American Journal of Ancient History (Vol 10.2) 9781463206819, 146320681X

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

10.2

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 10.2 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1985 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0681-9

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

J.D. Bing:Sissti/Issus,andPhoenicians in Cilicia ........................................... 97

A. ShapurShahbazi:Irano-HellenicNotes: 1. The ThreeFaces of Tigranes ................................................................................................. 124 R.A. McNeal: Review-Discussion: BernalOnceAgain ................................... 137

Gary Reger:The Date of the Battleof Kos .......................................................155

TorbenVestergaard, LarsBjertmp,MogensHermanHansen, ThomasHeineNielsen,LeneRubinstein: A Typologyof the Women Recorded on Gravestones from Attica

.........................................

178

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

J.D. Bing:Sissti/Issus,andPhoenicians in Cilicia ........................................... 97

A. ShapurShahbazi:Irano-HellenicNotes: 1. The ThreeFaces of Tigranes ................................................................................................. 124 R.A. McNeal: Review-Discussion: BernalOnceAgain ................................... 137

Gary Reger:The Date of the Battleof Kos .......................................................155

TorbenVestergaard, LarsBjertmp,MogensHermanHansen, ThomasHeineNielsen,LeneRubinstein: A Typologyof the Women Recorded on Gravestones from Attica

.........................................

178

SISSI_7/ISSUS, ANDPHOENICIANS IN CILICIA Issusis rememberedas the siteof a famousbattle. Alexander'svictory at Issusin 333 BC openedSyria, Phoenicia,Egypt, and Mesopotamiato the youngking andhis Macedonianarmy. Little moreis saidor knownabout Issus before or after Alexander's

battle there.

Even its exact location

is

not definitelyknown. The purposeof this paperis to expanduponthe history of the city, and to showthat its significanceextendsbeyondmerely the name of a battle. The elucidationof Issus' history dependson two contentions.

The first involves

the location

of the ancient site which the

Greeks would call Issus, and the secondhas to do with the earlier name of

the site. If thesecontentionsare accepted,then much more can be said aboutIssusthanis generallysupposed.The city was an importantport on the coastof easternCilicia, linking maritimetrade with the Cilician and Cappadocianinterior. There Old Assyrian merchantsand Phoenician traders conductedtheir businessin the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages respectively.

First, the locationof Issus. This is a much-discussed question,sincethe

locationof the city andbattle-site are interrelated. 2 It is unnecessary to review here all the known referencesfor the city's location,sinceXenophon in the Anabasisprovidesa rather preciserelative location for the city. According to Xenophon, Issus was a large and prosperouscity located on the sea, 15 parasangsfrom Cyrus' PyramusRiver crossing (probablyat Mallus), 5 parasangsfrom the Syrian Gates (identifiedwith the Pillar of Jonah),and 10 parasangsfrom Myriandruswhich was the last city before Cyrus marchedacrossthe Amanus Mountains at the Beilan

Pass. 3 Thisdescription makesclearthatIssusmustbe locatedonthecoastal plain at the northernextensionof the Gulf of Alexandretta,and this is

whereit is placedonalmostall mapsof thisregion. 4 In anarchaeological surfacesurveyof Cilicia conductedby M.V. Seton-Williamsin the early• 1950s,one site in this coastalarea appearsto qualify as the mostlikely

locationof Issus:KinetHiiyiik(seeMap 1).5 97

¸

1993by E. Badian. All rightsreserved.

./

100

J.D. BING

Kinet Htiytik is about 500 m from the coast and 7 km northwestof D6rtyol. Equally importantis its distancefrom the Pillar of Jonah,about 27 km, which is equivalentto 5 parasangs -- the distancewhich Xeno-

phonplacedbetween IssusandtheSyrianGates. 6 Themoundisrectangular in appearancerising about20 m high and extending60-70 m across the top. Accordingto the survey,it was too heavily overgrownto be adequately sherded,so a representativesamplingof surfaceceramicswas difficult

to obtain.

A cut into the south side of the mound indicated that at

3 m beneath the surface the remains are still Hellenistic.

Seton-Williams

admitsto finding only one early sherdof the Middle Bronze Age, but

acknowledges the importance of the site.? It is the mostimpressive mound in the region borderingthe Gulf of Alexandretta,with known occupationin the Middle Bronze, Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods.In the wordsof Seton-Williams,"Earlier material[is] presumably

overlaidby thickHellenistic andRomanoccupation. "8Thesizeandshape of Kinet Htiytik suggestslong continuousoccupationduring the Bronze

andIronAgesaswellastheclassical eras. 9 II

Second, the more ancient name for the site which the Greeks called

' Ioo6g. If Issushad a longandimportantpastas Kinet Htiytik suggests, referencesto it might occur in the cuneiformliteratureof the Bronze and Iron Ages. Suchreferencesdo occur,if Issuscan be identifiedwith Sissfi and its variants,Zisi and Sizfim, a toponymappearingin Neo-Assyrian royal annalsin the Iron Age, a Hurro-Akkadianliterary text in the Late BronzeAge, and in Old Assyriancommercialcorrespondence in the Mid-

dleBronzeAge.•ø For Sissfi TM to enterGreekas' Io06g of courserequiresthe lossof the initial sibilant,which might have occurredas a result of metathesisor a prostheticvowel. The lossof antevocalicsigmais well attestedfor protoGreek. Sigmabecameh (spiritusasper),which alsocouldbe lost by dissimilation. Both changescouldhavecontributedto the formationof Issus

asa toponym. •2 Thelossof antevocalic sigmaoccurred beforethewriting of the extantLinear B textsin which the spiritusasper occursin place of

initialsigma. •3 It is notpossible to ascertain whenSissfiwasintroduced into Greek, but given the evidencefor Mycenaeancontactwith Cilicia it could have happenedin the Late Bronze Age prior to the time of the writ-

ing of the existingLinearB tablets. TMIt is not necessary, however,to

SISSlY/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

101

claimsuchanearlyGreekrendering of Siss•as'Ioodg.In manyinstances Greek omitted initial antevocalicsibilantsin the transcriptionof foreign personaland geographicalnames as late as some Septuaginttraditions

beginning in thethirdcentury. •5 In accordance withthisphenomenon in Greek,the evolutionof Siss• to Issuswouldbe Sissa> *5;toorig> * 'Ioodg> 'Ioodg. The accented second-declension endingfor 'Ioodghasa nearbyparallelin Tapodg, which occursin Neo-Assyrianas Tarzi and Tat'21i.16

The identificationof Siss• with Issuson the Cilician coastgoesagainst scholarlytradition,which identifiesSiss•, Zisi, and Siz•m with medieval Sis, late Roman Sisium, which is known to be located at modem Kozan on

the northernedgeof the Cilicianplain.l? The difficultywith thistraditional identification

is that no evidence

exists that Kozan

was inhabited

beforemedievaltimes,althoughthereis evidencefor late Roman occupation outside the town. •8 Seton-Williams observes that the Roman site of Sisium is over 1 km outside of Kozan on the road to Kadirli, and "on this

sitethereis nopre-Roman occupation".19 AlthoughKozanis thelocation of an impressivemedievalfortress,it doesnot appearto havebeen of any particularimportancein antiquity--and is not likely to be the site of ancient Sissfi.TM III

Now that a prima facie casehasbeen madefor the identificationof classical Issus with the modem site called Kinet Hi.iyi.ik, as well as for the identification of Greek Issus with the more ancient Sissfi, three cuneiform

contextsin which the latter toponymor its variantsappearwill be examined in orderto determinethe extentto whichthey are compatiblewith the above identifications.Another purposewill be to see what further informationthe cuneiformtextsmight provideregardingthe role Issusplayed in the historyof easternCilicia. The earliest occurrenceof this toponymis found in the Old Assyrian commercialarchiveexcavatedat KiJltepe,ancientKanesh,in Cappadocia east of Kayseri (see Map 2). In the early secondmillennium, Assyrian merchantsfrom Kanesh were trading in tin, woolen fabrics, and other commodities between Assyria and various Anatolian cities where Assyrianmerchantshad settledin tradingcolonies. Sissfiis referredto as Sizfim (or Sissfim)in a letter involving a disputebetweentwo Assyrian merchantsover the possession of trade goodsand compensation for lost

102

J.D. BING

items. The letter indicatesthat Assyrian merchantswere trading in tin,

textiles,and other goodsbetweenKaneshand Sissam? If Sissfiis correctlyidentifiedwith Issus,then the evidenceof this text strengthens the proposedlocationof Issusat Kinet Htiytik which was occupiedin the Middle Bronze Age, and is large enough to have been a commercial centerfor the regionin that period. Sissfinext occursin a Hurro-Akkadiantext of the Late Bronze Age. This is a much more complicatedtext than the Old Assyriancommercial letter discussedabove, for it is a literary text and is both more and less than what it purportsto be. This Late Bronze Age evidencefor Sissfiis found in the statueinscrip-

tionof Idrimi,a localHurrianrulerof thecombined countries of Muki•he, Nuha•e, andNi'i in NorthSyria,withhisroyalcapitalat Alala•h(seeMap 2). Sissfi,writtenZisi, occursin a list of citieswhichIdrimi is supposed to have destroyedon a military campaignagainsthatti, the kingdom of the Hittites. Recently one scholarhas argued that Sarruwa,the scribe who wrote the Idrimi text, lived centuries later than Idrimi, and others have

found a number of folkloristic characteristicsin the themesand language

of thiscomposition. 22 For example,thenumbersevenfrequently occurs in the text, and not surprisinglyIdrimi is supposedto have attackedand

destroyed sevencitiesof •hatti.Whenthe text enumerates thesecitiesby name, however, only six appearto be actually cities. The seventhis the

nameof a region. 23 Thetoponyms listedasdestroyed onIdrimi's"Hittite campaign"are difficult to identify. While theseare troublesomeproblems, they do not vitiate the historicityof detailsin the accountsuchas the existenceof the listed places. Near Eastern literary narratives,even "pseudo-autobiographies" like the Idrimi text, tend to includehistorical

detailssuchas personaland geographical names. 24While the military campaignis probably an exaggeratedfiction, it may be based on royal chroniclesdescribingborder conflictsbetweenIdrimi and his neighboring territories. 25

Among the citiesenumeratedin the Idrimi text is Zisi which, as indicated above, for a long time has been identified with Roman Sisium

located atKozan. 26However,itscoastal location is suggested by thetoponym whichfollowsin the list--Ie. This nameappearsto be a West Semitic loan word in the inscriptionwhich containsa numberof West Semitic

features. 27Ie probablyderivesfromthe Phoenician word '[q whichalso appearsfrequently in classicalHebrew as '•,

and can be translated

"island","peninsula", or "coast". 28The nameIe is notpreceded by the

SISS[•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

103

determinativeURU for city, as are the other six toponyms,but has the determinativeKI, meaning"country"or "land", following it. The author

oftheIdrimi textclearly represents IeKI asacity,butit should bestressed thatit occurs inanartificially constructed listofseven cities.•armwa, the

scribe, mayhaveobtained thisplace name froma source in which IeKI referredto "the CoastalLand", andin its originalcontextmighthavebeen in appositionto, or possibly in a construct-genitiverelationshipwith,

preceding Zisi, andcouldthenbe translated "Zisi of theCoastalLand".29

IeKI mayhave originally referred toacoastal region ineastern Cilicia not far from the north Syrian coast, and its major harbor city would be Zisi = Siss• = Issus.3ø

If Ie was a coastaldistrictwith Zisi as its chief port, then Idrimi's attack on this regioncouldhave beena seabomeraid. Idrimi possessed a navy

whichhe usedto gaincontrolof the land of Mukig•he beforehe began attackingHittite territory. Accordingto the statueinscription,Idrimi's

navy landedon the coastof Mukig•he at Mr. •hazi(classicalMr. Casius; modemJabalal-Aqra') which is locatedimmediatelysouthof the Orontes

Rivermouth(seeMap2).31To secure theborders of Muki•heandpossibly to legitimatehis rule there,Idrimi could have engagedin a seriesof raids againstneighboringcountriesamong which would have been the kingdomof Kizzuwatnain eastemCilicia. If Idrimi's raid againstIe and the city of Zisi in the realm of Kizzuwatnawere by sea, it might have

givenIdrimitheadvantage of surprise. 32By thetime•arruwausedthe chroniclereferring (perhaps)to the raid on "Zisi of Ie" to composethe Idrimi statue inscription,Kizzuwatna was a province within the Hittite Empire, and so the borderraid becamepart of Idrimi's greatercampaign

against•hatti. The Idrimi inscription,as interpretedabove, strengthens the proposed identification

of Siss• and Issus. The Idrimi text indicates a coastal loca-

tion in easternCilicia for SissY,and this locationcastssomelight on the circumstances of the Neo-Assyrianreferencesto thiscity. Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,reportedthatin 677 BCSanduarri,king of Sissfland Kundu, andAbdi-Milkutti, king of Sidon,had becomeallies and

rebelled against him.33A. LeoOppenheim's translation (ANET 3 290-291) of Esarhaddon'sannalsprovidesthe details:

As for Sanduarri,king of Kundi and Sizu, an inveterateenemy, unwillingto recognizeme as ruler (and) whom the gods(therefore) forsook-- (who) had put his trustuponthe ruggedmountains(of his

104

J.D. BING

country)and had made Abdimilkutte,king of Sidon,his ally [lit.: helper]by takingmutualoathsby the life of the greatgods--they put their trust upon their own force while I trustedAshur, my lord--I caughthim like a bird in his mountainsand (likewise) cut off his head. (Then) I hungthe headsof Sanduarriand of Abdimilkutte around the neck of their nobles/chief-officials to demonstrate

to the populationthe power of Ashur, my lord, and paraded(thus) throughthe wide main streetof Nineveh with singers(playing on) sammrS-harps.

The many scholarlyworks which have identifiedSissfi with Roman Sisium at Kozan notwithstanding,the identificationof Issus and Sissfi arguedfor here movesSissfifrom a remotecraggycitadelof the northto the Mediterranean

coast in the south. This location for Sissfi clarifies its

rolein theCilician-Phoenician conspiracy againstAssyria. 34 While Sanduarri and Abdi-Milkutti could have communicated by land, the difficultiesand dangersof doing so would have been much greaterthan had they communicatedby sea. Travel by seawas more efficient thanby

land,andAssyriawasin firmcontrolof Syria. 35 Sanduarri wouldhave had easyaccessto the Cilician coast,and that accessis suggested by the Assyrianannalsreferringto Sissfias one of the citieswithin his territory. On the basis of the above argumentsfor the identificationof Sissfiwith Issus and the circumstantial

evidence that other cuneiform

texts refer to

this sameplaceby the namesSissfimandZisi, thistown wasprobablythe port by which communicationswere maintainedbetween Sanduarriand Abdi-Milkutti

of Sidon.

