Carlsson 2004.

53 See Errington 1993, no. 5, 24-7 with improvements by Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1995, nos. 525, 524-6, followed by Ma 1999, no. 30, 339-40.

54 See Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 3-10.

55 Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1995, nos. 525, 524-6.

56 When the decree (see Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 10-11) mentions the tasks assigned to the prostatai, it actually only refers back to the contents of the laws, without enunciating them, as if there were nothing new to present.

57 The strategoi are attested in Iasos in I. Iasos 4, l. 68-76; 74, l. 27 and 53; 264, l. 2-5; 267, l. 7; 51, l. 2, all texts of the 2nd century BC.

58 See I. Iasos 4, l. 68-76 with new readings and improvements by Nafissi 2001, 115-28.

59 I. Iasos 51, l. 2-3 and probably also in 74, l. 26-7, 52-3.

60 See Ma 1999, no. 30, p. 339, l. 12-15.

61 I. Iasos 152, l. 28-9. Migeotte 1993, 285-6.

62 Maddoli 2001, p. 19, l. 8-9 = SEG 51, 1506; Fabiani 2001, 93-100; on archives in the Greek world see Faraguna 2005, with observation (p. 62) about the archeion prostatikon. In order to carry out the task of managing archives it was necessary to hold a sphragis – and the Iasos prostatai did so (Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 12) – which was normally affixed in Greece to public documents kept in the city archives or to copies of documents sent to foreign countries: see for instance TC, no. 110, l. 11-12, p. 239 and probably, even if the use of seals is not expressly quoted, Lambrinudakis & Wörrle 1983, esp. 346-50. On the use of seals on documents: Lalonde 1971, 84-108.

63 See Savalli 1985, 400-8; Faraguna 2005, 69-70. On the basis of Dem. 44.35 it would seem possible to deduce that a list of those having the right to participate in the Assembly existed in Athens (pinax ekklesiastikos: on this see Tuci 2007, 103-4). It is not to be excluded that something similar could also be found in Iasos and kept by the prostatai. A link between this board and the city registry was already suggested by Hicks 1887, 106-7 and GIBM IV, no. 420, 39-40; Swoboda 1890, 92; see also Pugliese Carratelli 1967-1968, 451.

64 On these see Gschnitzer 1973.

65 Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, II b = SEG 36, 982B, l. 2 – 3; II c = SEG 36, 982C, l. 3.

66 On this issue see Gschnitzer 1973, 794-5; concerning Iasos, he is inclined to interpret the prytaneis as being a committee of the council; for a different opinion see Rhodes & Lewis 1997, 483.

67 It is likely that the president of the Assembly was also the prytanis mentioned in the most ancient texts not with the formula ὁ δεῖνα ἐπεστάτει, which was common in Hellenistic inscriptions, but ὁ δεῖνα ἐπρυτάνευε (Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, II b = SEG 36, 982 B, l. 2-3; II c = SEG 36, 982 C, l. 3) which is placed, as is that attested in later texts, in the sequence of the dating elements. I intend to analyse this issue elsewhere (Fabiani, in preparation).

68 This piece of information, which was partly deduced from the comparison of the prescript of I. Iasos 25 and Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 2 = SEG 41, 930, l. 1-13 and no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 15-27 (see also Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1992, no. 444, p. 508), is now confirmed by the evidence of the subdivision of the Iasian administrative year into two semesters in Maddoli 2007, no. 11. B, l. 2.

69 I. Iasos 56, l. 2-4.

70 See e. g. I. Iasos 4, l. 37-41; 23, l. 7; 25, l. 5-9; 26, l. 4; 36, l. 5; 41, l. 4.

71 See above.

72 See, for example, I. Iasos 32, l. 4-5 or 42, l. 3.

73 This change is deduced from an examination of the evolution of the formulae; I refer for further discussion to Fabiani, in preparation. See also Delrieux 2005, 177.

74 As happens for instance in I. Iasos 4, l. 36-7, an inscription dating back to the beginning of the 2nd century BC, in which the formula πρυτάνεων γνώμη is unaccompanied by any other element.

75 This is the technical term used to indicate a written proposal put forward by someone who is not a member of the boulé: Müller 1995, 51.

