Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Hellenistic Karia

 | 
Carbon Jan-Mathieu van Bremen Riet

Part six. Cities

The Inscribed documents on the temple of Hekate at Lagina and the date and meaning of the temple frieze

Riet van Bremen

Texte intégral

Introduction: documents, temple and frieze

  • 1 Chamonard 1895, esp. 260-1: ‘une sorte d’ allégorie symbolisant l’amitié des Romains et des habitan (...)
  • 2 Junghölter 1989, 121: ‘Eine Datierung der Urkunden anhand der Buchstabenformen muß außer Betracht b (...)

1The documents inscribed on the temple (fig. 1) of Hekate at Lagina, in Stratonikeian territory, have played an ambiguous role in determining the date and context of the building and interpreting the message of its famously elusive frieze. One, the so-called senatus consultum de Stratonicensibus of c. 81 BC (I. Stratonikeia 507) has been used widely to force a specific historical interpretation on the building’s north frieze, in particular its central scene, a dexiosis between an armed Greek soldier and an amazon, flanked by the goddess Hekate offering a libation (fig. 2). Almost without exception this scene has been explained as an allegory of the relationship between Rome and Asia, or Rome and Karia1. Another, the so-called anta decree (I. Stratonikeia 512), which mentions attacks on the sanctuary and manifestations of the goddess, through whose assistance the city was rescued from dangers and became ‘free, autonomous and in possession of the greatest goods’ (see the text and discussion below) has provoked so much disagreement as to its historical context that it is now generally dismissed as unusable for purposes of dating and interpretation2.

Fig. 1. Plan of the Hekateion and temple of Apollo at Alabanda (after Schober 1933, Pl. 5).

  • 3 The most recent discussion is Baumeister 2007, 15.
  • 4 Chamonard 1895: after 85 BC; Mendel 1912, 448-51: early Augustan; Schober 1933, 12-26: after 129 BC (...)

2Since it was first discovered in situ at Lagina, recorded, and brought to the archaeological museum in Istanbul for safekeeping, in the final decade of the 19th century, the frieze, which is contemporary with the temple3, has been the subject of a number of studies. The most comprehensive are by Mendel (1912) and Schober (1933), at some distance followed by the important study of the north frieze by Junghölter (1989), which, despite its title, deals also with more general issues of dating and with the composition of the frieze as a whole. More recent studies have been concerned only with parts of the frieze or with certain aspects of its interpretation. Significant contributions have been made by Tuchelt (1979), Schmidt (1991), Simon (1993) and Osada (1993), and by Rumscheid (1994). P. Baumeister’s very recent (2007) and valuable study deals mainly with stylistic aspects of the sculptural programme. Despite all this work, no firm conclusions have been reached either on the date of temple and frieze (dates ranging from the 160s to the 30s BC have been proposed, with a distinct preference in the recent literature for the early first century) or the frieze’s composition, or on the interpretation and the significance of its subject4. In his 1991 review of Junghölter, St. Schmidt wrote that the frieze’s interpretative problems remained unresolved, and Fr. Queyrel, in a detailed review of

Fig. 2. Central scene of the north frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/275 = Schober 1933, Pl. 223)

Fig. 3. Central scene of the south frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/250 = Schober 1933, Pl. 201).

Fig. 4. Amazons, armed soldiers and heroic nudes on the north frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/247 = Schober 1933, Pl. 220).

  • 5 Schmidt 1991; Queyrel 2009.

3Baumeister’s book, has again pointed out the need for a reading of the entire frieze’s meaning in its historical context5.

  • 6 So Queyrel 2009, 632.
  • 7 Stewart 1990, Pl. 830, legend, and p. 226. The plates are most easily accessible either in Schober (...)
  • 8 Junghölter explicitly posed the problem: ‘da sich die kampflose Verbindung von Amazonen und männlic (...)

4This is a programmatically very ambitious frieze, not perhaps quite as ambitious as that of the Great Altar at Pergamon, nor, certainly, as spectacular in the quality of its sculpture. But the complexity of the sculptural programme is remarkable. Understanding its message is part of understanding the religious and political history of western Karia. The broad consensus so far, despite different interpretations of detail, has been that the east and west sides have mythological themes: the birth of Zeus on the east frieze, over the pronaos; a gigantomachy on the west side. The long south frieze is thought to represents the (twelve? Olympian)6 gods among Karian(?) deities and local heroes or city personifications (fig. 3), while the north frieze – in which amazons, Greek cuirassed and heroic nude warriors stand together in what looks like the aftermath of a battle, while preparations are made for a festive celebration – is said to have a historical/allegorical meaning, with Rome, and Rome’s power in Asia at its centre (fig. 4). In a recent handbook on Greek sculpture this Rome-centered interpretation is given as the accepted one: the dexiosis scene of the north frieze is said to be a ‘Treaty between Rome and the Carian cities’, while the north frieze as a whole is referred to as ‘the most extended allegory in extant Hellenistic sculpture... casting the city’s alliance with Rome... into an idealized, timeless, form’7. Surprisingly little discussion has been generated by such an overtly political interpretation, surely an unprecedented and highly unlikely theme in a sacred context8.

  • 9 Baumeister 2007, 220 (summing up earlier work); Schober 1933, 13-26; Laumonier 1958, 353-8.
  • 10 See for instance the fluctuating opinions on the date of the – closely related – Smintheion near Ch (...)

5In terms of stylistic dating, some progress has been made: the message of recent archaeological and art-historical studies is that we should think of a date after c. 150 and before c. 100 BC as the most likely context for the construction of temple and frieze (a date already advocated by Schober and Laumonier, even if on erroneous grounds)9. Baumeister has recently argued (against earlier interpretations by Tuchelt and others) that much of the frieze’s decorative programme may be stylistically related to regional sculptural developments of approximately the mid-to-late second century, and that the frieze itself belongs in the final stages of these developments. Dates based on stylistic comparisons are, however, relative, and judgments as to what is ‘early’ or ‘late’ often subjective, so that trying to refine the chronology within the second century remains full of pitfalls10.

  • 11 See e.g. Tuchelt 1979, 43-4. Baumeister 2007, 151-62 gives a useful summary of the arguments. I. H. (...)
  • 12 Queyrel 2005. The programmatic relationship between Pergamon’s gigantomachy and that of Lagina has (...)

6Closer agreement has also been reached on the chronology of the so-called Hermogenian pseudo-dipteral temples of the late third and second centuries BC in western Asia Minor, of which the Hekateion is one – although there are still grey areas here too. A ‘higher’ date is now widely accepted for Hermogenes himself – the temples of Artemis at Magnesia and Dionysos at Teos, both of which were his work, are now firmly placed in the final decades of the third century – and this has allowed for a more plausible chronological unfolding of ‘successor’ temples. But the intervals postulated between the different phases of this development often seem arbitrary, and arguments that see in Lagina’s Hekateion the last (as late as the early first century) in a series of conceptually related buildings strike one as less than compelling11. More decisively, a recent study of the Great Altar at Pergamon, by F. Queyrel, suggests a terminus post quem for Lagina, by proposing a date for the Pergamene sculptural programme in the 160s and 150s BC. If it is accepted that the creators of the Lagina frieze took some of their compositional cues from its Pergamene precursor (rather than merely sharing its conceptual world) then the Hekateion must postdate the altar, though by how much remains unclear12.