In additionto messages,Sissfiwas very likely a conduitfor the influx of Phoenicianmerchantsand craftsmen.SissfiprovidedPhoenicianswith an importantport in easternCilicia, by whichthey were able to penetratethis regionin pursuitof naturalresources andof commercialventures. IV

The evidencefor Phoenicianpresencein easternCilicia has been mounting in recent years. Since the discovery of the Hieroglyphic Luwian/Phoenicianbilingual at Karatepeand the numerouspublications pertainingto it and the surroundingarchaeologicalremains at Karatepe and Domuztepe,Phoenicianinfluence in easternCilicia has been well known. Analysisof archaeologicalevidenceat the two sites,as well as a

SISSI•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

105

generalsurveyof materialfrom easternCilicia hasresultedin an emphasis

ona strong Phoenician presence in thispartof Cilicia.36 In additionto the Phoeniciantext being the longestinscriptionin that languagediscoveredto date,Professors MachteldJ. Mellink in 1950 and Irene J. Winter in a more thoroughanalysisin 1979 have arguedthat the reliefs decoratingthe orthostatsat Karatepeand Domuztepehave a distinctly Phoeniciancharacter. These reliefs include a ship with inwardcurvingstem,ram, fore- and aft-platformsand railing, detailsassociated with the female sphinxes,the Bes figure,smallpalmetreplants,chainsof bud and lotus,and interlacingvolutepatterns.The gatewaylions at Karatepe appearto conformto Phoenicianmodelsratherthan to derive from

the well-knownNorthSyriantradition?All of thismaterialappears to clusterin the eighthandseventhcenturiesBC. The numerous incised 'scaraboid seals found at Tarsus and elsewhere in

Cilicia correspondto widely dispersedscaraboidsealsfound throughout the Levant, testifyingto a closeconnectionbetweenCilicia and Phoeni-

cia.38Winter'sanalysis of theartisticstylesof thereliefsat Karatepe and Domuztepe suggestsan increasingPhoeniciancultural influence in the regionbetweenthe ninth and the end of the eighthcentury.This evidence is complementedby Phoenicianpotteryoccurringat Tarsus"in increasing percentages ... from the Middle Iron period(c. 850 B.C.) into the post-

Assyrian phase(toc. 600)".39 The strengthof the Phoenicianpresencein the easternCilician plain led Winter to speculatethat there were rather distinctspheresof Greek and Phoenicianinfluencein Cilicia, with the Greeksin the west in the vicinity of Soli and Tarsus and the Phoenicians Alexandretta.

Winter

in the east around the Gulf

looked to the distribution

of

of sites south of Misis

toward the Cilician coastas a possibleindicationof the directionfor the Cilician port by which the Phoeniciansreachedthe interior. She thought the Phoeniciancontrolof the easternCiliciancoastwasfurthersupported by Herodotus'referenceto the Gulf of Alexandrettaas the "Myriandic Gulf", a namederivedfrom Myriandrus,a city which Xenophonsayswas inhabitedby Phoenicians.In the light of thesefacts,Winter suggested that a routeleadingfrom the coastin the vicinity of the Gulf of Alexandretta northwardtowardKaratepewas in the handsof Phoenicians.It avoided the Greek areas of influenceand representedwhat Winter called the "Phoenician route".©

Winter hasfurtherproposedthat the anti-Assyrianalliancebetweenthe Cilician Sanduarriand the PhoenicianAbdi-Milkutti is directlyconnected

106

J.D. BING

to the strongPhoenicianpresenceat Karatepe. She hasproposedthat Sanduarfi of Esarhaddon's annals should be identified with Azatiwatas, the

authorof the Luwian Hieroglyphic/Phoenicianinscriptionand builder of the Neo-Hittite fortressexcavatedat Karatepe. Winter's identificationof Sanduarriand Azatiwatashasreceivedlinguisticsupportfrom J.D. Haw-

kins? If the identification is correct,thenKaratepeservedas a frontier fortressas well as protectionfor a traderoutefor Sanduarri'seastCilician territory. The identificationof Sissfiwith Issushere suggested placesone of Sanduarri'scitieson the Cilician coastdirectlysouthof Karatepe,and it represents the closestcoastalport accessibleto Karatepe(Azatiwatayasin

theKaratepe inscription). 42ThismakesSissfithemostlikelycoastal terminal for Winter's proposed"Phoenicianroute".

More light on Sissfi'srole in the economicandpoliticalrelationsof Cilicia and Phoeniciain the seventhcenturyBCmay be possibleby an examination of the city's connectionwith Kundu. The Esarhaddonannalspair Sissfi with Kundu, and Kundu has been long identified with Kyinda, a Greekplacenamelocatedin Cilicia and occurringin historicalandliterary textsreferringto theearly Hellenisticperiod. The connectionbetween Sissfiand Kundu in the seventhcentury may have a parallel in the late fourth century. AlthoughIssusand Kyinda are not explicitly associatedin any Hellenistic source,there is reason to suspecta relationbetweenthempersistedin that periodas well. It is also likely that the reasonfor the connectionbetweenthesetwo Cilician locationswas the samein bothperiods- economic. Diodorusand Straboidentifiedthe Cilician fortressof Kyinda as an importantMacedoniantreasuryin the early Hellenisticperiod. Its name

cameto be associated withfabulous wealth. 43 The earlyByzantinechronographerMalalas, followed later by the Byzantinelexicon called the Suda, identified Kyinda with the well-known Cilician city of Anazarbus (see Map 1). Accordingto Malalas, Anazarbus'name prior to an earth-

quakeduringtheRomanRepublicwasKyinda. 44Therearereasons for believing this to be an accurateidentification.Certainly the positionand topographyof Anazarbusare appropriatefor the locationof an important treasuryin Cilicia. Its citadel on a high rock outcropmakes it a very

defendable point. 45 Theetymology of thenameKyindaor Kundusuggeststhat it enjoyed a commandingposition within the Cilician plain

SISSt)/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA

107

rather than being on the mountainousperiphery. Kyinda is probably derived from the Assyrianname for the Cilician plain, Que (Quwe), and a Luwian/Hittite toponymicsuffix -nda/-nta. There are severalproposed derivationsfor this suffix, but one possibilityhasnot beengiven sufficient consideration:that the Luwian/Hittite adverb anda meaning "in",

"within","inside","in(to)",in a postposition becamea toponymic SUffiX. 46 Que in this contextwould have the dative/locativecaseendingwhich in Luwian is -i. Thesecomponents combineto producethe following deriva-

tion: K•tv•ot < Kue + i + (a)nda, with the meaning"(place) within Que".47 The only two classicalreferencesto Kyinda which indicateits relationshipwith otherplacesin Cilicia at leastdo not contradictthe identification

with Anazarbus, and suggest its centrallocationin the Cilicianplainils Kyinda's identificationwith Anazarbusplacesthe city in the middle of the

eastern Cilicianplainonlyslightlywestof duenorthfromIssus. 49 The central position of Kundu/Kyinda at Anazarbuswould make it a

convenient treasury for theAlexander mintsat TarsusandIssus. 5øIn the time of Sanduarri,it probablyalreadyfunctionedas a royal treasury,helping Sanduarri to finance his military and commercial involvement with Abdi-Milkutti of Sidon. Alexander's adoptionof Kyinda as an imperial treasurywas probablyno more than the continuationof a Persianpolicy which used Kundu as a treasuryfor the Cilician mints at Issus,Mallus,

Tarsus,andSoli.5•In theearlyHellenistic period,TarsusandIssusarethe only mints functioningin Cilicia, and Kyinda (at Anazarbus)would be

strategically locatedbetween thesetwocities(seeMap 1).52 VI

Analysisof the coinageissuedunderthe Persiansand Alexanderat Issus providesevidencefor the continuedPhoenicianpresenceand cultural

influencein easternCilicia at leastuntil the late fourthcenturyBC.53 Countermarkson various early fourth-centuryissuesof south Anatolian citiesindicatethat local financialofficialsat IssusspelledIssusr' (*yizzti)

in Phoenicianand •'

(*yi•)

in Aramaic? The earliestAlexander

issuesprobably minted at Issus display a monogramon their reverse which can be interpretedas the Phoenicianname, r', for Issus. Many of the last coinsissuedat Tarsusand Issusby Mazaeus, governorof Cilicia shortlybeforeAlexander'sinvasion,showPhoenicianletterswhich prob-

ablyaretheabbreviations of thenamesof Phoenician mintofficials. 55The

108

J.D. BING

"sign of Tanit", an importantPhoenicianand Punic religioussymbol, is displayedon someof the early Alexanderissuesat Issus,and the Tanit symbol also appearson Issuscoinageearlier in the fourth centurywhen

thecity wasunderPersianauthority. 56Thisevidencesuggests thata cult of 'Anat/Tanit existedat Issus,and a templefor sucha cult might have

provided thesecurity necessary forthelocation of thecity'smint? The continuedPhoenicianpresenceat Issusin the lasthalf of the fourth centurymay be a factor in the unsympatheticreceptionthe Macedonian forces encounteredthere. According to Diodorus, Alexander "terrified"

(•ctx'ctxnJ•q•d•vog) theinhabitants intosubmission, andtheyseemopenly

sympathetic to the Persiancause. •8 At the time, the Phoenician fleet remainedloyal to the PersianEmpire, breakingup only after Alexander's

victoryat Issusand(later)thefall of Tyre,Phoenicia's mainnavalbase? VII

With the exceptionof Alexander'spassageat Issus,few referencesto the city can be found in the ancientliterature. The thick Hellenistic,Roman, and Byzantinedepositson Kinet Hfiyiik, however,suggesta long occupation at Issuslastinginto late antiquity. The few referenceswhich do exist suggestthat it continuedto be rememberedas the locationof a significant military victory,beingalsonamedNicopolis,and locatedon a routeleading northfrom the coastto the Anatolianinterior. Cicero,while governorof Cilicia in 51, campedat Issus,andwashailed imperator there by his troops following minor military actions taken

againstunrulymountaineers in the Amanus. © Ciceroalsorefersto the Arae Alexandri, where Alexander erected three altars to Zeus, Athena, and

Heraklesfollowingthebattleof Issus. 61 Cicero'seffortsto associate himself with Alexanderat leastreveal the fact that the memory of Alexander's activitiesat Issusand his battletherepersistedeven until the late first century BC. Years later, in AD 194, SeptimiusSeverusfoughta secondbattle of IssusagainstPescennius Niger, in which the emperor'sarmy was victorious.62

SeptimiusSeverus'victory at Issusservedto reinforcean old honorific

epithetfor thecity:Nicopolis, "VictoryCity".63ThatIssuspossessed this honorificname has been denied in the past; however, it will be demonstratedbelow that Issuswas called Nicopolis in several sources. Issus' identificationwith Nicopolis in the third century AD also providesevidencethat it remainedan importantcity in the late Roman Empire, and

SISSI•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA

109

was locatedon a road linking the interior of easternCilicia and Cappadocia with the Mediterranean

at the Gulf

of Alexandretta

--

the late Roman

remnantof Winter's proposedIron Age "Phoenicianroute". The major sourceof confusionobscuringthe fact that Issuswas called Nicopolisis that anotherNicopolisis known to have existedcloseby in North Syria, at Islahiye (see Map 1). The geographerPtolemaeus,the Itineraria Antoniniana, and the more recent Calder and Bean, A classical

map of Asia Minor (1958), all show one Nicopolisin the generalregion,

andtheyall locateit in thevicinityof Islahiye,notat Issus. 64Moreover,a Latin inscriptionmentioningNicopoliswas found in the nineteenthcentury at Islahiye, and the earlier Turkish name for this town was Niboli

whichprobably derivesfromNicopolis. 65 Whilethecumulative weightof the evidencemakescertainthat Islahiye was called Nicopolisin ancient times, this doesnot justify the denial that Issuswas also called Nicopo-

lis.66Many citiesin the HellenisticandRomanperiodswerenamedor renamedNicopolis,and a Nicopolisin Syria at modem Islahiyedoesnot precludethe existenceof a city with the samename in Cilicia on the Gulf of Alexandretta.

Ancient geographerscan help clarify the confusion. They may omit one or the other of the two Nicopoleis;however,their referencesindicate the existenceof a Nicopolis on the Gulf of Alexandrettaand another farther north and east at Islahiye. PtolemaeuslocatedNicopoliscloserto

Islahiye,althoughhe includedit amongthe interiorcitiesof Cilicia.67 Strabo,on the otherhand,listedNicopolisamongcitiesandplacesaround the Gulf of Alexandretta, in a sequencewhich invites its identification

with Issus. 68Stephanus Byzantiuswentfurther,andsaidthatAlexander calledIssusNicopolisfollowinghisvictorythere? Finally,thetrilingual inscriptionsof ShapurI mentionNicopolistwice in describinghis military itinerariesthroughRomanSyria, Cilicia, and Cappadociain the mid-third

century AD.TM Shapur'sinscriptionmay in fact distinguishbetweenthe Syrian and the Cilician Nicopolis. In 255 Shapurled his first campaignagainstAntioch, andhis inscriptionliststhe Syriancitieshe destroyed--amongwhichare

Alexandreia andNicopolis. TM Thelistof citiesdestroyed in 260 includes a Nicopolis among those on a road which the Persian took from eastern

Cappadocia southto Cilicia.72 Moreover,the Cilicianlocationfor the Nicopolis destroyedin 260 is confirmedby the Greek historianPhilostratus. In a brief referenceto Shapur'scampaignin 260, Philostratus placesNicopolisin Cilicia. He saysthat the Persianking seizedSyria and

1 lO

J.D. BING

burned Antioch along with many other cities; at the same time he also seizedCilicia, burningAlexandreia,Rhosus,Anazarbus,Aegae, Nicopo-

lis, andmanyotherCiliciancities(seeMap 1).73Philostratus mistakenly believed

that all the cities on the west side of the main Amanus Mountain

chain were in Cilicia, and so included Alexandreia and Rhosusamong them. However, the contextmakesclear that Nicopolis is in Cilicia near