76 Swoboda 1890, 71, 109,116-17 insists on this role. In this sense, the procedure stated in I. Iasos 23 is eloquent.

77 Such a procedure is recognizable where the expression πρυτάνεων γνώμη is followed by formulae such as περὶ ὧν ἐπῆλθον ὁ δεῖνα καὶ ὁ δεῖνα (see e.g. I. Iasos 73, l. 1-2) or περὶ ὧν ἐπῆλθον οἱ προστάται (e.g. Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 3, p. 53-4 = SEG 41, 931, l. 20-30).

78 Iasian judges, returning from Kalymna, address the prytaneis to report the outcome of their mission: I. Iasos 82, l. 7-18; see Müller 1995, 51.

79 Also in Rhodes the prytaneis were entrusted with the task of sending and receiving foreign and city legations; see Gschnitzer 1973, 767-9.

80 On the phylai in general see Roussel 1976 (still valuable); Funke 1993; Gehrke 2000; B. Smarczyk, NP 9 (2000), s.v. Phyle, col. 982-985.

81 The only name for a phyle known for certain is Epikreidai (I. Iasos 238), though whether it is original or a late renaming is unclear; it has a parallel only in Athens, where it probably belongs to a genos, in the form Epikleidai (Lambert 1993, 78-9,349-50). Because of the attestation of the personal name Boreas, the existence in the city of the Ionic phyle of the Boreis has also been assumed (Ehrhardt 1983, 99 and 383).

82 I. Iasos 1, l. 18-30.

83 I. Iasos 20, l. 14 and 16.

84 I. Iasos 5.

85 So far, Iasian inscriptions suggest that the enrolment of new citizens in the phylai and patriai was carried out according to two different procedures: selection by lot (see I. Iasos 51, l. 29: ἐπικληρῶσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ φυλήν, unless there was a shift in meaning from ‘to select by lot’ to ‘to enrol’: see Savalli 1985, 390) or by a free choice made by the new citizen (Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1, l. 7: εἶναι δὲ φυλῆς καὶ πατριᾶς αὐτὸν ἧς ἂμ βούληται). Less clear is the implicit meaning of the expression attested in I. Iasos 47, l. 4 (κατατάξαι αὐτὸν εἰς φυλὴν καὶ πατριήν), which might imply both an active role of the city in the choice of the subdivisions of the civic body to which the new citizen was to be assigned and a drawing of lots. We do not at present know whether the two procedures coexisted in certain periods (and whether the free option represented an additional privilege) or whether they reflect changes in procedure.

86 I. Iasos 47, l. 4; 51, l. 29; Maddoli 2007, no. 4, l. 9 and 18.1, l. 7. This prerogative of the Iasian phylai seems to be a characteristic that links them to others in Ionia: see Piérart 1985, 169-90, esp. 184. After granting politeia, the affiliation with the phylai became hereditary: Piérart 1983, 14-15.

87 I. Iasos 47, l. 4; the patrie is also attested in Maddoli 2007, no. 18.1, l. 7. The latter inscription dates back to the mid-3rd century BC. The patrie, therefore, could have lost its function quite early on. On patriai see Jones 1987, 322, who, discussing Miletos, supposes that they could be private structures. In the Karian region they are also attested at Mylasa, Olymos, Labraunda, Kameiros and Lindos.

88 Hicks 1887, 105-6; compare Swoboda 1890, 72; Bilabel 1920, 120; Jost 1935, 22-3, 36; Cassola 1957, 249 n. 76; Gschnitzer 1973,790-1; Ehrhardt 1983, 99 and 382-3; Gauthier 1990, 436-7, n. 56; Rhodes & Osborne 2003, 512. Jones 1987, 332-4 (espec. 333) is more cautious.

89 On the legendary foundation of Iasos (a first Argive ktisis allegedly followed by a Milesian re-foundation) see Polyb. 16.12.2; on this see Biraschi 1999. Some scholars have considered this numerical coincidence as proof of a Milesian foundation or re-foundation of the city: Bilabel 1920; Ehrhardt 1983, 26-7; Raffaelli 1995.

90 Gschnitzer 1973, 791-3.

91 Compare I. Iasos 1, l. 12-14; 37, l. 1-4; 56, l. 2-4; perhaps 53, l. 1-4; probably I. Iasos 20, l. 2-4 (according to the new reading by Gauthier 1990, 426); Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 4 = SEG 41, 932, l. 21-31; no. 5 = SEG 41, 933, l. 2-8; they are six also in Maddoli 2007, no. 22, l. 4-7.