7In light of these developments it seems worth posing once again the question of the relationship between temple, frieze and inscribed documents, with the aim of understanding better what historical circumstances generated the building of the temple and what religious, cultural and historical considerations may have determined the programme of the monumental frieze. I shall not, in this brief article, deal with these larger issues of interpretation other than very sketchily: I plan to do so more fully elsewhere. My focus here will be on what can be gained historically from a closer dating and contextualization of the inscriptions on the temple, including the problematic anta decree I.Stratonikeia 512, which represents the city’s response to a manifestation of Hekate in troubled circumstances.

The priest-lists and -dedications

  • 13 But the chronological sequence is not straightforward and the entire dossier is in need of re-exami (...)
  • 14 A few are inscribed on stelai or dedicatory altars, e.g. no 674. A. Laumonier, 1938, 251, calculate (...)

8Among the documents inscribed on the temple the most numerous are the records of Hekate’s priests, in the form of lists or personal dedications: the early ones, in list-form, appear to have begun on the (? interior walls of the) antae, after which they presumably continued on the outer walls13. Altogether the lists, dedications and commemorations of priests account for c. 130 entries in I. Stratonikeia: some are fragments, while others are longer dedicatory texts; the total includes a small number of kleidophoroi dedications14. They must have covered increasingly large stretches of wall as they were gradually inscribed over several centuries in a jumble of different hands, letter forms and sizes.

  • 15 On the drawings of Schober 1933, p. 16 and Tırpan 2005, p. 29 (pl. 31) the anta walls of the pronao (...)
  • 16 I. Stratonikeia does not consistently indicate dimensions or find-spots, even where the ed. pr. did (...)

9It is well known that the antae of temples were used for inscribing important documents, and that on them we often find the earliest texts. In the case of Lagina, only two anta blocks are certainly inscribed on the narrow side (0.72 m), that is on the end blocks facing the viewer looking towards the entrance. The antae (and thus the pronaos) of the Hekateion are unusually deep (5.73 m) in proportion to the cella (7.71 m) but I have assumed that, whenever the indication ‘bloc d’ ante’is given, this means an end block that has three smooth, inscribable sides: a narrow front (with a consistent width c. 0.72 cm and a height varying between 39 and 47 cm) and two longer sides (of between 1.02 and 1.40 m). Others, with similar dimensions but inscribed only on one of the long sides, I have taken to belong to the rest of the anta-walls of the pronaos15. For Lagina, eighteen inscribed blocks fit the overall anta dimensions, among which ten are end blocks. All are listed in the table below, with the sizes and find-spots as they were recorded by Cousin, Benndorf or Chamonard16. Each block is indicated by a letter (capital for end blocks, lower case for the others), followed by the I. Stratonikeia numbers of the text(s) inscribed on them; some blocks carry more than one inscription.

Fig. 5. Inscribed blocks on the anta wall.

  • 17 Laumonier 1938, 256-7, reconstituted these lines (and this block) as being the final eight lines of (...)
  • 18 Şahin, following Laumonier, restored the name of the grandfather as [τοῦ Καλ] λίου, but this is not (...)
  • 19 BCH 11 (1887) 23, no. 33. Laumonier 1938, 275 with n. 3; Robert 1937, 552. The letters in Benndorf’ (...)
  • 20 No squeeze survives of this text either, which was published by Diehl and Cousin after a copy of Be (...)

10Most of the texts are either priest-lists or -dedications, with the exception of 512a and b (the anta decree discussed below), 514 and 520 (found at the south and south-east side of the temple respectively). 514 is a dedication of cult garments by a certain Maneilios (Μανείλιος)17, son of Kallias, son of - -[lios (or -lias)18, to Hekate of (l. 4-5) τὰ ὠθόνια σ[ὺν] θ [....]ησ [-------]: a veil according to A. Laumonier; ‘des étoffes de lin fin…. certainement pour la parure de la déesse’ according to L. Robert. No date is given but the text is unlikely to predate the first century BC19. No. 520, with four fragmentary lines (see below) is called ‘Fragment einer Lex sacra (?)’ by Şahin, but this is not at all certain20.

11The total height of the ten (or nine) surviving ‘anta blocks’ adds up to c. 4.50 m. The height of each anta, like that of the cella walls, as calculated from Schober’s drawing, was c. 7.50 m: about sixteen blocks per anta-front. A number of blocks is thus either lost or remained uninscribed on the narrow, most prominent, side.

  • 21 The measurements of the stone as calculated from the squeeze kept in the Fonds Louis Robert in Pari (...)
  • 22 Cella blocks seem to have been less deep than those of the antae: typically 42-45 cm, while they of (...)
  • 23 As a result, the two parts of I.Stratonikeia no. 660 should be separated too.

12A. Laumonier argued that eight fragments of the earliest priest-lists survive, containing a total of 63 names. Their corresponding I.Stratonikeia numbers are: 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608. Not all of these are, as Laumonier thought, anta inscriptions: only 603, 604, 605, 607 have the right size, 602 probably does21; no measurements are known for 601.606 has different dimensions to all the others (h. 0.45 x w. 0.98: it is thus not to be joined to 604 as L. tentatively suggested, which would have reduced the total number of lists to seven and names to 57), and neither is 608 (h. 0.47; w. 0.95; d. 0.42): both must be of the cella wall22. In addition, nos 611, 612, 613, 627, 633, 636, 657, 660, 670, 695a (all apart from 695a fragments of lists) were also very likely inscribed on the antae walls. No. 609, a list crucial to Laumonier’s chronology, is not as he argued a continuous list inscribed over three joining blocks: the first two blocks have different measurements from the third, and there is no reason why the first and second sections should be part of the same list, since the letter forms do not match (fig. 6)23.

Fig. 6. I. Stratonikeia 609, ll. 1-9 (photo Fonds Louis Robert).

13Laumonier’s reason for placing nos. 601-608 earliest in the overall chronology is not just their–supposed–position on the temple, but also, and especially, their manner of recording the priesthoods. He argued that all must predate the first securely datable (though now much shortened) list, no. 609, which begins:

[-----------] Λεοννάτ[ου]
[Κο]λιοργεὺς κατὰ πεντα-
[ετ] ηρίδα τὴν ἀχθε)
iσαν μετὰ
4 [τ]οὺς πολέμους πρώτην

  • 24 There are prosopographical arguments too.
  • 25 Laumonier considers the possibility that the lists were re-inscribed when the temple was built. The (...)

14While the penteteric festival of the Hekatesia Romaia was instituted in 81 BC after Sulla’s victory over Mithridates (I.Stratonikeia 507, ll. 5-7: τὸ[ν] ἀγῶνα τὸν τιθέμενον κατὰ πενταετηρίδα Ἑκάτηι Σωτείραι Ἐπιφανεῖ καὶ Ῥώμηι θεᾶι Εὐεργέτιδι), the habit of recording the penteteric priesthood for each fifth priest in a list did not apparently begin until some decades later, when the ‘first penteteric festival celebrated after the wars’ is recorded (at the start of no. 609 – though see above on the unreliability of 609 itself). The ‘wars’ must therefore refer to the war against Labienus in 41/40 BC24. Laumonier calculated that the tenth penteteria fell in 41 BC, so the ‘first after the wars’ must refer to the next one in the cycle, namely that of 37 BC. All lists mentioning the penteteric priesthood must belong after this date; the lists that do not, Laumonier argued, predate this year. Eight (more or less complete) lists of this kind survive (nos. 601-608), with a total of 63 names, which would take us ‘une centaine d’ années avant J.-C., non loin de la date présumée de la construction du temple, bien avant Mithridate….’. Laumonier took this as an argument for a building date in the 120s (also advocated by Schober, on different grounds)25. But he did not allow for names lost: a complete block could have taken up to 10-11 names (11 survive on E 605) so even those on his eight lists could have added up to at least 80. In addition, as I have tried to show, both pre-and post-37 BC lists were probably inscribed on the entire (inner?) surface of the deep (north?) anta, in no recoverable order, though certainly not just on the end blocks. The total number of pre-penteteric names may have been greater than Laumonier thought.