Aegae,modemAyas,TMandnotat Islahiyeeastof theAmanus(seeMap 1). It is not certainwhy a site east of the Amanusat Islahiye shouldbe called Nicopolis,but therecan be no doubtwhy the namewas appliedto Issus,the site of Alexander's initial victory over Darius III in 333 Be and

of Septimius Severus' victoryoverPescennius NigerinAD194.75 VIII

In conclusion,the ancientliteraryand epigraphicevidencetendsto corroborateKinet Htiytik as the siteof ancientIssus. Moreover,Issusshouldbe identifiedwith a more ancienttoponymwritten in cuneiformvariouslyas Sissfi,Sizfim, and Zisi. In the early secondmillennium,Old Assyrian merchantstradedin tin, wool, and othercommoditiesin this Cilician city which was a commercialcenterfor the surrounding vicinity. Later, in the Iron Age, Sissfilinked Phoeniciawith the interiorof easternCilicia and Cappadocia,and was the harborterminalfor a commercialroute leading

northto Karatepe andpointsbeyond. 76 In 400BCIssusimpressed Xenophon as a large, populous,and prosperouscity. It also had a port of sufficientsize to accommodatethe combinednavy of Cyrus the Younger

consisting of a totalof sixtyships?In thefourthcenturyIssuswasa mint for variousPersiansatrapsissuingcoinsto pay for Persianmobilizations againstrevoltsin Cyprus,Phoenicia,and Egypt. Basedon the numismatic evidence,local financeofficersat Issusreferredto the city as r•(*yizzt•) in Phoenicianand :• (*yiggl•)in Aramaic. At the time of Alexander'scam-

paignthrough Cilicia,Issuswasdescribed asa noteworthy city,TM andlike other ports with close Phoenicianconnectionswas not receptiveto the Macedonianarmy. Followingthe battle of Issus,the city continuedas a mint, and its early Alexander issuesshow Phoenicianelements,with the city namein Phoenicianmonogramandthe "signof Tanit" on the reverse. Althoughthe city's importanceas a harbormay have beeneclipsedby the foundingof Antioch with its seaportat Seleuceiaon the Orontes,Issus continuedto be inhabitedin late antiquity. It appearsas Nicopolison a road which linked eastern Cilicia

and the Gulf

of Alexandretta

with the

SISSI•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

111

CilicianandCappadocian interiorin themiddleof thethirdcenturyAD.79 While the informationaboutIssusin this article, gleanedfrom the proposedidentificationof the modem site for the city, from its identification with Sissfi, and from the numismatic evidence of the Persian and Alex-

andereras, providessomeinsightinto its importanceas a port in eastern Cilicia, our knowledge remains tenuousand meager. More might be learnedaboutthe historyand cultureof Issusfrom an excavationof Kinet HiJyiJk. Universityof Tennessee

J.D. Bing

Knoxville

NOTES

1. The authorthanksfriendsand colleaguesfor their valuablecommentsand suggestions concerningearlier versionsof this article: ProfessorsDavid Marcus, Wayne Pitard, Robert Drews, and David Tandy for commentson Semitic and Greek philology; Drs. Richard Beal and JoAnn Scurlock for Hittitological and Assyriologicalcomments;ProfessorJames Carter and Mr. William Fontanez, Universityof TennesseeGeographyDepartmentand CartographyLaboratory,for their cartographicsuggestions and assistance;anonymousreadersof the Journal, especiallyfor philologicalcriticisms;and finally the editor for his suggestions and support. The authorpresenteda version of this paper at the SBL/AOS/ASOR MidwestRegionalMeetingat PurdueUniversityon February1, 1988, andprofited from the pointsraisedby ProfessorMichael C. Astourin the discussion which followed. The authortakes full responsibilityfor the mistakescontainedherein, and the abovereadersand commentators do not necessarilyagreewith the thesisand interpretations presentedhere. 2. For a recenttreatmentof the problem,seeC.L. Murison, "Darius III and the battleof Issus",Historia 21 (1972) 406 note22, andmapon 400. For mapsof Cilicia and surroundingregionsindicatingthe locationof the toponymsmentionedin this article,seeMaps 1 and 2. 3. Anabasis

1.4.1-9.

4. Cf. A.B. Bosworth,A historical commentaryon Arrian's history of Alexander 1 (1980) 199; P.A. Brunt (ed.), Arrian, History of Alexanderand Indica 1 (1976), map at endof volume;Murison(note2) 400. 5. For a descriptionof the site, see M.V. Seton-Williams,"Cilician survey", AS 4 (1954) 161,who suggests its identificationwith Nicopolis(moreon Nicopolis pp. 108 ff.). J.E. Atkinson,A commentaryon Q. CurtiusRufus'HistoriaeAlexandri Magni Books3 and 4 (1980) 470-471, identifiesKinet Hilyilk as the site of Issus;also see HansgertHellenkemper,"Das wiedergefundeneIssos",in J. Ozols and V. Thewalt (eds.),Aus dem OstendesAlexanderreiches (1984) 43-50, espe-

cially46, for thederivationof KinetHayilk fromH.is.nat-TYn•t,a fortifiedsiteon

112

J.D. BING

the Cilician coastduring the Arab-Byzantinewars of the ninth and tenthcenturies,

referredto by the tenth-century Arab geographers al-Is.t.a•ri, Ibn-H.auqal,and alMuqqadas¾. 6. Atkinson,loc. cit. andmapspp. 489-490; Hellenkemper48. 7. Seton-Williams (note 5) 161. 8.

Ibid.

9. SeeG. Lefferts'photograph of Kinet Hiiyiik in RobinLaneFox, Thesearch for Alexander(1980) 173, and Hellenkemper(note5) 49, Abb. 5. 10. Sissfi/Sizfim/Zisi

will be referred to hereafter as Sissfi. The variants will be

consideredbelow (notes21,26, 34) in the contextof their respectivetexts. 11. Sissfi/6:Akkadianhavingno o-vowel, indicatedthis soundin foreignwords by usingsignswith/u/and sometimes/a/.SeeWolfram von Soden,Grundrissder akkadischenGrammatik. Analecta Orientalia 47 (1969) •#9 e, f (p. 12), 97 r (p. 129), 103 p (p. 141). 12. Carl Darling Buck, Comparativegrammarof Greek and Latin (1933) 156, for dissimilationand haplologyin general;120 and 132 for changesinvolvinginitial sigmaand aspiration.In the caseof Siss•, the aspirationassociatedwith the double sigma togetherwith the accenton the secondsyllablecreateconditions similar to the instancescited by Buck where this initial aspirationis lost by dissimilation.Note also that psilosis,or loss of aspiration,is characteristicof East Ionic dialects:Carl Darling Buck, The Greek dialects(1928) 52-53. For the possibility of Luwian influenceon the Greek namefor Siss•, seenote 54 and Appendix I.

13. Linear B texts alreadyshow spirationof initial antevocalics. See Leonard R. Palmer, The Greek language(1980) 41. Most, if not all, of thesetextsdate to the thirteenthcentury,towardthe end of the Late BronzeAge. For the remotepossibility that SissfienteredGreek as Issusbefore the time of the Linear B tablets, see text.

14. For Mycenaean trade and possible settlement in Cilicia, see G.M.A. Hanfmann,"Archaeologyin HomericAsia Minor", AJA 52 (1948) 138-140; see alsoC. Mee, "Aegeantradeand settlementin the secondmillenniumB.C.", AS 28 (1978) 121-156, especially 150, and Elizabeth French, "A reassessment of the Mycenaeanpotteryat Tarsus",ibid. 25 (1975) 53-75. For Greekpresencein Cilicia in the Iron Age, seenote54. 15. Many examplescan be found in Wilhelm Bor6e, Die alten Ortsnamen Pal•istinas(1930), and the list of personaland geographicalnamesin the Supplement to vols. II-III of Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath,A concordanceto the Septuagint(1897). A few illustrations:

"AI3ee

•_21•

(2 Sam.20:1andpassim)

'Al3m•og

' _r3g_•

(Ezra10:15;1 Es.9:48)

'A&t3,d

•"r'•

(Ez. 47:15)

'Arrctp covd 'Agctp{ctc;

• •,'•'•.-D .U H•' .•!

(Joshua 15:11) (1 Ch.7:8)

ßr

'r:

SISSI)/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA 'Agl3pdv 'Apa6• 'Apv& 'Aptbr

l• • ½ •••• l•'•. _• '1•'1•

(Nu.26:24) (Judges 18:2) (Is.20:1) (Joshua 12:18)

'E•Jto6p

'l.'li•'.'1..7.)

(Nu. 1:5,2:10)

'E)•gtbv

l'•r•• •

(Judges 9:48)

'El.t•

' .J)•.7.)

(1 Ch.25:17)

'E•zq0ap•v•

[]:!'1.. _B 9

(Is.36:19)

'I•)•gtd

•;•.•.•

(2Es.23:13; Ne.13:13)

'I•gox)•0

FI•

(2Kings12:21[22])

113

16. SimoParpola,Neo-Assyrian toponyms.Alter OrientundAltesTestament 6 (1970) 349; onceasTarsisiwhichmayreflectGreekpronunciation: seeJ.D. Bing, "Tarsus: A forgotten colonyof Lindos",JNES30 (1971) 104andnote36; in Hittite,Targa,cf. MichaelC. Astour,Hellenosemitica (1967)27. GreekKd•otoq, for

cuneiform •hazi,is another exampleof a second-declension placenamederived from a southeastAnatolian toponym. 17. For the identification of Sissfi with Roman Sis at modem Kozan, see E.

Sachau,"Bemerkungen zu CilicischenEigennamen", ZeitschriftfiirAssyriologie 7 (1892) 92; E. Forrer,Die Provinzeinteilung desAssyrischen Reiches(1921) 81; PaulNaster,L'AsieMineureet l'Assyrieaux VIII e et VIIe si•clesav. J.-C. d'apr•s les AnnalesdesRoisAssyriens.Biblioth&tuedu Mus•5on8 (1938) 81; Ph.H.H. Houwink ten Cate, The Luwianpopulationgroupsof Lycia and Cilicia Aspera duringthe Hellenisticperiod. Documenta et MonumentaOrientisAntiqui 10 (1965) 26; A.T. Olmstead, Historyof Assyria(1923) 363; andmorerecentlyIrene J. Winter,"On the problemsof Karatepe:The reliefsandtheircontext",AS 29 (1979) 145, and J.D. Hawkins,"Somehistoricalproblemsof the Hieroglyphic Luwianinscriptions", ibid. 156. 18. MichaelGoughfoundnoevidence for theoccupation of Kozanin theclassicalperiod:"Anazarbus", AS2 (1952)94-95 andnote42. Theabsence of evidence

foranyearlyoccupation at KozanledSeton-Williams to seekthelocation of Sissfi elsewhere, possiblyTarmilHtiytik: op.cit. (note5) 169. 19. Seton-Williams (note 5) 162.

20. Seton-Williams suggests thatSismayhavebeentransferred to nearKozan from the more ancient site of Sissfi when the latter was abandoned. She also

speculates thatmodemMisis(ancientMopsuestia) mayhavebeentheancientsite of Siss0,althoughMisis was not abandoned in classicaltimes. Perhapsa place near Kozan did constitute a summer residence for the inhabitants of ancient Sissfi,

whichalsobeganto be calledby that name. It wouldnot havebecomea town, Sisium,untilthe Byzantineor medievalperiod. SeeSeton-Williams162 (Kozan) and 164-165 (Misis). Seton-Williams'proposedidentificationof Misis as Sissfi maybeinfluenced by SidneySmith'smapin Thestatueofldri-mi(1949),attached

114

J.D. BING

to page 109. SmithidentifiedLate BronzeAge Zisi with Neo-AssyrianSissfiand RomanSisium(78-79), buthis maplocatesZisi closerto Misis thanto Kozan. 21. In the documentSissfiappearsin the genitivesingular,Sœ-zi-im, rendered Sizfim in translation:G. Eisserand J. Lewy, Die altassyrischen Rechtsurkunden vom Kiiltepe, 2. Tell, in Mitteilungender Vorderasiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft33 (1929) 264. Since ZI in Old Assyriancan be transliteratedsœ,the text can be read Sœ-sœ-im: seeWolfram yon Sodenand WolfgangROllig,Das akka-

discheSyllabar 2. Analecta Orientalia 42 (1967)11-12,no.59. Thenamemaybe normalizedSissœm, andSissgmin the nominativecase,sinceconsonant doublingis oftennot indicatedin Old Assyrian.The placenameis virtuallythe samein NeoAssyrian,whichhaslost the mimationof earlierAkkadiandialects;seealsonote 34 below. Eisserand Lewy (264 note a) identified"Sizfim" in the Old Assyrian letter with Sizfi (Sissfi)of Esarhaddon'sannals,and placed the city at Roman Sisium with referenceto E. Forrer (note 17) 81. In the same note, another text is

citedwhich refers toa slave woman fromSizfim (CCTIII 48b,25).Forannaku as tin ratherthan lead ("Blei"), as translatedby Eisserand Lewy, seeCAD A 2, 127; and for woolen fabrics of specificsize and weave, see CAD K 607-608, s.v. kut•nu.

22. Firstpublished by SidneySmith(note20); JamesB. Pritchard(ed.),Ancient

NearEasterntextsrelatingto theOldTestament 3 (1969)557-558.Morerecent studiesinclude: EdwardL. GreensteinandDavid Marcus,"The Akkadianinscription of Idrimi", The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia

University8 (1976) 59-96; Gary Oller, The autobiographyof ldrimi. A new text

edition,withphilological andhistorical commentary. University of P,ennsylvania dissertation (1977), especiallych. 3; JackM. Sasson,"On Idrimi andSarruwa,the scribe", in M.A. Morrison and D.I. Owen (eds.), Studies on the civilization and

cultureof Nuzi and the Hurrians (1981) 309-324; M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, "Die

InschriftderStatuedesK0nigsIdrimi yonAlala•h",Ugarit-Forschungen 13 (1981) 201-269; and JohnVan Seters,In searchof history(1983) 188-190. 23. The total occursin line 65, and the placesare enumeratedin lines 66-67. On the recurrence of the number seven, see Greenstein and Marcus 77-78.

24. SeeSasson(note22) 315; on thedifficultiesof toponymicidentification, see Oller (note 22) 187-190.

25. Oller, 189-190, suggests that Idrimi himselfexpandeda borderraid into a

majormilitarycampaign, .although withpage200 takenintoaccount, it would appearthatOller believesSarruwahadmoreof a handin the propagandistic characterof the text. Also Sasson,passim. 26. Smith (note 20) 78-79, followed by Astour (note 16) 41. A. Goetze,in his review of Smith, Idri-mi, in Journal of CuneiformStudies4 (1950) 230, suggested

thatZisi mayby Zi-iz-zida-as(variantZida-zi-ja-a•. ThiswouldplaceZisi in the vicinity of Samosata,and a campaigninto thisregionwouldbe morethana border

raid. Nor (probably) wasSamosata a partof theHittitekingdom in thefifteenth century,althoughSarruwamay have anachronistically placedit in hatti (seenote 33 below). Goetzeassumedthe historicityof a singlegreatcampaign,and strove to locateall theplacenamesin the sameregion;but see,contra,note29 below. The orthographyin the Idrimi inscription,Zisi, reflectsthe interchangeability of sibilantss/Ez in Hurro-Akkadiantexts. See E.A. Speiser,Introductionto Hurrian.

SISSI)/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

115

AASO 20 (1941) 13, #14; also D.J. Wiseman, The Alalakh tablets(1953) 19 iv; and cf. Astour,"Place-names from the kingdomof Alalah in the North Syrianlist of ThutmoseIII: A studyin historicaltopography",JNES 22 (1963) 224, and Greensteinand Marcus (note 22) 61-62. 27.

Greenstein and Marcus 62-63.

28. See Charles-F. Jean and Jacob Hofiijzer, Dictionnaire des inscriptions s•mitiquesde l'Ouest (1965) 11; Zellig S. Harris,A grammarof the Phoenician language. American Oriental Series 8 (1936) 76; Ludwig Koehler and Walter

Baumgartner, Hebr•iisches und AramLiisches LexikonzumAlten Testament 3 (1967) 37, s.v. '.tq(1). See also Astour (note 16) 41. Oiler (note 22) 97 note 1, believesthe suggested identificationof Ie with an islandmight explainthe omissionof the city determinativeURU prior to its namein the list. The discrepancy between the total of seven destroyedcities and the enumeratedsix and one regionalnamein the Idrimi text may be explainedby the list beinga compilation of place namesoccurringin other sources,which referred to sporadicborder conflictsbetweenIdrimi andhis neighbors.