92 One prytanis is attested in Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, II b = SEG 36, 982B, l. 2-3; II c = SEG 36, 982C, l. 3. Two prytaneis in Pugliese Carratelli 1985c, 155 = SEG 36, 983, l. 3-5 (compare also Pugliese Carratelli 1987 = SEG 38, 1059, l. 1-2, p. 290). Three prytaneis in Maddoli 2007, no. 9, l. 4-5, but four in Maddoli 2007, no. 6, l. 3-5; 8, l. 3-5; 11. A, l. 4-7. Five prytaneis are found in I. Iasos 39, l. 4-6 (a possible explanation of this number was given by Cousin & Diehl 1889, 30 n. 6), Maddoli 2007, 7, l. 4-6; 10, l. 3-5; seven in I. Iasos 4, l. 37-41; Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 2 = SEG 41, 930, l. 7-13 and no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 21-27; Maddoli 2007, no. 11. B, l. 5-8; no. 25. A2, l. 3-5. Finally eight are attested in I. Iasos, 76, l. 4-8 (with the correction suggested by Ph. Gauthier, BE, 1987, no. 18,274).

93 In I. Iasos 82, l. 2-7 the prytaneis become nine if we consider, as was usually the case, the epistates, Eumolpos Molpou, as a member of the board. However, it is quite likely that he is the same prytanis as Molpos Molpou, whose name may have been incorrectly written by the stonecutter.

94 Pugliese Carratelli 1989, no. 3 = SEG 41, 931, l. 27-30 and Maddoli 2007, no. 25. B, l. 4-5.

95 I. Iasos 264, l. 1-5.

96 I. Iasos 252; the dedication, put up to commemorate the conclusion of works, also includes the architect who cooperated in the work, but, as a professional, he represents a distinct unit.

97 I. Iasos 59, l. 4-7 and Maddoli 2007, no. 5, l. 2-5. Their number is not certain in I. Iasos 24 (see now Bosnakis & Hallof 2003, no. 10A, 219-21), where 4 archontes are listed, but the stone is broken, therefore it is uncertain whether the list is complete or not.

98 I. Iasos 1, l. 6-8.

99 The number four for the phylai in the Classical period can be corroborated from other evidence. In I. Iasos 1, l. 8-9 the tamiai number four. If Gauthier is right (Gauthier 1990, 435, l. 5-6; but see also above n. 24 and 34) in holding that the neopoiai, linked with the phylai as already seen, received the ekklesiastikon money from the tamiai, probably each neopoies from a tamias, this would constitute further evidence for that number in the Hekatomnid period.

100 As is well known, four is the classic number of Ionian tribes and of the original phylai of Athens (compare Hdt. 5.66.2; 69). On the Ionian origins of Iasos see Ehrhardt 1983, 26-27, 99, 114-15, 133, 193.

101 See n. 82. A mythical Argive foundation has also been attested (see also n. 90).

102 Müller 1995, 51.

103 Among the voices within this debate see Quaß 1993; for a different opinion see, among others, Habicht 1995; Gehrke 2003. See most recently Carlsson 2005 and Grieb 2007.

104 Nawotka 2003, 19-25.

105 Cf. Maddoli 2007, no. 5 with I. Iasos 56.

106 See above n. 17.

107 I. Iasos 1, l. 3.

108 Diod. 19.75.5; see Billows 1990, 120-1.

109 See Diod. 19.61.3-4; on this theme see Billows 1990, 197-230; Bencivenni 2003, 169-201, espec. 185.

110 On the relationship between Iasos and the Lagidai see most recently Giovannini 2004 and Migeotte 2005.

111 Diod. 19.62.1-2.

112 Diod. 19.105.1.

113 See Billows 1990, 200-3.

114 See for instance Bencivenni 2003, 105-49.

115 Maddoli 2007, no. 5.

116 On the creation of new phylai in honour of important persons see Habicht 1970, 153-5. It has been suggested that the inscription I. Iasos 5, l. 11-12 attests the existence of a tribe called [Basi]leis (restoration proposed by Pugliese Carratelli 1961-1962,578, n. 5, and criticized by Robert 1963b, 1503, who, on the contrary, preferred [Herak]leis).

117 Alexander had many relations with Iasos; a great favour that the sovereign granted to the city was giving back the Little Sea: I. Iasos 30. See the contributions by Reger and Konuk in this volume.

118 Blümel 1997, 137, l. 4-6; SEG 47, 1563.

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

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