The senatus consultum dossier

  • 26 I.Stratonikeia 505 (letters and senatus consultum) 507 (civic decree) and 508 (list of acknowledgin (...)

15This, the temple’s epigraphic pièce de résistance, is a dossier inscribed over five columns (14 surviving blocks out of a total of c. 24) on one of the temple-walls. It consists of five separate documents: two letters of Sulla followed by a decree of the Senate of 81 BC; then a decree of Stratonikeia about the inscribing of the names of the cities, kings and dynasts that had acknowledged the asylia of the sanctuary and the penteteric festival in honour of Hekate ‘Saviour and Manifest’ (Ἑκάτηι Σωτείραι Ἐπιφανεῖ) and Thea Roma ‘Benefactress’ (Ῥώμηι θεᾶι Εὐεργέτιδι). This is followed by an (incomplete) list of cities26.

16In the senatus consultum itself the city is granted extensive privileges in return for its faithful backing of Rome and Sulla in the war against Mithridates of 88-85 BC. In this long text (133 lines) the charis, philia and symmachia between Stratonikeia and Rome are renewed (l. 71), and the city’s territory is substantially extended. The senate acknowledges (without necessarily granting it for the first time) the asylia of the temple (59-61): ὅπως τοῦτο ἄσυ[λον ὑπάρχηι] and (115): Τὸ [ἱερ]ὸν τῆς [κάτης] ὅπως [ι ἄσυλον].

  • 27 Şahin 2002, 1-21, no 2 (photo p. 3). This fits between blocks B and C on the drawing of Cousin in B (...)
  • 28 See the refs. at I.Stratonikeia 505.
  • 29 Newton 1862, 795 (fr. E); Benndorf and Niemann 1884, 155 (fr. G and H); LBW III 543-4 (uncertain fr (...)
  • 30 These are nos. 601-741 in I.Stratonikeia (though not all were inscribed on the temple). I.Stratonik (...)
  • 31 Cousin’s notebook AS2C7 contains Lagina notes, but they are not very detailed. Newton gives no meas (...)

17The lay-out of the different components of the dossier (a missing block recently found on site and published by M. Ç. Şahin can now be slotted in between two blocks of the upper course) was first reconstructed by Ch. Cousin and Ch. Diehl, who numbered the blocks and provided a drawing27. Earlier fragments had been published by Newton, Benndorf and Niemann, and by LeBas and Waddington28. It is remarkable that none of these careful publications gives any indication of where in relation to the temple the blocks were found and thus of their original position on the cella walls29. This is the more surprising since Diehl and Cousin, who used Benndorf’s notes and copies for their publication of many of the Lagina inscriptions, regularly indicate such details for the priest-lists and individual priest dedications30. No sizes are given for the individual blocks on which the dossier is inscribed, nor does anyone appear to have attempted a calculation of the total wall space covered31. My own attempt to do so follows.

  • 32 Above, n. 22.
  • 33 The beginnings of some of the lines of the sc are indented by spaces of c. 1-7 letters. This lay-ou (...)
  • 34 The block published by Şahin 2002 has c. 33 letters over 86.5 cm. which suggests a maximum width pe (...)

18The drawing of Diehl and Cousin in BCH indicates clearly that the blocks were of different widths, which is confirmed by what we know of the size of other blocks of the cella walls. The block recently published by Şahin has a width of 86.5 cm and a height of 47 cm. On the drawing of Diehl and Cousin this ‘missing piece’ is among the smaller blocks. Sizes given for other blocks of the cella range between 92 and 121 cm in width. Their height ranges between 42 and 47 cm32. An approximate calculation based on these measurements yields a total width for the five columns (inscribed over four courses) of about 7 m and a height of just below 2 m. The size of the letters, which is given as between 2 and 2.5 cm, and line-lengths of between 44 and 54 letters for the body of the senatus consultum (but only 30-34 for the civic decree in column V)33, fit this reasonably well34.

Fig. 7. I. Stratonikeia 512b, ll. 3-13, copy of Benndorf.

  • 35 The total height of the cella wall was about 7.50 m (calculated from Schober’s drawing, above, fig. (...)
  • 36 Specifically listed as south: IS 520, but this, as I have argued, is probably an anta block, and 62 (...)
  • 37 There is no reason to suspect bias in the recording so the imbalance must be significant.

19On which wall was the dossier inscribed? The short west wall, at 6.22 m wide, could not have taken the full width of the five columns, so only the two long cella walls (south and north), each of which had a total length of 14.94 m, come into question. The entire dossier therefore covered slightly under one half of one wall, either north or south: can we determine which35? Since none of the surviving blocks has its provenance recorded (this includes the block recently published by Şahin), we must work from indirect evidence. Many of the blocks inscribed with priest lists or commemorations are recorded as having been found on the north side of the temple. The information is not consistently given for all published inscriptions, but I have counted at least thirty (some of which carry several inscriptions) recorded as ‘côté nord’, or ‘nord-est’, with only two blocks specifically said to have come from the temple’s south side36. It looks, then, as if the temple’s north wall was reserved for (or developed as a surface for) these priestly records, with the earlier lists on the (?)interior anta wall. Given the relatively high number of ‘provenance recorded’ blocks from this side, and the almost complete absence of blocks so recorded from the south and west walls, we may assume that a high proportion of the unprovenanced ‘priest’ blocks also came from the north side37. If this is the case, then there would have been no space on this side of the temple to accommodate both the large number of priest inscriptions and all seven metres of the senatus consultum and related documents. This important dossier was therefore very likely inscribed on the cella’s south wall.

  • 38 Above, n. 1.

20One obvious question follows: if the temple’s north frieze does indeed represent in some form or other – the sealing of a treaty, a battle won, an allegory of the peaceful conditions prevailing in the sanctuary guaranteed by Rome – the impact of Rome on Asia Minor, or Karia38, then why was the most important Rome-related set of documents not inscribed underneath this frieze, but on the opposite wall, underneath the south frieze, whose central message has nothing to do with Rome? The answer cannot be that the north side had already been ‘taken’, because by the early first century BC only the antae walls (inside and out?) had begun to be filled with inscriptions. Could it be that no programmatic relationship was perceived between text and frieze? If so, this disassociation seems to me to be a strong argument against a political, Rome-centred, interpretation of the north frieze, and indirectly, against a building date for the temple in the post-Mithridatic period.

The anta decree

  • 39 With thanks to Dr. G. Rehrenbock who provided me with the photograph and confirmed that the squeeze (...)

21This decree, in honour of the goddess Hekate, is inscribed on the narrow faces of two anta blocks. The absence of good photographs, squeezes or even facsimile copies of the inscription has meant that dating on letter forms has hardly been attempted at all. This problem is likely to remain: unless the blocks are rediscovered during the current excavations, we can only work from the one existing photograph of the upper block (ll. 1-22; in Schober 1933, p. 14, fig. 3) which is very unclear. Otto Benndorf’s majuscule copy of the text on the lower block (ll. 23-33) survives in the Kleinasiatische Kommission in Vienna (fig. 7)39, showing that the letters are more or less similar to those of Schober’s photograph and thus that the two belong together, but without providing clarification of the date. Below I first republish the text, then discuss its date and context.

  • 40 ‘Bloc d’ante, portant sur une face les inscriptions a et b, sur l’autre l’inscription 65’ (a mistak (...)
  • 41 See above, fig. 1.