29. garruwa mayhaveobtained thetoponyms ZisiandIe fromanannalistic text in compilingthe placenameshe citesin Idrimi's "Hittite campaign".The grand

campaign composed by•,arruwa isprobably afiction created bycombining several seasonalborderraidsled by Idrimi. 30. See Smith (note 20) 79-80, for Ie's location on the Cilician coast. 31. See Idrimi text in Greensteinand Marcus (note 22) 65 and 67 lines 29-34. Also W.M. Calder andG.E. Bean,A classicalmap of Asia Minor (1958).

32. Smith(note20) 79 suggested Idrimi'sattackon •hattiwasa navalcampaign.

garruwa described Idrimi's grand campaign asbeing directed again•st theHittites. This may be an anachronism reflectingthe politicalconditionsof Sarruwa'slifetime, notIdrimi's. SeeSasson(note22) passim,andespecially323. 33. For the transcribedAkkadian text with translation,see R. Borger, Die InschriftenAsarhaddons,KOnigs von Assyrien. AOF Beiheft 9 (1956) 49-50 Episode6: AIII 20-38; the quotedtranslationis in JamesB. Pritchard(note 22) 290-291. See alsoD.D. Luckenbill,Ancientrecordsof Assyriaand BabyloniaII (1926) 206 nos. 513-514. 34. See note 17 abovefor referencesto scholarswho identify Sissfiwith Sisium

and Kozan. For the Neo-Assyrianorthographyof Sissfi,seeR. Borger49 and 132 URU/KUR Si-(is-)su/zu-ti/u;and Parpola(note 16) 313. The Neo-Assyrianspelling clearlyindicatesthatthe secondvowel is long,andon thisevidencethe transcribedand normalizedOld Assyrianwhich was discussedabove(note 21) is also given a long secondvowel. Moreover,ZU, which is normallyread zu in NeoAssyrian,in rare instancesmustbe readsti: seevon SodenandROllig(note21) 2, no. 5. It is possible,therefore,that the variantSi-zu-u(Sizzti)may be read Si-sti-u (SissY). 35. For Sanduarri's and Abdi-Milkutti's overseascommunications,cf. Machteld

J. Mellink, "Karatepe,more light on the dark ages",BO 7 (1950) 148, and Hawkins (note 16) 156, who refers to Sanduarri's and Abdi-Milkutti's revolt as an "anti-Assyriannaval alliance".

36. For the Phoeniciantext andtranslationwith commentaryandbibliography, see John C.L. Gibson,Textbookof Syrian SemiticinscriptionsIII (1982) 41-64;

116

J.D. BING

and for the Luwian Hieroglyphic,J.D. Hawkins and A. MorpurgoDavies,"On the problems of Karatepe. The hieroglyphic text", Anatolian Studies 28 (1978) 103-119. The following summaryof the Phoenicianevidenceis taken from Winter (note 17) 115-151. Winter finds two distinctivestyles in the reliefs at Karatepe:(B), which Winter arguesis predominantlya Phoenicianstyle with a more completedevelopmentand datesto the late eighth or early seventhcenturies; and (A), which is earlier (ninth century)and consistsmainly of Neo-Hittite with only isolatedPhoenicianelements. 37. Winter 120-123; also Machteld J. Mellink (note 35) 141-150.

38. Winter 120 with notes21 and 22, whereshecitesE. Porada,"A lyre-player from Tarsusand his relations",in S. Weinberg(ed.), The Aegeanand the Near East. Studiespresentedto Hetty Goldman (1956), and G. Buchnerand J. Boardman, "Sealsfrom Ischiaandthe lyre-playergroup",JDA181 (1966) 1-62, cf. 123. 39. Winter 138 and note 97, citing H. Goldman, Excavationsat G6zlii Kule, TarsusIII (1963) 110, nos. 651-659 and 670; 122; 131, nos. 1058 and 1068-1075. Seediscussion belowfor furtherevidenceof Phoenicianpresencein Cilicia in general and Issusin particular. The strengthof the Phoenicianpresencein Cilicia may also be reflectedin the traditionpreservedin Herodotus7.91, that Cilix, the eponymousancestorof the Cilicians,wasa Phoenician. 40. Winter 139 note 103. For the distributionof archaeological sitessouthof

Misis, seeM.V. Seton-Williams(note5) 136 Figure5; Herodotus4.38 &r•b'•o•

M•)ptctv•St}co• •:d•,rco•) xo• rcp•)g •otv•ml, •:œtg•vo•); Xenophon, Anabasis1.4.6 Muplavi5ovr•d•,tvoi•oug•vrlv•r•b •otvi•t0v. The recentdiscoveryof a Phoenician inscriptiondatingto the late seventhcenturyin mountainous westernCilicia at Cebel Ire•, 15 km east of Alanya, suggeststhat the Phoenicianswere on the westernedge of Cilicia Tracheiaas well as in the plain itself. See MachteldJ. Mellink, "Archaeologyin Asia Minor", AJA 87 (1983) 442, and Paul G. Mosca and JamesRussell,"A new Phoenicianinscriptionfrom RoughCilicia", AJA 87 (1983) 246. 41. For the identification of Sanduarri with Azatiwatas, the author of the Kara-

tepebilingual,seeWinter 146 note 138, and Hawkins (note 17) 156. If Winter's proposedidentificationand Hawkins' philologicalconstructshouldprove to be incorrect,theprincipalthesisof thispaperwouldnotbe affected. 42. Hawkins and Davies (note 36) 116 line XXXIX.

43. For the severalclassicalreferencesto Kyinda, see R.H. Simpson,"A note on Cyinda", Historia 6 (1959) 503-504, and J.D. Bing, "A further note on Cyinda/Kundi",Historia 22 (1973) 346-350; and seenote44 below. H. Winckler,

Altorientalische Forschungen 2 I (1898)118,firstidentified Neo-Assyrian Kundu with Kyinda;againstthis, seeA.K. Grayson,Assyrianand Babylonianchronicles (1975) 259, who statesthat both Sissfi and Kundu are "obviously" located near Sidon. Sachau(note 17) refersto E. Petersenand F. yon Luschan,Reisenin Lyk-

ien,MilyasundKibyratis(1884) 3 note3, for the personal nameKo6viSrlg still occurringin Cilicia in the late nineteenthcentury. For Kyinda's association with fabulouswealth,seethe Menanderfragmentin Athenaeus11.484C.

44. Malalas,Chronographia 10,followedby Suda,s.vv.'Avdt•ap•og,KCtviSa, andAtoratod•pœta. My ownview of Kyinda'slocationhaschangedsincethearticle citedin the previousnote.

SISS•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA

117

45. For the topographyof Anazarbus,see Michael Gough (note 18) 86-88, 99-109, andespeciallythe siteplanon page99. Comparethecitadelat Pergamum whereLysimachusplacedPhiletaerusin chargeof a treasurywith 9000 talents: Strabo 13.4.1,623.

46. Que was the Neo-Assyriantoponymfor the Cilician plain: seeAfif Erzen, Kilikien bis zum Ende der Perserherrschaft(1940) 54-58; cfi Houwink ten Cate (note 17) 17 ff. For the Neo-Assyrianreferencesto Que, see Parpola (note 16)

288-289.SeveralHittiteandLuwiangramma, ticalformsmayexplainthetoponymic suffix -nta-/-nda-: see E. Laroche, "Etudes de toponymieanatolienne", Revue Hittite et Asianique 69 (1961) 63-77, especially 74-77; also Hans G. Giiterbock'sreview of LadislavZgusta,KleinasiatischeOrtsnamen,in JNES 45 (1986) 321. The prevailingview, whichattributesthis suffixto a Hittite/Luwian pluralending,remainsproblematical,sincethe Luwian nominativeplural is -anzi, and the accusativeis -anza. For anda as a Luwian and Hittite postposition meaning "in", "within", "inside","in(to)", seeJ. Puhvel,Hittite etymologicaldictionary 1-2 (1984) 76-77; also see Emmanuel Laroche, Les hi•roglyphes hittites. Premiere partie: L'•criture (1960) 34 #49. Richard Beal, in a personal leuer, stresses that "andaattachedto geographical names(as opposedto a separateword postposition thatfollows them) is quitecommonin Anatolian,especiallyLuwian, geographicalnamesand is usuallyconsidereda suffix, variouslyexplained". A difficulty for the proposedderivationfor this toponymicsuffix is that thereare no knownexamplesof Hittite andLuwianpostpositions remainingattachedto nouns. 47. For the Luwian dative, see J.D. Hawkins, Anna Morpurgo-Davies,and GiinterNeumann,"Hittite hieroglyphsandLuwian. New evidencefor the connection", inNAWG 6 (1973) 168-170 [=26-28] note 98, and 152 [= 10] and note 26. 48. Strabo14.5.9-10, 671-672, and Diodorus18.62.1-2; againstthis, Gough (note 18) 91-92. Strabo'sgeographical descriptionof southernAnatoliaproceeds

westto east: Lamus-Soli-Zephyrium-Anchiale, and•c•p•cœt'•txt 'Avgt&•,qg •px)l,ta,i.e. Kyindais somewhere in theinteriorfromthecoastat Anchiale. Strabothensays:"And still abovethisandSoli is a mountainous country,in which is a city Olbe.... "Strabo hasreversedhis geographicalorder. Soli is on the westernedgeof the plain and Olbe is even fartherwest, locatedin the mountainousinterior of Cilicia-Tracheia. Strabo may have believed Olbe was more directlynorthof the Cilician plain, and so aboveSoli and Kyinda (Anazarbus). In any case,Strabo'slocationof Kyinda is imprecise. Diodorus18.62.1-2 describesPtolemyI, in 318, sailingto Zephyriumon the Cilician coastbetweenSoli andTarsus,and sendingmessagesto the treasurersand guardsat Kyinda offeringhis protection,shouldtheychooseto ignoreordersfrom Polyperchon,the Macedonianregent,to dispensetreasureto Eumenesfor his war againstAntigonus. Ptolemy'spositionat Zephyriummay not have been dictated by its proximity to Kyinda so much as by Ptolemy'sdesireto defendCilicia from an attackby Macedonianforcesapproaching from the west,shouldthe authorities at Kyinda chooseto side with him. For the interior locationof Kyinda, see Plutarch, Demetrius 32.1.

49. See Map 1 and any ancientatlas for this region; also W.M. Calder and GeorgeE. Bean,A classicalmap of Asia Minor (1958). 50. Alexander's mint at Tarsus is well known: see E.T. Newell, Tarsos under

118

J.D. BING

Alexander. American Journal of Numismatics 52 (1918); for the Alexander mint at

Issus,seeJ.D. Bing, "Reattributionof the 'Myriandrus' Alexanders:The casefor

Issus",AmericanJournalof Numismatics 2 1 (1989) 1 if., contraE.T. Newell, Myriandros--Alexandria kat'lsson. AmericanJournalof Numismatics53, part 2 (1920) [hereaftercitedNewell, Myriandros]. 51. For the satrapalissuesof thesefour Cilician cities,seeGeorgeFrancisHill, Catalogueof the Greek coinsin the BritishMuseum.Lycaonia,lsauria and Cilicia 21 (1900) lxxi-lxxv, lxxvi-lxxxv, cxvii--cxxii, and cxxvi--cxxviii [hereafter BMC Lycaonia].

52. See note 45 above. Kyinda may also have been a repositoryfor treasure being shipped to Antipater to help pay for the war with Sparta: see Arrian 3.16.9-10 and cf. Diod. 18.12.2, 52.7.

53. See alsoBing (note50 above)for Phoenicianpresenceat Issusin the fourth century. 54. For countermarks with r' and its identification with Issus, see Ernest

Babelon,Cataloguedesmonnaiesgrecques.Les Persesachdm•nides,les satrapes et les dynastestributairesde leur empire: Chypre & Ph•nicie (1910) xxx; BMC

Lycaoniacxxvii--cxxviii, 55 no. 21, andnote1; B.V. Head,Historianumorum 2 (1911) 715 and722; F. Imhoof-Blumer,Monnaiesgrecques(1883) 355-356. One coin mintedat Soli in westernCilicia hascountermarks with •' and •', probably Phoenician*yizzg and Aramaic *yigd•: see G. MacDonald, Catalogue of Greek coins in the Hunterian collection2 (1901) 543 no. 6, Plate 60,1; see also ImhoofBlumer, KleinasiatischeMiinzen (1901-1902) 488 no. 7; Babelon, Trait• des mon-

naiesgrecqueset romaines2 II (1910) cols. 887-888 no. 1423; for enlargements of thesecountermarkson the Soli coin, seeBing (note 50) Plate 1,9. AlthoughAramaic • is normallytranscribed •, the specialcircumstances of this countermarkseem to justify g. Biblical Aramaic and sometimesthe Targums vacillatedbetweens and •, especiallyregardinguncertainpronunciationof foreign names or words. In the case of Issus, possibly derived from Luwian, Greek displayedsigma,Phoenicianzayin, and,on the countermarkin question,Aramaic •. On Aramaic $, and •, see Franz Rosenthal,Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1974) 16; Klaus Beyer, The Aramaic language. Its distributionand subdivisions, tr. JohnF. Healey (1986) 18-19. The Phoenicianand Aramaic spellingsfor Issuswhich are attestedonly in the fourthcenturyBCmay havedevelopedunderthe influenceof the Greek toponym. AlthoughXenophon,Anab. 1.2.24, 4.1-3, is the first Greek known to mention Issus,evidenceof Greek presencein Cilicia in the eighthand seventhcenturiesis well known:seeBing (note 16) passim. Issuscoinageearly in the fourthcentury suggests at leastthe possibilityof a Greek colonyin the city: seeE.T. Newell, in

"A Cilicianfind",NC4 14(1914)14-16,andColinM. Kraay,Archaicandclassical Greek coins(1976) 285-286. SeeAppendixI for possibleLuwian influenceon Greeklssos,Phoenician*yizzg,andAramaic*yigd•, as toponymsfor a placeoriginally namedSiss•. 55. For Phoenicianletterson the Mazaeusissues,seeCynthia Milton Harrison, Coins of the Persian satraps. University of Pennsylvaniadissertation(1982)

359-361,andJ.P.Six,"Lesatrape Maza¾os", NC34 (1884)112,137. 56. The "signof Tanit" occurson the IssuscoinsthroughoutNewell's SeriesII

SISSI•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANS IN CILICIA

119

and III which date from c. 329 to 326: seeMyriandros (note 50) 32-34. Numismatists refer to this sign as an ankh or croix ansde: cf. Babelon, Traitd (note 54) 348-349, 403, and RobertA. Moysey, "The silver starerissuesof Pharnabazosand Datamesfrom the mint of Tarsus in Cilicia", ANSMusN 31 (1986) 10-11 with note 10. For the unusualprone positionof the Tanit sign on the IssusAlexanders,see Bing (note 50 above). For the variety of forms of the "sign of Tanit", see Elisha Linder, "A cargo of Phoenicio-Punicfigurines",Archaeology26 (1973) 185. Cf. Jane Burr Carter, "The masks of Ortheia", AJA 91 (1987) 373. For the early fourth-centuryIssuscoinswith the "sign of Tanit", seeE.T. Newell (note 54) 14 with Figure 1.8 andPlate III; alsoBMC Lycaonia cxxvii. 57. The prominenceof Athena as well as the 'Anat/Tanit symbolson various Issusissuessuggests the mint's locationin a templeat Issusdedicatedto a goddess identifiedby Greekswith Athenaandby Phoenicians with 'Anat. For a Cypriote exampleof sucha syncretismin the early Hellenisticperiod, see H. Donner and

W. R/311ig, Kanaan•iische undaram•iische Inschriften 112(1968)59no.42. Athena at Magarsusalsoseemsto have had a local character:cf. Arrian 2.5.9. For Athena on early issuesfrom Issus,see E.S.G. Robinsonin "Greek coinsacquiredby the

BritishMuseum1938-1948.I", NC 6 8 (1948) 56, no. 9; andid., "A starerof Issos",NC 6 9 (1949) 114. 58. Curtius 3.7.7; Diodorus 17.32.4.