22Two anta blocks [a] and [b]. [a] was published by Hatzfeld in BCH 44 (1920) 70-2, no. 1, from a copy of Chamonard, without majuscule text. Ph. in Schober (1933) p. 14, Fig. 3; the surface of the stone is encrusted with lichen and the letters are hard to distinguish. H. gives the dimensions as ‘h. 0 m 75; larg. 0 m 48’ (no depth is given) but the ph. shows that these must be reversed: h. 48; w. 75. The text is more or less complete to l. and r. The lower block [b] was first published by Ch. Diehl and G. Cousin from a copy and squeeze of Benndorf (here fig. 7), in BCH 11 (1887) 160-63, no. 71 (‘Bloc d’ ante’); on the long side I. Stratonikeia 636 and 607 are inscribed, both fragments of priest-lists. The dimensions are given as: h. 0.44; w. 1.32; d. 0.72 m40. The last measurement must be of the surface on which our decree was inscribed. The two blocks therefore match approximately – and match the dimensions of other anta blocks of the temple41. The line-length in both parts varies between 31 and 38 letters (with just one line, a8, having 42).

a]
[
Ἐπ] στεφανηφόρου Διοκλείους τοῦ Θευγενίου
[
Ἡρ]ακλεῶνος ὀγδόηι ἐξ εἰκάδος, ἔδοξεν τῆι
βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δή{ι}μω⟨ι⟩, πρυτάνεων γνώμη.
4
ἐπειδὴ διὰ παντὸς δῆμος ἀποδεικνύμενος
τὴν εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείαν τε καὶ εὐχαριστίαν
καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶι συμφέροντι τυγχάννω
τῆς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπισημασίας διεσώθη -
8
κ τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιστάντος αὐτὸν καιροῦ
καὶ ἐλεύθερος καὶ αὐτόνομος ἐγένετο καὶ τῶν με-
γίστων ἀγαθῶν κύριoς κατεστάθη, τῆς Ἑκάτης
ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις συνπαρισταμένης αὐτῶι ἐπι-(?)
12 [----------------]
οντα προ[----------]

b]
[--------
c. 10–14 -- τοὺς] ̣σεβήσαντα[ς εἰς τὴν]
[
χώρα] ν ἡμ[ῶν οὖσ] α̣ν ἱερ[ὰν κ] αὶ ἄσυλον το[ῖς?-]
[...]
ῶι ἐπέβαλεν ἐλασσώμ[ατα-------------]
4 [
ἐπ]οιήσατο [κ]αταξίως τῶν γεγενημένων vacat
[
]ξ αὐτῶν εἴς τε τὸ θεῖον καὶ εἰς τὸν σύμπαντα [δῆ]-
μον ἀδι[κ]ημάτων ὥστε φανερὰν πᾶσιν ἀνθ[ρώ]-
ποις ὑπάρχειν τὴν τῆς θεᾶς ἐνάργειαν·
8
τύχηι ἀγαθῆι δεδόχθαι, κυρωθέντος τοῦδ[ε]
τοῦ ψηφίσματος, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα ὑπαρ-
[
χ]εῖν περὶ τῶν ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι διοικουμένων κα
-[
τά] τε τὰ πάτρια καὶ τὰ προδεδογμένα, ὁμοί-
12 [
ως] δὲ καὶ αἱ ἐπιγραφαὶ τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν ἐπιθ[..]

a.3 ΔΗΜΩ lapis; a. 5 εὐσεβίαν ed. pr.; b. 4 καὶ ἀξίως: edd. pr.

Letters and orthography

  • 42 Benndorf’s notebook does not give measurements either.
  • 43 There are very few inscriptions that have the spelling δηι- for δη. Most date from the second centu (...)
  • 44 Cf. L. Robert’s discussion of the letter forms of the Polemaios and Menippos decrees from Klaros, t (...)

23No size is given for the letters in either edition42. From a rough measuring of Schober’s photograph, they are somewhere between 1 and 1.5 cm. All have marked apices (‘ausgeprägte Schwalbenschwanzapices’ wrote Schober, who saw the stone). Alphas have broken cross bars, thetas a horizontal bar; the right hasta of the nu and pi do not touch down; the upper horizontal of the pi extends beyond the right hasta; omicron is smaller than the other letters (e.g. in l. 4, in παντὸς δῆμος); similarly theta (l. 9: ἐλεύθερος); the omega is open and smaller than other letters and has distinctive horizontal branches with apices e.g. l. 3: πρυτάνεων). There is no zeta. Orthographically of note is one instance of an intrusive iota: ηι for η (in l. 3: ΔΗIΜΩ for ΔΗΜΩΙ) though this may be a stone cutter’s error; εὐσεβίαν in l. 5, as read by ed. pr. is in fact εὐσεβείαν on the stone43. Throughout, the iotas are adscript. The letters are compatible with a date in the second half of the second century BC44. Their size distinguishes them from inscriptions of the first century, which typically tend to have letters of 2.5-3 cm or more.

  • 45 Above, n. 27.

24An obvious comparison is with the text of the senatus consultum of 81 BC, of which we now have a good photograph thanks to M Ç. Şahin’s recent publication of a new block45. This text is written in a monumental style which seems consciously to refer back to earlier Hellenistic lettering (sigmas with diverging branches, omicrons and omegas of full size etc.). The letters are 2-2.5 cm. If the anta decree and the sc dossier were inscribed at the same time and referred to the same event, namely the victory over Mithridates, then there must have been a good reason, not only why they were made to look so different, but also why they were not inscribed on the same wall. Since the sc dossier includes a civic decree inviting acknowledgments of the new Hekatesia Romaia in which Hekate’s epiphanic qualities are mentioned, what would have been more obvious than to include the anta decree if, indeed, it referred to the same circumstances? This is another consideration against dating this decree to the aftermath of the Mithridatic war.

  • 46 I am grateful to E. Varinlioğlu for sending me photographs of the squeezes of this inscription. The (...)

25We may also compare the letter forms of I. Stratonikeia 1333 (fig. 8): a public commemoration for the men who had died in the war against [Mithridates] ‘and his satraps’46:

  • 47 In l. 4 clear traces of the alpha and lambda before the nu are visible on the squeeze.

δῆμος ἔθαψεν ἀνδ[------------------------]
2 [-----]
ας ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος καὶ τῆς [------------]
[
ἐν τ] ῶι συσθατέντι πολέμωι πρὸς βασιλέα [Μιθραδάτην?]
4 [
καὶ πά]λ̣ιν πρὸς τοὺς σατράπας αὐτο[]47

26The letters are just over 3 cm high, but since the monumental base on which the text is inscribed was at least 1.60 m wide, the letters were probably intended to be conspicuous (fig. 8). There are certain similarities between these letters and those of the anta decree, in particular the distinctive apices and the shape of the pi, but there are also significant differences: several letters are distinctly narrow, such as the mu, the nu, the alphas and the epsilon; the omegas are larger and open, with apices directly attached: this is a more developed and mannered script.

Fig. 8. I. Stratonikeia 1333, squeeze of r. side (E. Varinlioğlu).

  • 48 A photo of this text can be found in Şahin 1995, pl. 18.

27For earlier comparisons we have the decrees of the Kallipolitai and Laodikeis for the Stratonikeian Leon found at Panamara, which are securely dated to the 150s48. These too have alphas with broken cross-bars and omicrons and omegas of similar size and openness to those in the anta decree. Sigmas, epsilons, pis and nus are all similar to those in our decree. The lines are more condensed and the letters are smaller. Given that we have only a very mediocre photograph of both, caution is necessary, but the comparison shows that a date in the midto late second century is certainly possible. In the next section I present further reasons for attributing this decree to the late second century.