59. Arrian 2.1.1-2.5; 2.13.4-8. 2.20.2 mentionsa few Cilician shipsfrom Soli and Mallus goingover to Alexanderduringthe siegeof Tyre. The main Phoenician fleet disintegratedonly with Alexander'scaptureof its homebaseat Tyre and the surrenderof Cyprus: cf. Arrian 1.18.6--9,2.17.3. 60. Cicero,Adfam. 2.10.3. Ciceroexplicitly statesthat thishappenedat or near (apud) IssuswhereAlexanderdefeatedDarius. 61. Ibid. 15.4.9: the same gods to whom Alexander prayed prior to Issus, accordingto Curtius 3.8.22; see Bing, "Alexander'ssacrificedis praesidibusloci before the battle of Issus",JHS 111 (1991) 161-165. 62. Dio 27.7-8; also Herodian 3.4.7, and HA Sev. 9.5. 63. W. Ruge,RE 9, 2247, s.v. Issos. SeeHellenkemper(note5) 48 with note7,

for theninth-century Arab geographer Qudama'sreferenceto IssusasNiqgbulus. 64. ErnestHonigmann,RE 17,535-536, s.v. Nikopolis(7), summarizesthe evidence.It is curiousthat PtolemaeusincludedNicopolis in Cilicia. His latitudinal coordinatesmakehis Nicopolisthe northernmost city in the interiorof easternCilicia, more appropriatefor the IslahiyeNicopolis. Ptolemaeus'longitudinalcoordinatesfor this Nicopolis are inaccurate,sincethey are the sameas thosefor Epiphaneia,the SyrianGates,Alexandreiakat'Isson,and Myriandrus. This distortion may have resultedin Ptolemaeus'attributingthe Syrian Nicopolis to the Cilician interior. The naturaleasternboundaryof Cilicia is the main ridge of the Amanus Mountainchain,and that was the boundarywhichthe provincesharedwith Syria at thetime of Cicero: seeAdfam. 2.10.2. It is unlikelythattheprovinceof Cilicia was extendedby the secondcenturyAD to includeterritory east of the Amanus, sincePtolemaeus5.7.1 statesthat the AmanuswasCilicia's boundarywith Syria. For a brief discussionof the generallongitudinalproblemsin Ptolemaeus,seeWilliam JosephCherf, "The RomanbordersbetweenAchaia and Macedonia",Chiron 17 (1987) 136. See also ItinerariaAntoniniana 190.

120

J.D. BING

65. CIL III 6703, where the earlier name for Islahiye is also mentioned;cf. Honigmann,RE. 66. Contra Honigmann (notes 64 above and 70 below). Modem studiesand maps conflict in placing Nicopolis at Islahiye or Issus, and rarely are both identified as such by the same author. Compare two maps in Westermanns GrosserAtlas zur Weltgeschichte (1956) 22 II and 39: the formershowsIssusand the latterIslahiyeas Nicopolis. Bosworth(note4) 203 saysthe nameof Issuswas (temporarily?)changedto Nicopolis;and Seton-Williams(note 5) identifiedKinet Hilyilk with Nicopolis. Also seeHellenkemper(note5) 49-50 notes4 and 7. 67. 5.8.7, and discussionin note 64 above.

68. Strabo14.19, 676, listedNicopolisamongthe cities and portsborderingthe Gulf of Issusin a sequencewhich suggests this Nicopolisis Issus:Rhosus,Myriandros,Alexandreia,Nicopolis, Mopsuestia(mod. Misis), and Pylae (see Map 1). The fact that Strabohas alreadymentionedIssushasbeenusedby othersto argue that Issusand Nicopolis are differentcities: see CIL III 6703, and Honigmann (note 64).

69. Stephanus Byzantius,s.v. 'Iaa6q (A. Meineke(ed.) StephaniByzantiiEthnicorumquaesupersunt(1849) 340). 70. This inscriptionis on the so-calledKaabahof Zoroasterwhich facesthe Naqsh-i-Rustamcliff, the royal Achaemenidnecropolis:A.T. Olmstead,"The mid-third century of the Christian era", CPh 37 (1942) 241-262, 398-420; M. Sprengling, "A new Pahlavi inscription",AJSL 53 (1936) 126ff., and "ShahpuhrI, The Great, on the Kaabah of Zoroaster (KZ)", ibid. 57 (1940) 341-381. See also ErnestHonigmannand Andr6 Maricq, Recherchessur les Res GestaeDivi Saporis.M6moiresin-8ø de l'Acad6mieRoyale de Belgique(Lettres) XLVII (1952), and Andr6 Maricq, "Res Gestae Divi Saporis",Syria 35 (1958) 295-360. Both Honigmann and Maricq recognize only one Nicopolis in the Shapurcampaigns,and it is locatedat Islahiye: cf. notes64 ff. above. 71. Sprengling, "Shahpuhr I" 364-366; also Olmstead, AJSL 57 (1940) 403-4 10.

72. Sprengling373-374; Olmstead(41/I /118) identifiedthe easternmostcity reachedin Cappadociaas Sebasteia(modem Sivas). Shapurreturnedto eastern Cilicia by way of Comanaand a road on which are locatedHieropolisCastabala, Neronias, Flaviopolis (modem Kadirli), Nicopolis (Kinet Hayilk accordingto Seton-Williams(note 5) 161), and Epiphaneia(modem Gilze Han, 11 km southof Toprakkale;see Seton-Williams155), althoughnot necessarilyin that order. The geographic orderof thesecities,as Shapurencountered themtravellingfrom north to south, would be: Comana, Flaviopolis (=Kadirli), Hieropolis Castabala, Neronias,Epiphaneia,andNicopolis(= Issus);contraOlmstead418, who assumes withoutdiscussion that Nicopolisis in North Syria. (For all this, seeMaps 1 and 2.) Neronias is only known to be located somewhere in easternmostCilicia: W. Ruge, RE 17, 48-49, s.v. Neronias(1); also Ernest Honigmann,"NeroniasIrenopolis in easternCilicia", Byzantion20 (1950) 39-61, and Henri Seyrig,

"Irenopolis-Neronias-Sepphoris", NC6 10(1950)284-289. 73. Jacoby,FGrH 99 F2. 74. Seton-Williams (note 5) 149. 75. H. Kiepert (cited by Droysen, below) believed Islahiye was named

SISSI•/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

121

Nicopolisbecauseit was the locationof DariusIII's campbeforehe marchedinto Cilicia prior to the battleof Issusin 333 --Sochi in Ardan 2.6.1: Darius' move to Issuswasa factorin Alexander'svictory,andhe may haverenamedSochiNicopolis to commemoratethe role it played in the eventsleadingup to his victory at Issus. (See JohannGustavDroysen,GeschichtedesHellenismusIII 2 (1877) 201.) If this explanationis correct,it lays to rest a long-existinggeographical puzzle: DariusIII's campat Sochiwaslocatedat Islahiyein Syria. 76. SeeAppendixI. 77.

Anab. 1.4.1-3.

78.

Diod. 17.32.4.

79. While the archaeological evidenceandtextualreferencesto Issus/Nicopolis indicatethe city's continuedexistencein late antiquity,absenceof any coinage attributed

to Issus after c. 319 BC has been viewed

as evidence

of Issus' decline

and even its attachmentto neighboringEpiphaneia.See W. Ruge,RE s.v. Issos; Hellenkemper,op. cit. (note5) 44; andGilbert DagronandDenisFeissel,Inscriptions de Cilicie.

Travaux

et Mfmoires

du Centre de Recherche d'Histoire

et Civil-

isationde Byzance. Coll•ge de France;Monographies4 (1987) 209-210. See AppendixII for a summaryandcritiqueof the latterdiscussion. APPENDIX

Commerce

I

in Horses in Cilicia

Commercein horsesappearsto havebeenan importanteconomicactivityin Cilicia, and horsesprobablywere exportedfrom Cilicia at Sissfi. The toponymSissfi may derive from the Akkadian word for horse. See CAD S 328 s.v. sfsti; also W. yon Soden,Akkadisches Handw6rterbuchII (1972) 1051 s.v. sisti(m). Parpola (note 16) 313 showsone instancein which Sissfiis written in Neo-Assyrianwith

theSumerograms for"Horse City":KURAN•,E-KUR-RA-AIA. It occurs in an undatedadministrativetext. While Parpolalists this spellingwith the known Esarhaddon references to Sissfi, one cannot be certain that it refers to the same

place. See also JuliusLewy, "•hatta,•hattu,•hatti,•hattuga, and Old Assyrian •hattum", Archiv Orientdlnœ 18, No. 3 (1950) 394 n.Ol, for Sissfimeaning"The City of the Divine Horse", and for a number of referencesto horsesin Old

Assyrian texts.TheHittitesusedtheSumerogram ANgE-KUR-RA for horse, althoughthe noun did end in -u-: see J. Friedrich,HethitischesW6rterbuch. 1. Ergiinzungsheft (1957) 25. Since Luwian was the native languagein Cilicia during the Iron Age, the Luwian word for horsemay have playeda role in the formationof the Greek as well as the West Semitic spellingsfor Sissfi. For the Luwian word for horse,

asu(wa), seePieroMeriggi,Hieroglyphisch-Hethitisches Glossar 2 (1962)39,and also Emmanuel Laroche,Les hi•roglypheshittites (1960) 62 #99: "cheval" as "asuwa-?". For Hittite place namesderived from namesof animals, see Laroche (note 46) 80-81. Luwian asu(wa)may be the foreignname which Greek Issos, Phoenician*yizzti, and Aramaic*yigdtiattemptedto reproduce.Note that Luwian d-sti(-wa)-couldbecome*esa-: compareexamplesin Laroche14 #19.

122

J.D. BING

Azatiwatasin the Karatepebilingualrefersto his acquisitionof horses:Gibson (note 36) 46-47 line 7. Solomon'sroyal merchantspurchasedhorsesfrom Cilicia (Que): l Kings 10:28-29, and 2 Chron. 1'16-17. Both biblical passagesrefer to

Mis.rayimalongwith Ciliciaasa sourcefor Solomon'shorses.Mostmodemcommentatorsof thesetextstranslateMi.srayimas "Cappadocia"ratherthan "Egypt", which is generally found in standardtranslations. Ezekiel 27:14 says Tyre obtained horses and mules from Togarmah (Neo-Assyrian Til-Garimmu), identifiedwith Gtirtin in eastemCappadocia(see Map 2). For argumentsagainst Egyptas a commercialsourcefor horses,and for furtherdiscussion of Cappadocia as Neo-AssyrianMusri (=Hebrew Mis.rayim) and this region as a sourcefor horses in the second and first millennia, see Moshe Elat, "The economic relations

of the Neo-Assyrianempirewith Egypt",JAOS 98 (1978) 20-34, especially21-25 with notes 8, 25, 29; also cf. Pritchard (note 22) 279 with note 9.

The Persianking receivedfive hundredhorsesas part of Cilicia's annualtribute: Hdt. 3.90. In the Assyrianperiod horsesmay have been tradedthroughCilicia

fromCappadocia (Tabal). Tiglath-Pileser III received2000horsesfrom•hulliwho replaced Uassurme (Wasu-Sarmes) askingof Tabal,andSarg•on II addedhorses andmulesto thetributeof Matti of Tunniwhenhe wasgivenSinu•htu:seeLuckenbill (note 33) I 288 #802; II 27 #55. Inscriptionsof Wasu-Sarmessuggesthis

territory cqrresponded to thevilayets of Kayseri andNev•ehir:seeHawkins (note 17) 163. Sinu•htu is probablylocatednearAksaray:seeO.R. Gumey'snotefollowing Hawkins' article (note 17) 167. Kayseri, Nev•ehir, and Aksaray are locateddirectlynorth of Cilicia acrossthe TaurusMountains(seeMap 2). Cilicia would have offered

the most direct route to the coast for these interior

horse-

producingregions. See also Hdt. 6.95: horses were loaded on to Persian

"transport-ships for horses" (inntx¾o)•o• vfleq)at Cilicianportsin 490Bc. Phoeniciancommercein horsesinvolving Cilicia was most likely by sea, and the volume of this commercemay have resultedin Phoeniciansoften decorating their ships'prows(sometimesbothprow and stem) with a carvedhorse-head;for this type of Phoenicianship,whichGreekscalledhippos,seeDonaldHarden,The Phoenicians(1962) 169, and Plates47, 48. NahmanAvigad recentlypublisheda sealdepictingan Israelitesailing-shipwith an apparenthorse-headprow datingto theeighthor seventhcenturyBC("A Hebrewsealdepictinga sailingship",BASOR 246 (1982) 59-62). Avigad saysthat the ship's prototypewas probablyPhoenician. If this ship doeshave a horse-headprow, it fumishesevidencethat larger sailing-ships, in additionto the better-attested smallerPhoenicianvessels,had this ornamentation.