The historical context

28The circumstances described in the decree are, first, dangers from which the gods saved the demos, with continuous assistance from Hekate, after which the people became free and autonomous and acquired the greatest benefits. Secondly, after devastation caused to the chora, the goddess, or the demos(?) was able to inflict losses/punishments (?): ἐλασσώματα, on the desecrators in proportion to the injustice done to the gods (τὸ θεῖον) and to the people, thus making manifest the enargeia of the goddess. My discussion below follows the text.

  • 49 See the discussion in Robert 1989, 68, n. 20
  • 50 All examples now conveniently assembled in Thonemann 2003, 98, n. 14.
  • 51 J. and L. Robert 1989, 68, n. 20. For a discussion see Thonemann, 2003, 98, n. 14, arguing persuasi (...)

29a 6-7: καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐπὶ τῶι συμφέροντι τυγχάνων τῆς παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπισημασίας διεσώθη…: ‘and thus, to its benefit, obtaining the esteem/special attention of the gods (the demos) was saved…’. The word ἐπισημασία has a very specific second-century distribution and context. It occurs twice in the well-known Menippos decree from Klaros (end of the 2nd century)49: I. 6-7: τῆς ἀξίας ἔτυχεν ἐπισημασίας; II. 32-3: ἐπισημασίας ἐτυχεν ἀξιοζηλώτου; also in I. Mylasa 120, l. 8: ἀξίους ἐπισημασίας καὶ τιμῆς (2nd cent. BC); and ibidem 119, ll. 3-4 (2nd cent. BC), and in 871, l. 15 (Olymos): [ἀρ]ίστης ἐπισημασίας ἕνεκεν (2nd cent. BC; the honorand, Sibilos, helped his city in ἀναγκαίοις καιροῖς)50. Cf. also I. Didyma 142, l. 24: [ἔτυχεν] ἐπισημασίας (mid 2nd cent.); I. Ephesos 202, l. 9 (letter of Attalos II to Ephesos): δικαίας παρἡμὶν καὶ παρὰ τούτωι ἐτύγχανεν ἐπισημασίας. L. Robert commented on the use of the word in the Lagina decree: ‘l’episémasia peut venir des dieux, comme à Stratonicée, vers le même époque encore.......; on se rapproche alors du sens de ἐναργεία’51.

  • 52 Cf. I.Iasos 612, ll. 24-5, of 127 BC: συνέβαινεν θ[λ]ίβεσθαι τήν πόλιν [ἡμῶν βαρέως κτλ.]
  • 53 On this text see van Bremen 2004b, 220.

30a. 7-8: διεσώθη ἐκ τῶν κινδύνων καὶ ἐκ τοῦ περιστάντος αὐτὸν καιροῦ: though by no means a unique expression, this calls to mind the decree from Bargylia about the epiphany of Artemis, dated to the time of the Aristonikos war (I. Iasos 613) proposed by Poseidonios (ll. 2-5: ἐ[πειδὴ ἐν τῶι πολέμωι πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων] περιστάντων κινδύνων τήν τε πόλιν ἡμῶν καὶ [τὴν χώραν, ὁ δῆμος, διὰ τὴν τῆς Ἀρτέμιδος] ἐπιφάνειαν τήν τε πάτριον αὐτονομ[ίαν διέσωσε καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς] παρεγενήθη κατάστασιν. Cf. also l. 11: περιστάντος τε κινδύνου καὶ τὴν ἡμ[…..]. We find similar wording in a recently published decree from the Harpasos valley (Bargasa?) dated to soon after 129 BC in which a certain Apollonios managed to dissuade the Roman general Manius Aquilius when the latter wrote to ask for his soldiers to be billeted in their city, on the grounds that the city had suffered enough and was still in a state of turbulence and anxious anticipation of further upheaval to come: θλιβομένου διά τε τὴν περίστασιν τῆς χώρας καὶ ταραχῆ[ς καὶ προ] σ̣δοκίας μεγάλης οὔσης κατά τε τὴν [χώραν]52. A very fragmentary decree of Panamara, of uncertain (Hellenistic) date, refers to ἐν τῶι περισταθέν[τι καιρῶι---] in ll. 11-12, in the context of an epiphany of the god (ll. 2-4) and with reference to asylia in l. 853.

31a. 9-10: ἐλεύθερος καὶ αυτόνομος ἐγένετο καὶ τῶν μεγίστων ἀγαθῶν κύριος κατεστάθη (cf. the Bargylian κατάστασις, although there is also the later example of [? ἐν βελτίονι κα] ταστάσει εἶναι of the senatus consultum l. 30), and there are both earlier and later examples of this word. The autonomia also occurs in the Bargylia decree for Artemis Kindyas in the context of the Aristonikos war, 4: τήν τε πάτριον αὐτονομ[ίαν διέσωσε] (see above), but no precise dating can be derived from this general term. Μέγιστἀγαθά need not be a reference specifically to the benefits received in the senatus consultum of 81 BC, though of course it would fit the privileges granted there. There is no explicit mention of Rome as the power that gave (back) the greatest goods, freedom and autonomy.

  • 54 FD III. 4, 75, ll. 12-13 (172/1 BC), cf. also Syll.3 398, a Koan decree of 278 BC about the attack (...)

32b 3: ἐπέβαλεν with dative: ‘to inflict something upon someone’ (LSJ I. 3): is the goddess the subject here (as Laumonier 1958, 354-5, assumed), or the demos? The word ἐλασσώμ[ατα]: losses, punishment, fines, is rare in inscriptions; it occurs in a decree of Miletoupolis in honour of a benefactor in combination with the usual kindunoi and kakopathia; with a similar meaning we find it also in the new Metropolis inscription of the late 2nd cent. BC, in the context of a boundary dispute (B 18). In the Roman law against piracy from Knidos of 101/100 BC (I. Knidos 31) the meaning is clearly ‘fines’. In our decree both meanings are possible. For the sense of the god punishing, see the lines from FD III. 4, 75 discussed below. What might be the object of [ἐπ]οιήσατο in l. 3-4 is a puzzle: λόγους (?) in the sense of ‘giving an acount of’ is frequent in Hellenistic decrees, but how it would fit the sense here is unclear. Whatever it is has to be understood as being ‘in accordance with’ ([κ] αταξίως) the ἀδι[κ]ήματα committed against the gods and the entire demos. καταξίως is more commonly used in a positive sense: decreeing honours commensurate with services rendered, but here the meaning can only be negative. When the sanctuary at Delphi had been invaded by the Macedonian king Perseus and his troops, the wrongdoers ἔτυχον π[αρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἀξίας τιμορίας]. The sentence is almost entirely restored, but the general sense comes close to that of our text, and the assumption is that the god meted out the punishment54.

33b.12: ἐπιθ[...]: ἐπιθ[εῖναι]; ἐπιθ[ήσαι]: ‘to add to’, ‘to apply’: not a common word, but the meaning is that inscriptions are to be added to objects to be dedicated or already dedicated (the anathemata).

34If the points so far made are accepted, then only two historical contexts are plausible: the war against Aristonikos of 133-129 and the Mithridatic war of 88-85 BC (there is no reason to think that liberation from Rhodian control after 167 BC involved the kind of violent circumstances here referred to). The language of the decree suggests a second-century date for the events described and so point to the Aristonikos war; the decree’s letter forms do not contradict this. Lines a9-10, on the other hand, seem to steer us towards Mithridates and the considerable benefits newly derived from Rome. In both cases the autonomia and eleutheria referred to had already been among the privileges enjoyed by the city since being freed from Rhodian control, and a renewal of the status quo could be justified for either situation.