APPENDIX

II

Issus after Alexander

Ruge(RE, s.v. Issos)suggested that the absenceof coinagefrom Issusafter Alexandersupportsthe late literaryevidence(Mela I 70) that Issusdeclinedin importance. Hellenkemper(note 5) 44, proposedthat after the battle of Issus,the city lost its former significance.While the harborand commerceof Aegae grew in

SISSI_)/ISSUS, AND PHOENICIANSIN CILICIA

123

importance,the new foundationof Alexandreia kat'Isson and Oeniandus(later Epiphaneia)assumedcontrolof the territoryof the Issusplain. More recently, Dagron and Feisselhave discussedthe implicationsof a Greek inscriptionfound at Karahiiyiikwhich recordsthe existenceof a grain marketat this site probably in the secondcentury ^D. This evidence indicates that Karahiiyiikwas an urbancentera little over 2 km southof Gaze Han, the site of ancientEpiphaneia.The authorsseemto suggestthat both Karahiiyiikand Kinet Hiiyiik shouldbe identifiedas Issus,and that Issusbecamethe port of Epiphaneia beginningwith the Hellenisticera. ("Dans cettehypoth•se,il est h croirequ'Issos

fut absorb6e, peut-•tred•s l'6poquehel16nistique, ,par la cit6 tout proche

d'•piphan6ia, et quele portd'Issos devintceluid'Epiphan6ia.") Dagronand Feissel do not believe that identifying Karahiiytik as the urban center of Issus contradictsthe ancienttestimonyfor the latter's coastallocation,sincethis mound is separatedfrom the site of its port (Kinet Hiiyiik) by the shortdistanceof 2 km (" ... le fait qu'Issos,d'apr•s Pto16m6eet le Stadiasme,soit h cherchersur la c6te, n'est pasun graveobstacle,le port pouvant•tre sansdifficult661oign6de la ville de 2 km"). But the map in Seton-Williams(note 5) 122 indicatesa much greater distancebetweenthe two sitesthanDagronandFeisselclaim. Kinet Htiyiik would appearto be slightlyover 10 km southeastof Karahiiyiik. If this is the correctdistance,Dagronand Feissel'shypothesisbecomesincreasinglydoubtful. The two moundsand the 10-km distancebetweenthem are apparentfrom the map in Hellenkemper45, Abb. 2 (Karahtiyiikappearsas "Tumulus"in the upperleft comerof the map whichwas drawnand originallypublishedby A. Bauer,"Die Schlachtbei

Issos", Jahreshefte des•Jsterreichischen Arch•iologischen Institutes 2 (1899)109, Abb. 59). Dagron and Feisselrightly suggestthat only an on-siteinvestigation will permit a more preciseunderstanding of the relative importanceof thesetwo archaeological sitesin the Romanperiod.

IRANO-HELLENIC

1. THE

From

Demosthenes

NOTES

THREE

XV

9 we

FACES

learn

OF TIGRANES

that in 366

*

the Athenians

sent

Timotheus • to assistAriobarzanes, the satrapof Hellespontine Phrygia, 2 on the conditionthat the latter's actionswould not "violate our treatywith

theKing".3 Timotheus,seeingthat Ariobarzaneswas in open revolt from the King [i.e., ArtaxerxesII] andthat Samoswas garrisoned by Cypro-

themis, 4 who had been stationedthere by Tigranes,the King's hyparch(E•tov • q•povpov•t•vrlv (•n• Kvnpo0•tt•og,•v ox'rloeTtypd•vrlg 6 •xot•0g (•n•xpZog), abandoned hisintentionof helping the satrap,but investedthe island and used his force to liberate it.

As is known from other sources, Samos was taken after a ten-month

siege,and AriobarzanesrewardedTimotheus'servicesby giving Sestos

andCrithoteto Athens?Thisaccount by Demosthenes raisesa numberof problems.It indicatesthatTigraneswasa knownfigurein Graeco-Persian affairs in the fourth decadeof the fourth centuryBC,yet other sourcesare silent on him. Furthermore, the term "hyparch" could mean--at that

time--eithera satrap 6 or oneof thevariouslesserofficialssubordinate to a satrap ? and,naturally, to a karanos 8 ("supreme commander": fromOld Persiankdra= "army/folk "9) whoheldmorethanonesatrapy. •0Hence, even the rank of Tigranes,his immediatesuperior,and the area he controlled remain unspecified,and an attempt at establishingthem seems justified.

124

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

125

II

The third questionaffordsan answermostreadily. It involvesthe position of Ionia in generaland Samosin particularduringthe Persianperiod. The coastalprovincewassubjugated by the armiesof Cyrusthe Great,but the island came into contactwith Persiain 525 BC, when Polycratesoffered Cambysessomenaval assistance(HerodotusIII 44). During the turbulent

yearof therevoltof thePseudo-Smerdis (522),TM Oroetes, satrap of Lydia, deceivedPolycrates,killed him in Magnesia,and seizedhis treasure,only to be himself executedby the order of Darius a year or two later (ibid. 120-28). Then Samoswas takenby the Persiansand deliveredto Syloson, a brother of Polycrates(ibid. 139-49), and after him to his son Aeaces (ibid. IV 138; VI 13,25) who held the tyranny until Mardonius cameto the coast"and put down all the tyrantsthroughoutIonia replacing them with democracies"(ibid. VI 43). The island servedas Xerxes' naval base even after Salamis; from here the Persians "could watch over Ionia to

hinderit from breakinginto revolt"(ibid. VIII 130). It wasnow givento Theomestor,a Samiannaval captainwho servedin the Persianfleet at Salamiswith remarkablebravery and devotion(ibid. VIII 85), but soon the Atheniannaval force reachedSamos,whereuponthe Persianssailedto the mainland (see further below), and the Samiansjoined the Athenian side (ibid. IX 96).

After Mycale and Eurymedon,the Persianslost the greaterportionof the coastalprovincewith the islandsto the west of it. Only a narrow tract

in theinteriorremainedin theirhand,ruledby the satrapof Lydia.12 In 441, however, Samian oligarchsappealedto and made an alliance with Pissuthnes, satrapof Lydia, and recoveringthe islandfrom an Athenian garrison,restoredit to Persia(ThucydidesI 115,4). Periclesreversedthe situationby 439, incorporatingSamosinto the AthenianEmpireand forcing the Medizing oligarchsinto exile in Anaia (ibid. IV 75). Thereafter factionalismcontinuedin Samos,even leadingto a revolt againstAthens in 412 (Diodorus XIII 34), but the pro-Athenian segmentprevailed, receivingautonomyin 412 (ThucydidesVIII 21) andAtheniancitizenship in 405. Shortlyafter, Lysander,an ally of Cyrus the Younger,captured Samos,exiled the pro-Athenianelements,and then "handedthe controlof the city back to its one-timecitizens",i.e., the Samianexiles in Anaia (Xenophon,HellenicaII 3,6 f.). The revivalof AthensrestoredSamosto the Athenianside,and althougha Spartanforce sentin 391 underDiphridasto Asia Minor to ravagethe King's lands(ibid. IV 8,20) seizedSamos

126

A. SHAPUR

SHAHBAZI

(DiodorusXIV 97), the island generallyremainedan Athenian ally, and was among the islandsgrantedautonomyby the King's Peace in 387/6 (Xenophon,Hellenica V 1,31). In the meantime,the Persianshad gradually regainedpart of the coastalprovince;andjoining it with Caria, they had oncemore formedan administrativedistrict--the so-calledsatrapyof

Ionia--which wasnormallyruledby the satrapof Lydia•3 (seefurther below). This restorationdeprived the islandersof their Peraea on the coast,and many islandoligarchsbecamesusceptible to Persianovertures. In 381, Isocrateswarned (IV 163) that the Persiangrip over WesternAsia would tempt the Chians,Rhodiansand Samiansto favour Persia. A key naval base crucial for the control of Ionia and the corn routes, Samos

could not remain independentbetween an expandingSecond Athenian Confederacyand a Persiadeterminedto reasserther authorityover Ionia and its geographicaldependencies.By 366, the Persianshad gainedcontrol of the islandandthe Athenianswere reactingby sendingTimotheusto reverse the situation.

Now, any conflict over Ionia and the islands would have normally involvedthe satrapof Lydia. This was the casein 441 with Pissuthnes (ThucydidesI 115,4; III 31,1; 34,2). His successor, Tissaphemes(ibid. VIII 5,4), in turn senthis lieutenantTamosas hyparchof Ionia (ibid. VIII 31,2; 87,1, 3) and was himself involved in the transactionsover Ionian cities (ibid. VIII 84,4; 109,1). Tamos was reinstatedby the karanosCyrus the Younger(DiodorusXIV 19,6; 35,3), and additionallyis said to have

actedas his fleetcommander (Xenophon, AnabasisI 2,21, 4,2).•4 Later satrapsof Lydia, Tiribazus and Autophradates,also seem to have sent

theirsubordinates to govemIonia.•5 Indeed,to the endof the Persian Empire,thesatraps of Lydiacontinued toholdIoniaaswell.•6 EvenStruthas (or Struses) •7 who is once describedas the "satrapof Ionia" in 391-388 (DiodorusXIV 99,1) was, as Xenophonspecifies(Hellenica IV

8,17),a replacement forTiribazus, •8and,in keeping withthetradition?a satrapof Lydia whoadditionallyheldIonia. Consequently,in referenceto the Persianinvolvementsin the coastal provincein the 360s,the hyparchwouldhavebeenthe hyparchof Ionia, a lieutenantof the satrapof Lydia. Hence,Tigranes"the hyparch"who garrisonedSamosin 366 would have beenthe hyparchof Ionia, and subordinate to Autophradates, then satrapof Lydia. Demosthenes'specification of him as "the King's hyparch"might be interpretedto meanthat he was directlyappointedby the Great King for somespecialmission. However, the powerof bordersatrapswasfar-reaching,and includedreceivingand

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

127

sendingembassies, maintainingGreek mercenaries,andeven wagingwars upon foreign states(e.g., Aryandes: HerodotusIV 165 if.; Pissuthnes: ThucydidesI 115; Tissaphernes:ibid. VIII 5; Pharnabazus:ibid. VIII 6; Tithraustes: Xenophon,Hellenica III 5,1). Direct appointmentsover the head of suchsatrapswere usuallyreservedfor the purposeof removing them (e.g., HerodotusIII 128; Xenophon, Hellenica III 4,25; 8,17). On the other hand, every subjectof the King was, technically,his "slave" (more correctly"bondsman":Old Persianbandaka),and everythingPersian was the King's property. Demostheneswas using a generic term when he called Tigranes"the King's hyparch"insteadof "the hyparchof Ionia" or "the hyparchof Autophradates".Most likely, he did not know who the immediatesuperiorof Tigraneswas. III

It will be usefulto beginour commentson the secondproblem--the identity of Tigranes-- with two onomasticobservations.Firstly, despitethe

usualetymologyof thisnamefrom tiyra = "arrow", 2øTigranesand its cognatesshow structuralidentity with many Achaemenidtheophoric

names 21whichmakesthemsignificant in thattheophoric namesnormally indicated the religious orientationof the bearers' family. Secondly, "Tigranes"is remarkablyuncommonin the Achaemenidperiod. Only one otherbearerof the name-- a memberof the Achaemenidroyal house-- is known (see below), and even the (published)PersepolisElamite Tablets, which preservean abundanceof names,do not, as far as I know, attesta third one. The uncommonness thuspointsto linkage of the fourth-century Tigranes with the AchaemenidTigranes, and this permits eminenceof

lineagetobededuced forhim.22We maytakethisin conjunction withthe Demosthenespassage(XV 9) and may infer that the secondTigraneswas

likewise an official of considerablemilitary background. 23 This hypothesisis continnedby a searchin the chroniclesof the early fourth century. In c. 391, Tiribazus was succeededas satrapof the west coast (=Ionia and evidently of Lydia: see above) by Struthas(or Struses),a pro-Athenianseniorofficial who pursuedthe conflictwith Sparta(Xenophon,Hellenica IV 8,17). The SparatanDiphridassucceededin capturing the satrap'sdaughterand her husband,Tigranes,on their way to Sardis, but let them go for a hugeransomwhich he usedto hire moremercenaries (ibid. IV 8,21). It may be takenfor grantedthat after his releaseTigranes returnedto the King's serviceand operatedin the coastalarea so familiar

128

A. SHAPUR

SHAHBAZI

to him and his father-in-law,just as his contemporaries -- Tissaphemes, Cyrusthe Younger,Glus,Ariaeus,andTiribazus- did. When their lives were not cut short,the careersof Achaemenidseniorofficialsoften span

longperiods --witnessfor thisperiodthoseof Tiribazus, 24Orontes/Orontas,25andAutophradates, 26notto mentiontheremarkably longreignof ArtaxerxesII. Therefore,whena Tigranes,son-in-lawof Struthas,satrap of the coastalprovince(s),was active aroundSardisin 391, and another official bearing the same name garrisonedSamosin the capacityof a hyparchof--as we haveseen--Ionia twenty-fiveyearslater,the conclusion that they were one and the samepersonbecomesinescapable.It wouldappearthat Struthashad managedto advancehis son-in-lawto the hyparchyof Ionia at a laterdate,in muchthe sameway asTiribazusmade

hisson-in-law, Glus,sonof Tamos,hyparchof Ionia? or Artayntes, the admiral/general of Xerxes (HerodotusVIII 130; IX 102), had securedthe postof a fleetcommander for his nephew,Ithamitres(ibid. VIII 130). IV

The placingof Tigranesin theearlyfourthcenturyenablesus to tracehim still further. As was notedabove,only one otherTigranesis known from thePersianperiod. He wasa memberof theAchaemenidroyal family and in 480 commandedthe Medes, the secondmostprominentgroup of the Iranian nations(HerodotusVIII 62). Left by Xerxes in chargeof a sub-

stantialforce28to protectIonia,this"Persianof uncommon beautyand stature"(ibid. IX 96) proveda worthyleader,anddiedat Mycale (ibid. IX 102). Such heroismwould have assuredthe continuationof his family's eminenceduring the Achaemenidperiod. Now, it is a well-known fact that the Persians--like many other nations--rotated favourednamesin

alternate 29or in thefirstandthirdgenerations. 3øThus,theTigranes who was the son-in-law of Struthasin 391, and whom we equatedwith the hyparchof that namewho garrisonedSamosin 366, may reasonablybe identified as the grandson--or, on chronologicalgrounds,the greatgrandson--of Tigranes, the general of Xerxes, and like him, an Achaemenid.