  • 55 In the other Stratonikeia, on the Kaikos. On all this see most recently B. Dreyer in I.Metropolis 6 (...)
  • 56 Briant et al. 2001, 243.

35We have no direct evidence for damage done to Stratonikeian territory by bands of soldiers connected with Aristonikos. The recent publication of an inscription from Çamlidere in the Harpasos valley (probably Bargasa, soon after 129 BC), in which a local man Apollonios managed to dissuade Manius Aquilius, when the latter requested that his soldiers be put up in their city, on the grounds that the city and its territory had suffered enough and were still in a state of turbulence and anxious anticipation of further upheaval to come (above, p. 500), has made it clear that the impact of the Aristonikos revolt was much more widespread than was previously thought, and affected the interior as well as the coastal cities well after Aristonikos himself had been captured and put to death, in 129 BC55. Karia in particular seems to have been a theatre of conflict for some time. Briant et al., in their discussion of the new inscription from Bargasa, refer to ‘troubles qui affectent la région dépuis la révolte d’ Aristonicos jusqu’en 127’56.

  • 57 So e.g. Meadows 2002, 122: ‘The fact that he felt moved to punish the city hints at the trouble it (...)

36We do, on the other hand, have direct evidence for the damage done by Mithridates and his men to the city and its territory, even if not directly to the sanctuary. Appian, Mith. 21 tells us that Mithridates took Stratonikeia, left a garrison in the city and imposed a fine: Στρατονίκειαν εἷλε καὶ ἐζημίωσε χρήμασι καὶ φρουράν ἐς τὴν πόλιν ἐσήγαγε. Passages in the sc of 81 BC also imply that damage was done in the process of besieging and taking the city, especially ll. 41: ἑλὼν δἐκράτησ[ε]ν… and in 63-4, where efforts to recover goods and hostages are mentioned57. I.Stratonikeia 1333, already discussed, shows that Stratonikeians died fighting against the king and his ‘satraps’.

37On present evidence it is not possible to decide to which of these two episodes the anta decree refers. The language points strongly to the second century but we cannot exclude the Mithridatic episode. This is unfortunate, but not disastrous, for even if we opt for Mithridates’men as desecrators of the territory (and the sanctuary?), there are still indications in the text that there was a sanctuary already in existence and therefore the victory over Mithridates and the Roman privileges cannot have been the reason for its construction. The final lines of b, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα ὑπαρ[χ]εῖν περὶ τῶν ἐν τῶι ἱερῶι διοικουμένων κα[τά] τε τὰ πάτρια καὶ τὰ προδεδογμένα, ὁμοί[ως] δὲ καὶ αἱ ἐπιγραφαὶ τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν ἐπιθ[εῖναι?] presuppose a centrally managed sanctuary; the inscribing of anathemata suggests an existing architectural context within which they are to be placed. It is therefore unlikely that temple and frieze should have been built only after the Mithridatic disaster.

  • 58 There is no evidence that the temple itself was seriously damaged either in 133-129 (127) BC or by (...)

38But we need not see the Aristonikos episode as the direct reason for the temple’s construction either. Almost unavoidably, many have tried to do precisely this, pinpointing a specific political event as the immediate reason for the (re-58) building of the temple and as the inspiration for the frieze’s main message: the removal of Rhodian control in 167 BC, or the defeat of Aristonikos in 129, or the end of the first Mithridatic war and the subsequent senatus consultum of 81, or the invasion of Labienus in 41. Date and interpretation, as I have already implied, unfortunately have an uncomfortable way of shoring each other up, to no good effect.

  • 59 Cf. H. Mert’s considerations about the date of the Hellenistic gymnasium at Stratonikeia: after the (...)

39There are good reasons for avoiding such an approach. Taking into account the arguments presented in this paper, I suggest that the decision to build the temple came at a time of relative calm and prosperity, very likely before the Aristonikos revolt, sometime in the 150 to early 130s59.

  • 60 Meadows 2002, 98-101 with Pl. 19 for the coins; 98 n. 8 for the cult image.

40Strong additional support for an earlier date comes from a recent re-dating of Stratonikeia’s silver coinage. A. Meadows has argued persuasively that a relatively small but distinctive issue of silver drachms and tridrachms should be placed at the beginning of the Stratonikeian mint’s activity, and dated to between the 140s and 125 BC (Meadows classifies the series as Group 1). On the obverse is a head of Zeus (whether Panamareus or Chrysaoreus is not clear); on the reverse a standing Hekate, a torch in her left hand, a phiale in the right. She wears a polos with a crescent moon. The image looks remarkably like that on Schober’s plate 223 (above, fig. 2) where Hekate flanks the central pair of amazon and warrior (there the polos survives in outline only). Meadows suggests that the coin image may be based on the actual cult statue (it is represented again on coins of the later Roman period)60. If so, then the image on the frieze may go back to the same cult statue.

The meaning of the frieze

  • 61 Bruns-Özgan 1995, cf. Baumeister 2007, 111-12.
  • 62 On Zeus Kretagenes in a Karian context (Mylasa, Amyzon) see most recently Mastrocinque 2002, but hi (...)

41I suggest that the frieze is, in some way or other, concerned with the (‘real’ or symbolic) birth of Hekate within the local Karian or Chrysaoric pantheon and with the justification of her role in its mythical (foundation-) narratives; the north frieze, however opaque to us at the moment, possibly narrates a (?Chrysaoric) foundation myth of sorts. The birth of Zeus on the east side (above the temple’s entrance) underlines this deity’s great prominence within the Chrysaoric religious system. The setting, with its many landscape personifications, so reminscent of the Knidos altar frieze’s Delian scene-setting61, may well be intended to represent Krete, birthplace of Zeus62. To put Rome and a starkly political message at the centre, an interpretation favoured by almost all who have written on this frieze, seems less and less likely.

Notes

1 Chamonard 1895, esp. 260-1: ‘une sorte d’ allégorie symbolisant l’amitié des Romains et des habitants de Stratonicée’; Mendel 1912, 447: ‘die durch Handschlag verbundene Gruppe eines Kriegers im Panzer… und einer Amazone… besiegelt den Bündnisvertrag zwischen Rom und Karien’; Schober 1933, 74: ‘der Krieger als ‘Personifikation der römischen Macht in Gestalt eines Feldherrn’ die Amazone als ‘Personifikation Kleinasiens und weiter als Vertreterin einer Provinz’.

2 Junghölter 1989, 121: ‘Eine Datierung der Urkunden anhand der Buchstabenformen muß außer Betracht bleiben, da es mangels verläßlicher Kriterien kaum Anhaltspunkte für eine hinreichend genaue Datierung innerhalb des 2. oder 1. Jh. v. Chr. gibt’. His discussion of the inscriptions (121-37) is, nevertheless, together with that of Schober, the most thorough and historically acute. Cf. Rumscheid1994, 22-3; Baumeister 2007, 11-13.

3 The most recent discussion is Baumeister 2007, 15.

4 Chamonard 1895: after 85 BC; Mendel 1912, 448-51: early Augustan; Schober 1933, 12-26: after 129 BC, accepted by Laumonier 1958, 351-8; Robert 1937, 427 n. 2: ‘J’indique brièvement que, les sujets des frises Nord et Sud étant en relation avec le traité avec Rome et la reconnaissance de l’asylie et des Hekatesia Romaia, je daterais le temple des années qui ont suivi la guerre de Mithridate, avec J. Chamonard,..., et non de l’époque d’Auguste… ou du dernier quart du iie siècle’; Junghölter 1989: end of the Mithridatic war of 89-85 BC; Tuchelt 1973, 43-4: time of Sulla. See Baumeister 2007, 1 and 11-13 for the date now preferred (in particular by Tuchelt 1979, 40-5), which he himself, however, rejects, see below.

5 Schmidt 1991; Queyrel 2009.

6 So Queyrel 2009, 632.

7 Stewart 1990, Pl. 830, legend, and p. 226. The plates are most easily accessible either in Schober 1933 or in Baumeister 2007. Both have a fold-out in which all the surviving plates are grouped by side, and in likely sequence.

8 Junghölter explicitly posed the problem: ‘da sich die kampflose Verbindung von Amazonen und männlichen Kriegern nicht auf eine mythische Begebenheit beziehen ließe’, only then to offer perhaps the most politically direct interpretation of all (145-52): the male warrior in Schober’s pl. 217 is Sulla, crowned by Aphrodite as Epaphroditos dictator; all cuirassed figures are Romans, those without cuirass are western Asia Minor Greeks, the amazons are soldiers of Mithridates. Cf. the discussion in Schmidt 1991, 350. Tuchelt 1979, 43, argued that the context must be the granting, in 81 BC, of asylia and the instituting of the Hekatesia Romaia, and the introduction of a cult of Roma. Smith 1991, 184-5, dismisses any political or allegorical interpretation: ‘…north and south sides seem to have had local stories, now quite unclear in their meanings…; the subject (of the north frieze) was surely mythological’. Cf., ibidem, his comments on reliefs with historical themes, of which the victory monument of Aemilius Paullus at Delphi was the first (167 BC).

9 Baumeister 2007, 220 (summing up earlier work); Schober 1933, 13-26; Laumonier 1958, 353-8.

10 See for instance the fluctuating opinions on the date of the – closely related – Smintheion near Chryse in the Troad (usefully discussed in Baumeister 2007, 16 and 151-62, with further refs.): now thought to be mid-2nd century. Very closely related to the Lagina frieze, both stylistically and thematically (to the south and east friezes), seems to me to be the Knidos altar of Apollo Karneios, depicting the birth of Apollo and Artemis on Delos: Bruns-Özgan 1995, dates it to the middle of the 2nd century. Closely related are also the remarkable Iphigeneia-reliefs from Termessos, of roughly the same period (Stähler 1968).

11 See e.g. Tuchelt 1979, 43-4. Baumeister 2007, 151-62 gives a useful summary of the arguments. I. H. Mert’s discussion of the Corinthian capitals of the gymnasium at Stratonikeia (closely related to those of the Hekateion) is persuasive: he inclines towards a date around the middle of the 2nd century for the Hellenistic phase, and so implicitly also opens up this earlier date for Lagina. See also n. 58 below.

12 Queyrel 2005. The programmatic relationship between Pergamon’s gigantomachy and that of Lagina has long been assumed (see e. g. Smith 1991, 185: ‘liberal quotations from the Great Altar’) and is discussed by Baumeister 2007, 213-15 (with the critical comments of Queyrel 2009), but in addition Queyrel points out close similarities between compositional details in other parts of the Lagina frieze and the Pergamene Telephos frieze: 633.

13 But the chronological sequence is not straightforward and the entire dossier is in need of re-examining. Blocks of ‘anta’ dimensions, inscribed on one long side only, could have been inscribed either on the inner or the outer side. Some of the very long commemorative inscriptions (e.g. I. Stratonikeia 663, of 25 long lines) are unlikely to have been written on the interior anta walls.

14 A few are inscribed on stelai or dedicatory altars, e.g. no 674. A. Laumonier, 1938, 251, calculated that the names of 265 priests were known at Lagina; 120 of these come from lists; 86 from individual commemorations. The figures need some adjusting upward, since new texts have been published, but they are given here unchanged to indicate an order of magnitude.

15 On the drawings of Schober 1933, p. 16 and Tırpan 2005, p. 29 (pl. 31) the anta walls of the pronaos and those of the cella have the same thickness, but from the descriptions of the blocks’measurements given by Diehl and Cousin, by Benndorf and Chamonard, they seem to be clearly divided into those with a thickness of c. 72 and others that are in the lower 40s. I have assumed that the latter belong to the cella walls.

16 I. Stratonikeia does not consistently indicate dimensions or find-spots, even where the ed. pr. did provide them, and one has to go back to the original BCH publications; still more can be found in Cousin’s carnet AS2C7 at the EFA (AS2C8 has some notes and copies of Chamonard) and in the loose notes of Chamonard kept in the Fonds Louis Robert in Paris.

17 Laumonier 1938, 256-7, reconstituted these lines (and this block) as being the final eight lines of a longer list, inscribed over three blocks (I.Stratonikeia 609), but it is clear that the three blocks do not belong together. This rather undermines L’s reconstruction of priest-lists before and after 39 BC - see below.

18 Şahin, following Laumonier, restored the name of the grandfather as [τοῦ Καλ] λίου, but this is not compelling: [τοῦ Μανει] λίου is equally possible.

19 BCH 11 (1887) 23, no. 33. Laumonier 1938, 275 with n. 3; Robert 1937, 552. The letters in Benndorf’s Skizzenbuch, p. xxxii suggest 1st cent. BC or AD (only the final 2 ll. are there copied); no squeeze survives. The name Maneilios, though obviously Roman, cannot be further traced. The custom of borrowing an idionym from a stock of Roman names (gentilicial or other) to be used as part of a Greek name formed with the usual Greek patronymic and papponymic, does not occur with any frequency before the Imperial period. (I am grateful to J.-L. Ferrary for discussion of this point.) The first Roman-derived name known from Stratonikeia is Gaios, on a coin of the time of Mithridates: Meadows 2002, 131, with Pl. 27, 3-4.

20 No squeeze survives of this text either, which was published by Diehl and Cousin after a copy of Benndorf. The measurements given, l. 1.07 and d. 0.72, suggest that it, too, may have been an anta block. Benndorf’s copy (Skizzenbuch xxxxv and xx (copied twice) shows that the text was inscribed on the long side of the block. In l. 3, Şahin’s version gives] ι̣μμους αὐτῆς after Benndorf, but his first M could be read as ΛΛ instead; Cousin’s majuscule drawing has --- ]ΛΜΟΥΣΑΥΤΗΣ. It is hard to see what could be restored here: [κερ]ά̣μους, [πλοκ]άμους, [θαλ] άμους, [ὀφθά]λ̣μους are among the very few plausible words ending in -αμος, -λμος but none makes much sense in the context or in combination with the αὐτῆς that follows. In l. 4, [---] υ̣σ̣εον could be restored as [---χρ]ύ̣σ̣εον. There is no space for Şahin’s restoration μ̣[έρος] in l. 2.

21 The measurements of the stone as calculated from the squeeze kept in the Fonds Louis Robert in Paris (4223a and b) match those of other anta blocks.

22 Cella blocks seem to have been less deep than those of the antae: typically 42-45 cm, while they often have a width in the 90s.

23 As a result, the two parts of I.Stratonikeia no. 660 should be separated too.

24 There are prosopographical arguments too.

25 Laumonier considers the possibility that the lists were re-inscribed when the temple was built. The fact that not all were on the antae but some on wall blocks suggests rather that they were not (re) inscribed at the same time. Different hands suggest the same.

26 I.Stratonikeia 505 (letters and senatus consultum) 507 (civic decree) and 508 (list of acknowledging cities). 506 is left blank. C. Habicht, EA 31, 1999, p. 29, points out the omission of a line in the text of I.Stratonikeia 507.