Apart from thesetwo historicallyauthenticated individuals,two other figures bearing the name Tigranes are associatedwith Achaemenid

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

129

history. The first is known from Xenophon'sromance,Cyropaedia,and the otherfrom an Armeniantradition. Accordingto Xenophon,the "king of Armenia"(his name is not given) had oncewagedwar uponAstyages of Media and, defeated,had agreedto pay yearly tribute (fifty talents: Cyrop. III 1,34), and furnishtroopsto the victor (ibid. III 1,10, 21). During the reignof Cyaxares,the sonand successor of Astyages(!),the "king of Armenia" refused to fulfill his obligationswhen the Chaldaeans invadedMedia, and Cyrus, the son of Mandana,daughterof Astyages, actingas the generalof his uncle,swiftly marchedon Armenia(ibid. II 4,12, 22, 31; III 1,1). The "king" senthis youngerson, Sabaris,and his family and treasureto the mountains,but they were capturedby Chrysantas, a Persian commander(ibid. III 1,2-4). On Cyrus' approach,the Armenianspanicked,andtheir "king" wascapturedandtried, but his elder son,Tigranes,"who hadbeenCyrus' companiononceon a hunt"(ibid. III 1,7), retumedfrom a journey abroadand pleadedhis case, whereupon Cyruspardonedthe "king" and reinstatedhim (ibid. III 1-42; II 1,3, 11). Tigranesbecamea loyal subordinate of Cyrusand, like "the king of Hyrcania", assistedhim in his invasionof Assyria(ibid. III 2,11 if.; 3,5; IV 2,9, 18; 4,35), eachreceivinga shareof the Assyrianspoil(ibid. IV 2,43; V 1,27; 3,42). Tigranes also participatedin Cyrus' expeditionagainst Babylonia(ibid. VI 1,21), and remaineda trustedand honouredfriend of Cyrusthereafter(ibid. VIII 3,25; 4,1, 24). BesidesHerodotus'total silenceon this episode,all indicationspointto pure fabricationson the part of Xenophon. However, it is knownthat he hasprojectedcontemporary individualsinto the remoterpastin orderto createancientheroes. Thus, his main "historical"figure--the Assyrian Gobryaswho helpedCyrusand whommanyhave identifiedwith Gubaru, the generalof Cyrus--is in fact copiedfrom Gobryas,the generalof ArtaxerxesII at Cunaxa (AnabasisI 7,12). H.R. Breitenbachgives the

followingexamples: 3• Artabatas the chariotleader(Cyrop.VIII 3,18) recallsArtapates,the friend of Cyrus the Younger (Anab. I 6,11; 8,28); Artacamas,satrapof GreaterPhrygia(Cyrop.VIII 6,7), is a projectionof Artacamas,satrapof Phrygiain Xenophon'stime (Anab.VII 8,25); Artagerses,the infantryofficer(Cyrop. VI 3,31; VII 1,22), reflectsan officer of thatnameunderArtaxerxesII (Anab.1 7,11, and CtesiasapudPlutarch, Artox. 9); Artaozus (Cyrop. VI 3,31) mirrors Artaozus, the officer of Cyrus the Younger (Anab. II 4,16; 5,35); Artuchas, the division commander (Cyrop. V 3,38), copies Artuchasthe Persian commanderin Armenia (Anab. IV 3,4); Asiadates(Cyrop. VI 3,32) parallelsthe Asia-

130

A. $HAPUR

$HAHBAZI

dates of Anab. VII 8,8 if. who harassed Xenophon; the Cadusian Rhathines(Cyrop.VIII 3,33) is a projectionof Rhathinesthe subordinate of Phamabazus(Hell. III 4,13); Datamas, the Persian leader of the Cadusians(Cyrop. V 3,38; 4,16), duplicatesthe famous satrapof Artaxerxes

who distinguished himselfin the King's war uponthe Cadusians(Nepos, Datames 1,2); Artabazus,who was relatedby marriageto Cyrus (Cyrop. I 4,27 f.), is a doubleof the historicArtabazuswho was the grandson--on his mother'sside--of ArtaxerxesII. Theseanalogiesmake it very probable that Tigranes,the Armenianprince of the Cyropaedia,is in fact an anachronistic projectionof Tigranes,the son-in-lawof Struthas,who was a contemporaryof Xenophon. If so, we may reasonablyassumethat this historicalTigraneshadearlierin his careerheld somepositionin Armenia beforetransferringto the westcoast. Two analogiesat oncesuggestthemselves. One is Orontes/Orontas, the satrapof Armeniain 401 (Xenophon, Anab. III 5,17) who decadeslater operatedin the westernpart of Asia

Minor,andwasevenstyled"satrapof Mysia"(Diodorus XV 90,3).32 The other is Tiribazus,"hyparchof WesternArmenia" in 401 (Xenophon, Anab. IV 4,4) and two decadeslater still satrap of Lydia and Persian

Ionia.33 The unnamed fatherof the Tigranesof the Cyropaedia--or,as we hold, the father of the historical Tigranes of the early fourth century--was probablya hyparchor commanderin Armenia in the last yearsof the fifth century. A hypotheticalcandidatewould be Artuchasof AnabasisIV 3,4, who commanded--evidently as a subordinateof Tiribazus--"Armenians, Mardiansand Chaldaeanmercenaries"and guarded the Armenian

border on the Centrites river.

The title of "king of Armenia" for the father of Tigranesmust, at any rate, not be takenseriously,for in the samenarrativesXenophoncallsthe leader of the Hyrcanians"king of Hyrcania" (ibid. V 2,22, 23) and the satrapof Bactria "king of the Bactrians"(ibid. V 1,3), while neither of themwasking in the historicalsense. VI

The ArmeniantraditionconcerningTigranesand Cyrus is even more elaboratethan the one given by Xenophon. MosesKhorenats'i(eighthcen-

tury34)narrates an outlineof the "national"historyof Armeniafromthe daysof thegiantsto theArsacidrule(I 9-II 9)? claimingashisauthority a shadowy Mar AbasCarina 36who,supposedly havingusedChaldaean, Assyrian, and Persian archives originally treasuredat Nineveh(!) and

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

131

translatedinto Greek by the order of Alexander(!), made an extract in Syriac for the first Arsacidking of Armenia Valarshak [i.e., Tiridates] (I 8 f.). According to this tradition, the eponymousfounder of Armenia (Hayk') was a certain Hayk, a descendantof Yapetost'• (Yapheth!), brotherof Zrvan (Chronos)and Titan. The last of Hayk's line who lived under Assyrian domination was Paroyr. He assisted Varbakes-- an obscurebut cunningMede--in rebellingagainstSardanapalos and seizing the kingdom of Media. In return, Varbakesmade Paroyr satrapof Armenia. His eighth successorwas "Tigran called the Great" (I 23), son

of Eruand(Orontas/Aroandes/Orontes etc.),37 "the Short-lived"(I 22). Thisis howMosesKhorenats'i introduces thissovereign (I 24):38 Of all our kings, [Tigran] was the mostpowerful and intelligentand the most valiant of theseand of all others. He assistedCyrus in overthrowingthe dominionof the Medes, andhe broughtthe Greeks into subjugationto himself for no little time. He extended the bordersof our territory and establishedthem at their extremelimits in antiquity. He was envied by all who lived in his time, while he andhis epochwere admiredby posterity. Mosesthengoeson (I 24 f.) to praiseTigran as the mostjust and generous king and the wisestand handsomestof all, "and--as thoseamongour ancientswho sangto the lyre used to say--moderate in the pleasuresof the flesh". The historian is thus claiming to draw his materials from archival and oral sources. The might of Tigran and his alliance with Cyrus, Moses continues,frightened Azhdahak, king of the Medes, the more so as he saw in a dreama woman on a mountainpeak, symbolizing Armenia, giving birth to three giants,one of whom rode on "a monstrous dragonand launchedan attackon our empire" (I 26). This portendedthat "Tigran the Armenian is aboutto come upon us in a violent assault". In order to prevent calamity, Azhdahakaskedfor the hand of Tigranuhi-the influentialsisterof Tigran-- and married her, intendingto gain the trust of the brother,invite him to Media and destroyhim treacherously(I 26-28). Secretlywarnedby his sister,Tigran collecteda large army from Cappadocia,Georgia,Albania,and GreaterandLesserArmenia,marched againstMedia, and having securedthe escapeof Tigranuhi,he personally killed Azhdahak in a great battle (I 29). He then sent his sister to Tigranakert-- which he had built and namedafter himself--and the first wife of Azhdahak together with his family and ten thousandMedes he

132

A. SHAPUR

SHAHBAZI

deportedand settledin the Armenian territory centeredaroundthe city called Azhdanakan. Emphasizingthat these accountswere "lovingly preserved"in local songs,Mosescontinues:"andtheyrecallin allegorical fashionalso the descendantsof Azhdahak whom they call descendantsof the dragon (vishap) becauseAzhdahak in our tongueis dragon" (I 30). Thus,Tigran,"with the willing help and encouragement of Cyrus,seized for himself the Empire of the Medes and Persians"(I 31). His sonswere Pap,Tiran, andVahagnwhosefamousexploits"are still sungon the lyre". Vahagn's youngestson Aravan begat Nerseh, he Zareh, he Armog, he Bagam, he Vahan, and he Veh• who "rebelledand was killed by Alexander of Macedon" (I 31). Thereafterconfusionreignedover Armenia until Arshak the Great [ =Vologases I] enteredthe land and made his brotherValarshak[ = Tiffdates]its king (ibid.). It has long been establishedthat this narrative combineshistory and

legends of variousorigins. 39 Vah• mayreflectMithraustes, whowitha later Orontas(Orontes)led the Armeniansat Gaugamela(Arrian, Ana-

basisIII 8,5).40 "EruandtheShort-lived" personifies theOrontiddynasty whichprecededthe Artaxiads,of whom the mostcelebratedwas Tigranes the Great (95-56 BC). The latter expandedArmenia, waged a successful war againstMedia, married his daughter,Aryazat•, to Mithridatesthe

Greatof Parthia,andfounded thecapitalcityTigranakert (Tigranocerta)? He earnedthe positionof a nationalhero in Armenianoral history,but as his dynastywas replacedby the Arsacids,it was prudentto give him a secondary identity. SinceXenophon'sCyropaediahadbeenknownto the

earlyByzantine historians, 42Armenianscholars drawingon themwould have been familiar with the likeable figure of Tigranes, "son of the Armenianking", and could easily identify him with Tigranesthe Great who, as the successorof the Orontids, could thus be made the son of an

Orontas (Eruand). The Armenians were likewise well-informed about

Iranianheroicsagas andshared or adapted them. 43 In theAvesta, 44Ahriman (Evil God) had createda three-headedserpent(A•i Dahaka) for the

destruction of the world. Latertraditions 45re-shaped thismythintothe legendof A•.i Dahak/A•idahag ("theDahianserpent"), 46a foreigntyrant who madea pact with Ahriman,usurpedIraniankingship,and deceitfully marriedtwo Iranian princesses.In concludingthe pact, Ahrimankissed the shouldersof A•idahag, whereupontwo serpentsgrew where he had touchedhim; and to nourishthem, two youthswere daily sacrificedand their brainsfed to the serpents.Finally, the Iranian prince Fr•d6n rose againsthim. A•idahag hada visionthatFr•d6n assailedhim in hispalace,

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

133

vanquishedhim, and took away the captive princesses.Profoundly shaken,Aiidahfig preparedfor a war againstFrEdrn, but was slain by

him47(a latervariantsaidhe wascaptured andimprisoned in a caveof Mount Damfivand). The name Aiidah•g became in Armenian Azhda-

hak/Aõdahak, 48 whichwouldhave sounded similarto Astyages, 49 the Greekform of the Iranian*Ar•ti-vaiga("lance-hurler"). 5ø Furthermore, the name Mdda ("Mede") was pronouncedMdr in Armenian, but this

form was identicalwith the Iranianword mdr ("snake"). 5! Hence,the

Astyages of Herodotus52 -- famousfor his tyrannyand his frightening dreams--came to be identifiedwith the A•idah•g of the legend,especially as the descendants of the Medeswho settledin Armenia were centeredin an areathe capitalof whichwascalledAzhdanakan,andcenturies later there were Armenian

houses who claimed descent from Azhdahak

(MosesKhorenats'iII 30,49). In adoptingthe legendof Astyages/Azhdahak, the ArmenianbardsreplacedFr•drn with their nationalhero "Tigran the Great", and attributedto him the act of dragon-slaying, but rationalized it in the form of his personal combat with, and victory over, Astyages/Azhdahak. Since,however,it was well-knownthat Cyrushad vanquishedAstyages,it was necessaryto make"Tigran the Great" an ally andfriendof Cyrus(Xenophonhadpavedthe way here)but retainfor him the distincthonourof having slain the dragon"Astyages/Azhdahak".In thisway, Tigranesthe hyparch,who furnishedtheprototypefor "Tigranes son of the Armenian king", was further transformedinto an Armenian superheropersonifyingTigranesthe Great andthe Iranian FrEdrn. EasternOregonStateCollege La Grande,Oregon

A. ShapurShahbazi

NOTES

* I am deeplygratefulto ProfessorE. Badian and an anonymousReader for this Journalwhoseconstructivecriticismsand leamedsuggestions were instrumental in the developmentof this article. What mistakesremainare naturallymine. 1. On whom see J. Hofstetter,Die Griechen in Persien. Prosopographieder Griechenim persischenReich vor Alexander,AMI, Erg.-Bd. 5 (1978) No. 329, andG. Shipley,A historyof Samos800-188 B.C. (1987) 138 if. 2. Ancient sourcesin Judeich,s.v., in RE II (1895) 832 fi 3. This refers to the King's Peace of 387/6 (Xenophon,Hellenica V 1,31)

134

A. SHAPUR

SHAHBAZI

which was reaffirmed in 371 (ibid. VI 5,1-3). 4. Hofstetter(cit. n. 1) No. 187. Shipley, 136 f., remarks: "His is a Greek name, not a Hellenized Persianname, so he was probablya Samian. He may well have been a garrisoncommanderrather than a tyrant in the old sense.... It appearsthat Cyprothemiswas the first governorinstalledafter the [Persian]takeover".

5.

Hofstetter

187 for references.

6. So Xenophon,AnabasisIV 4,4 (Tiribazus);Hellenica III 1,11 ff. A.T. Olmstead,History of the Persian Empire (1948) 413, thereforemade Tigranesa "satrap"withoutgivinganyexplanation. 7. Cf. Mania "the hyparch"of the Troad appointedby Pharnabazus:Xenophon,HellenicaIII 1,10 if. SeefurtherAelian, Historyof AnimalsXII 1 and,generally, C.F. Lehmann-Haupt,"Satrap",RE II A (1923) 138. 8. On the rank seeLehmann-Haupt135.

9. On karanos,seeA.D.H. Bivar in NC7 1 (1961) 123 n. 5: "Somehave derivedthe termkaranosfrom •c&pot, 'head', but as a Greektermit is otherwise unattested.[This is true, but one mightnote the royal MacedoniannameKaranos (cf. Hesych.s.v.K6powvoq, a dialectalvariant).] In the contextof an Achaemenid diplomaof investiture,an unfamiliarword is likely to be Persian.The passage[i.e. Hellenica1 4,3] is paraphrased by Xenophon,AnabasisI 1,2, wherethe sameword is renderedby strat•gos, 'general'. One could compareParthianKarny (Karen), possiblya derivativeof Old Persiankt•ra, 'army'." The historyof the term and rank will be discussedin a separatearticle. 10. E.g. Mardonius:HerodotusVI 42; Cyrusthe Younger: Xenophon,Hellen-

ica I 4,3; Tiribazus:DiodorusXIV 85,4. SeefurtherBeloch,GG 1112 2 (1923) 134.

11. The bestexplanationof this crisisis still in P.J. Junge,Dareios I. KtSnigder Perser (1944) 40 if. 12.

Beloch

137.

13. Ibid.; D.M. Lewis, Sparta and Persia (1977) 87, 118. The Persianclaim to Ionia wasnevergiven up: the representative of Ionia is amongthe thirty "thronebearers"depictedon the tombsof Dariusthe Great andall his successors! 14. See, however, Lewis 93 n. 48. 15.

Beloch 135-38.

16.

Lewis

118 if.