27 Şahin 2002, 1-21, no 2 (photo p. 3). This fits between blocks B and C on the drawing of Cousin in BCH 9, 1885, p. 452; cf. also the reconstruction in Viereck 1888, 24. The lines are I. Stratonikeia 505, 15-27.

28 See the refs. at I.Stratonikeia 505.

29 Newton 1862, 795 (fr. E); Benndorf and Niemann 1884, 155 (fr. G and H); LBW III 543-4 (uncertain fragment); Diehl and Cousin, BCH 9, 473-4: reconstruction; Viereck 1888, 29-31.

30 These are nos. 601-741 in I.Stratonikeia (though not all were inscribed on the temple). I.Stratonikeia only erratically repeats this information, but it can be retrieved from the original BCH publication and also from Cousin’s notebooks, and from Chamonard’s notes kept in the Fonds Louis Robert in Paris.

31 Cousin’s notebook AS2C7 contains Lagina notes, but they are not very detailed. Newton gives no measurements or findspots, and neither do Benndorf and Niemann.

32 Above, n. 22.

33 The beginnings of some of the lines of the sc are indented by spaces of c. 1-7 letters. This lay-out is retained e. g. in Sherk 1969, no. 18.

34 The block published by Şahin 2002 has c. 33 letters over 86.5 cm. which suggests a maximum width per column of c. 1.40 m.

35 The total height of the cella wall was about 7.50 m (calculated from Schober’s drawing, above, fig. 1): the upper and lower courses will have been left uninscribed.

36 Specifically listed as south: IS 520, but this, as I have argued, is probably an anta block, and 621.

37 There is no reason to suspect bias in the recording so the imbalance must be significant.

38 Above, n. 1.

39 With thanks to Dr. G. Rehrenbock who provided me with the photograph and confirmed that the squeeze made by Benndorf is not in the Kleinasiatische Kommision in Vienna.

40 ‘Bloc d’ante, portant sur une face les inscriptions a et b, sur l’autre l’inscription 65’ (a mistake for 71).

41 See above, fig. 1.

42 Benndorf’s notebook does not give measurements either.

43 There are very few inscriptions that have the spelling δηι- for δη. Most date from the second century, so e.g. I.Magnesia 97, l. 7: δεδόχθαι τῶι δή{ι} μωι. Also I.Iasos 22, l. 22 (τῶι δήιμωι; no date but Hellenistic); I.Assos 577 of c. 100 BC (τὸν δῆιμον; but cf. in l. 6: [τωι] δήμωι; l. 26: τὸν δῆμον, cf. in l. 17: στεφανωῖσαι); cf. also SEG 29, 1130bis B (Klazomenai, 200-150 BC); one later example is in I. Mylasa 602 (letter of Octavian, 31 BC). Cf. also the Bargylia decree for Poseidonios, of the late 2nd century: I. Iasos 612, l. 20: δυσάλωιται for δυσάλωται.

44 Cf. L. Robert’s discussion of the letter forms of the Polemaios and Menippos decrees from Klaros, typical of the ‘troisième tiers’ of the 2nd century BC: ‘alpha à barre brisée, sigma tantôt a barres divergentes, tantôt droites, omega tantôt fermés en bas, tantôt ouverts, le nu a ses branches verticales plus ou moins inégales, un trait au milieu du théta, le pi tantôt avec des hastes droites égales, tantôt la seconde est plus courte’. The Menippos decree is more carefully cut, and, of the two, is the one to compare. Robert also notes the alternation of ει and ι (πολείταις, πολίταις) and the occasional omission of iota adscript (which in our text is consistently there): J. and L. Robert 1989, 9.

45 Above, n. 27.

46 I am grateful to E. Varinlioğlu for sending me photographs of the squeezes of this inscription. The monument is large enough to be a multiple commemoration, and Şahin in I. Stratonikeia restores along those lines.

47 In l. 4 clear traces of the alpha and lambda before the nu are visible on the squeeze.

48 A photo of this text can be found in Şahin 1995, pl. 18.

49 See the discussion in Robert 1989, 68, n. 20

50 All examples now conveniently assembled in Thonemann 2003, 98, n. 14.

51 J. and L. Robert 1989, 68, n. 20. For a discussion see Thonemann, 2003, 98, n. 14, arguing persuasively that it is specifically a 2nd century word and referring (99 n. 15) to Polybios 6.6.8 (when a man defends others from danger it is reasonable that he should ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους ἐπισημασίας τυγχάνειν) and 30.1.2: on his embassy to Rome in 168, Attalos hoped to τυχεῖν τινος ἐπισημασίας.

52 Cf. I.Iasos 612, ll. 24-5, of 127 BC: συνέβαινεν θ[λ]ίβεσθαι τήν πόλιν [ἡμῶν βαρέως κτλ.]

53 On this text see van Bremen 2004b, 220.

54 FD III. 4, 75, ll. 12-13 (172/1 BC), cf. also Syll.3 398, a Koan decree of 278 BC about the attack on Delphi by invading Gauls, l. 4ff.: ἀναγγέλλεται τὰς μὲν ἐλθόντας ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τιμωρίας τετεύχεν ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν τῶν ἐπιβοαθησάντων κτλ.

55 In the other Stratonikeia, on the Kaikos. On all this see most recently B. Dreyer in I.Metropolis 66-90, with all refs., Jones 2004, and, for a different view of Aristonikos’final movements, Coarelli 2003. I.Iasos 612, an honorific decree of Bargylia for Poseidonios, also makes it clear that the region was far from quiet at this time.

56 Briant et al. 2001, 243.

57 So e.g. Meadows 2002, 122: ‘The fact that he felt moved to punish the city hints at the trouble it gave him, and from the document cited above, it is clear that Stratonikeia’ s resistance to the king was spirited and appreciated by Sulla and the Senate’.

58 There is no evidence that the temple itself was seriously damaged either in 133-129 (127) BC or by Mithridates. The anta decree does not speak of such damage.

59 Cf. H. Mert’s considerations about the date of the Hellenistic gymnasium at Stratonikeia: after the liberation from Rhodian control, possibly in the 150s: Mert 2008, 157 with nn. 847 and 849, cf. also 162.

60 Meadows 2002, 98-101 with Pl. 19 for the coins; 98 n. 8 for the cult image.

61 Bruns-Özgan 1995, cf. Baumeister 2007, 111-12.

62 On Zeus Kretagenes in a Karian context (Mylasa, Amyzon) see most recently Mastrocinque 2002, but his attempt to see this Zeus as a Seleukid introduction seem to me misguided.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Plan of the Hekateion and temple of Apollo at Alabanda (after Schober 1933, Pl. 5).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 144k
Légende Fig. 2. Central scene of the north frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/275 = Schober 1933, Pl. 223)
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende Fig. 3. Central scene of the south frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/250 = Schober 1933, Pl. 201).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 144k
Légende Fig. 4. Amazons, armed soldiers and heroic nudes on the north frieze (photo: W. Schiele, DAI-IST-78/247 = Schober 1933, Pl. 220).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 176k
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 200k
Légende Fig. 5. Inscribed blocks on the anta wall.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 240k
Légende Fig. 6. I. Stratonikeia 609, ll. 1-9 (photo Fonds Louis Robert).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Légende Fig. 7. I. Stratonikeia 512b, ll. 3-13, copy of Benndorf.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 148k
Légende Fig. 8. I. Stratonikeia 1333, squeeze of r. side (E. Varinlioğlu).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/2846/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 178k

Auteur

University College London

© Ausonius Éditions, 2010

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