17. The two versionsreflectthe influenceof Iraniandialects: Median s can give

Old Persian O, seeR.G.Kent,OldPersian2 (1953)33. Struthas thusrepresents a Persian form, Struses a Median.

18. "The King, when Tiribazus had arrived at his capital in the interior, sent down Struthasto take chargeof affairson the coast"(Hellenica IV 8,17). Cf. what is saidof Cyrusthe Younger: "Who had comein orderto be ruler of all the peoples on the coast"(ibid. I 4,3). Note alsothat Struthas'family is capturedby the Spartanswhile on theirway to Sardis:ibid. IV 8,17. 19. Lewis (cit. n. 13) 119 n. 75. 20. W. Hinz, AltiranischesSprachgutder Nebeniiberlieferungen (1975) 235, 236 with references.

21. Cf. Tigraneswith Mithranes(F. Justi,IranischesNamenbuch(1895) 214);

THE THREE

FACES

OF TIGRANES

135

Mazenes (*Mazdaina: Hinz 163), and, of course,Tiranes of later periods(Justi 325); Tigraka (Hinz 236) with Mazdaka (ibid. 164), Mithraka (ibid. 167); and

Tigrapgta (ibid. 236) with Mithrapgta (ibid. 167), •trapgta(ibid. 49) and Ahurapgta(ibid. 24). 22. Cf. suchnamesas Cyrus,Hystaspes,Arsamesand Achaemenes. 23. Otherplayersin Graeco-Persian affairsat thistime-- Orontas,Phamabazus, TiribazusandAriaeus-- were all knownfiguresby 401. 24. See H. Schaefer,RE VIA (1937) 1431-37. 25. See R.D. Wilkinson, "Orontes, son of Artasyras", REA n.s. 7 (1970) 445-50; M.J. Osborne,"Orontes",Historia 22 (1973) 515-51. 26. Lewis (cit. n. 13) 118 n. 75. 27. Beloch (cit. n. 10) 136 with DiodorusXV 18,1. 28. On which seeC. Hignett,Xerxes' invasionof Greece(1963) 245. 29. E.g., Cambyses,son of Cyrus the Great, grandsonof Cambyses,greatgrandsonof an earlier Cyrus (HerodotusI 111); Darius son of Xerxes (ibid. IX 108), grandsonof Darius the Great; Darius son of ArtaxerxesII (Plutarch,Artox. 26, 29), grandsonof DariusII andgreat-grandson of ArtaxerxesI.

30. E.g., Hystaspes sonof Xerxes(DiodorusXI 69,2), grandsonof Dariusand great-grandsonof Hystaspes;and Arsames son of Darius (HerodotusVII 69), grandsonof Hystaspesandgreat-grandson of Arsames. 31. RE XVIIIA (1967) 1713-14. 32. Beloch (cit. n. 10) 133, 138. 33.

Ibid. 135-36.

34. On the date seeR.W. Thomson,tr. of MosesKhorenats'i'sHistory of the Armenians(1978) 58 if. with references. 35. Ibid. 82-145. Armenian

In our discussion, we follow Thomson's transliteration of

names and terms.

36. This storyis "gravelysuspect":Thomson54 f. 37. The nameis originallyAvestan: Aurand/Aurvant"mighty,hero",is related to PahlaviArvand, New PersianAlvand (both forms are still in usein Iran) andhas a remarkablylargenumberof ArmenianandGreekvariants. 38.

Thomson 113.

39. R. Von Stackelberg,"Bemerkungenzur persischenSagengeschichte", WZKM 12 (1898) 230-48, esp.237-38,248, andothers. 40.

Thomson

124 n. 8 with reference.

41. N.C. Debevoise,A political historyof Parthia (1938) 41 f., 47. 42. The popularityof the Cyropaediain antiquitywasseldommatchedby other books: see the testimonies collected by K. Mtinscher, Xenophon in der griechisch-r6mischen Literatur (1930). 43. In fact Moses Khorenats'i himself provides the Iranian version of the A•idahgg legend (discussedpresently) with disbelief and sarcasm(Thomson 126-28). 44. Yasna IX 8; Yagt V 34; XIV 40; XV 24.

45. All referencescollectedanddiscussed by L.H. Gray, Thefoundationsof the Iranian religions. Journalof the K.R. CamaOrientalInstitute15 (1929) 187 if. 46. Ibid. 189. Contrastthe interpretationof the legendby A.D.H. Bivar, "The allegory of Astyages",in A green leaf. Papers in honour of ProfessorJes P.

136

A. SHAPUR

SHAHBAZI

Asmussen. ActaIranica2 12 (1988)510-20. 47. On the antiquityof this versionseeM. Boyce,History of ZoroastrianismI (1975) 283. 48. Details and references in J. von Pr•ek, Geschichte der Meder und Perser I (1906) 138-39 n. 2; Thomson(cit. n. 34) 110 n. 4 and 114 n. 11. 49. So alreadyJusti(cit. n. 21) 47. 50. M. Mayrhofer,OnomasticaPersepolitana(1973) 171; Hinz (cit. n. 20) 208. 51.

Justi 48.

52. That Herodotus'accountwas known to and usedby Armenian historiansis

proved bytheirownreferences: Thomson (cit.n•34) 15,22, 132.

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

Martin Bernal, Black Athena, Vol. II: The Archaeological and DocumentaryEvidence. Rutgers University Press, 1991

If any facet of Classicscan now be describedas a growth industry,this term certainlyfits Martin Bernal and Black Athena. With the publication of the secondvolumeof this work, Bernalhashimselfaddedanotherbig bookto extendyet fartherthe argumentsof his firstvolume;and the decibel level of the debateabout the merits of BA will only grow louder as both its partisansand its enemiessquareoff for renewedfighting. Since Bernal promisestwo more volumes,the whole phenomenonof BA seems likely to mushroomindefinitelywell into this decade. I. Greek vs. Mediterranean History

One reasonfor the popularityof BA is not far to seek. Bernal is riding a wave of interestin internationalhistory which entails a corresponding suspicionof nationalhistory,particularlyin its moreEurocentricmanifestations. The currentemphasison race, class,and genderhas entaileda moveawayfrom the old politicalhistoryto socialhistoryand an increased awareness of thecontributions to humanityof formerlyneglectedpeoples, notablythosein what is now called the Third World. By his attemptto find the originsof Greekcivilizationin the colonizingeffortsof Egyptians andSemites,Bernalis responding to the pushto internationalize the study of history. We are asked to considerthe Greeks not in isolation, but in their relationshipto other culturesaroundthe Mediterranean--to look at the problemof Greek originsfrom the broadperspectiveof the Mediterraneanas a whole. To redresswhathe thinksis an inappropriateideological balance created by championsof an "Aryan Model", he would emphasizenot the Indo-Europeancontributionto the origin of the Greeks (Bernal admitsboth that Greek is an Indo-Europeanlanguage,at leastin respectof its basicstructureand much of its vocabulary,and that at some point before 1900 BC an Indo-Europeanidiom was plantedby northern immigrants in the Aegean), but rather the heretofore undervalued 137

138

R.A. McNEAL

contributionof Egyptianand Semiticculture. In shorthe wantsto revive the old diffusionistnotionof Childethat light from the Eastwastheproximate causeof Greek civilizationin the Aegean. Relying initially on what he takes to be ancient testimonythat the Greeks themselvesbelieved their origins to have lain in Phoenicia and Egypt, Bernal promotesa "RevisedAncient Model" in which a combination of actual colonizationand cultural influenceexplains not only the orientalizing passagesof Herodotus, Diodorus, and others, but the archaeological andlinguisticevidenceas well of what is usuallypresumed to be the prehistoricperiod in the Aegean. We are askedto believe that colonizationwas likely in Boeotiaas early as the Early BronzeAge (the third millennium}3c)and again,in bothBoeotiaand Argos,in the Hyksos Age around 1700 BC. The Semitic and Egyptianlanguagesbroughtby thesecolonistsexplainmany of the non-Indo-European wordsand place names later attestedin Greek, as well as religious beliefs and practices which descendedto the first millennium. That Bernal saysalmostnothing aboutthe Indo-Europeancomponentof Greek culture(apartfrom vaguely admitting its existence) is understandableenough, in view of his overriding interestin Childe's brandof diffusionism. But whetherhe is right to disregardit is an importantquestion. Bernal's attempt to write transnationalhistory unfortunatelyinvolves him in a fundamental contradiction: he wants to talk about the Greeks, but

just asclearlyhe doesnot want to talk aboutthem. He specificallyrefuses to acceptethnichistory(p. 527); and yet his chosensubjectis the origin of an ethnos,or a people. Herein lies one of the major problems in his book. •

When the discipline of history arose in late eighteenth-and early nineteenth-century Germany,it did so in conjunctionwith the rise of the nationstate. ThereforeGreek historyhas alwaysbeenconceivedin terms of at least a kind of latent nationalism. There was indeed a Greek ethnos;

and however fracturedit may have been by internal political divisions, therehasneverbeenany doubtthat it is the ancienthistorian'sjob to deal with thisparticularpeople--one certainlyuniqueand differentfrom other peoples (that is, with its own special character),and one usually also thoughtto be uniquelyvaluablein its own right. The rising tide of guilt about the validity of theseEurocentricideas of historicalproprietyhas begunto underminethe notionof the uniquevalue of the Greeksfor later

worldhistory. 2 To claim,asevenBernalis stillwillingto do,thattheyare more worth studying than some other cultures because of their

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

139

fundamental importance for themodemWesternworld3 is enoughto start an argumentin certainquarters.But whetheror not one grantsthis unique value, we have not reachedthe stagewhere we can deny their difference. The Greeks were not simply transplantedEgyptiansor Semites. Bernal himselfwould not in fact claim that they were, but his willingnessto overlook the Indo-Europeanaspectof the Greek heritageleadshim to imply that the Egyptian and Semitic cultural contributionwas the all-important factor in Greek origins. He gives us the impressionof a society which was not so much an amalgamof northernand southerncontributionsas it was an African and Asiatic societywhich just happened,for some mysteriousreason,to speakGreek. He hasgoneoverboard,in otherwords,in redressingthe ideologicalbalance,becausehe has no clear conceptof

whatthatGreekethnos waswhoseoriginshewantsto investigate. 4 This problemof definitionis not a mere quibble. If we are going to searchfor the originsof something,we have to have a prior definitionof the thing in question. One way to statethe issueis to be found in Drews'

recentbook.5 One may or may not like Drews'answer(andof course Bernalfindsit offensive),but at leastDrews beginswith a definition:what makes the Greeks Greek is their possessionof a characteristiclanguage. The arrivalof Proto-Indo-European speakersabout1600BC,bringingwith them the languagewhich in courseof time, and becauseof the influences of the languagesalreadyexistingin the Aegean,becamethe Greek that we recognizein the Linear B tablets, was the key event: the true start of Greek history. Though Drews links this event with the archaeological record,the appearanceof the horse-drawnchariot(a dubiousprocedure), he at leastlets the readerknow preciselywherehe stands.One may not like his conclusionbecauseof its presumed"Aryan" bias; but one can only marvelat the beautyof his argument,and it is preciselythe beautyof his argumentwhich in the end makeshis casepersuasiveto anyonewilling to accepthis premises.

II. Plausibilityand Argument I turn now to Bemal's methods.In arguingfor his varioushypotheses, he scornsthe absolutecertaintywhich he sayshistoriansdemand and asks thathis ideas,or any historicalideasfor that matter,be judgedon the basis of "competitiveplausibility". Do historiansreally demandabsolutecertainty? Some archaeologists do seembent on measurementas a goal in itself, forgettingthat the purposeof classifyingthe disiecta membra of

140

R.A. McNEAL

past or presentculturesis not typologyfor the sake of typology, but an

analysis of thehumancondition. 6 Butwhatever thelingering influence of presumedexact scienceeven in archaeology,most scientiststhemselves now believe that their goal is not to establishdemonstrablefact, but to createhypotheses which,thoughthey may be valid for a time, are usually replacedby more hypotheses.Perhapsonly in mathematicsor logic can anyonehave the luxury of absolutelycertainconclusions.History in any caseis basedsquarelyon acceptedopinion. It is not and can never be a matterof demonstrative proof,but only of likelihood;andits aim, at least

in part,is to persuade by moreor lessconvincing arguments. 7 Sincethis point is now generallyconceded,in practiceif not everywherein theory, Bernalis flogginga deadhorsewhenhe berateshistoriansand archaeologistsfor demandingabsolutecertainty.

The real question is, howare we to judgecompetitive plausibility? 8 What makesone historicalargumentmore reasonable,and thereforemore congenial,than another? The crux of Bernal's own method is "thick description",a term which he seemsto have borrowedfrom the anthropol-

ogistCliffordGeertz. 9 Bernalmeansby it the simultaneous useof different kinds of evidence. Rather than discussingthe evidenceof one kind, for examplearchaeologicalor documentary,and then goingon to another

in a strictsequential order,•øBernalresortsto anycongeries of evidence which seemsto him to be suitedto make whateverpoint he wantsto make in a given case. Thus the discussion of archaeological evidencefrom the secondmillenniumBC is apt to be boundup with a considerationof the mythology,or of the toponyms,or of the religiouspracticesof the Aegean of the first millennium--or of any part of the Mediterraneanin any period. There is a thoroughmixing, in otherwords,not only of different kindsof evidence,but of the evidencefrom differentplacesand from different times.

The whole of the second volume is one vast exercise in this

technique.The book, its title says,is devotedto archaeologicaland documentary evidence;and the future volumes (III and IV) will take up what

could properlybe termed linguisticand religiousevidence. But even within volume II, just as in its predecessor, Bernal mixes thesecategories. A discussion of archaeological evidencehasa habit of turninginto a considerationof linguisticsand mythology. Time after time the reader is plungedfrom onetypeof discussion into another. Bernal is quite explicit abouthis reasonfor this procedure. Insisting that it is vital to his purpose,he is even quiteproudof it (p. 2). The useof only one category of evidence usually yields no probable results.

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

141

Therefore, in order to make his case seem stronger,Bernal switchesto anothercategorywhich he thinks will add corroborativeauthority. Thus the weight of linguistics,or mythology,or archaeology,when addedto (say)the evidenceof actualdocuments, is supposed to carryconviction. Twenty yearsago I suggested that this methodof argumentwas falla-

cious. • The aim of thatsuggestion wasthecampof archaeologists who, usually without any consciousreflection on their methods, casually assumedthat any conclusionsdrawn from one kind of evidence were applicableto anotherkind. Bemal's book is a good illustrationof the wholesale

confusion

which results when caution is thrown to the winds

and many hypotheses,each one of them restingon dubiousevidenceof somesort or other and thereforeprecariouslyestablishedat best,are then piled oneon top of anotherlike somegigantichouseof cards. So far from carrying conviction by its combined weight, the resulting mass only obscureswhat in each casemight be the real issue. In short,a succession of negatives,or at best of maybes,does not make a positive. Often enough,when we examinethe nexusof Bemal's argument,we find that his reasoningis circular: he assumespreciselythe point which has to be proved. This error of circularreasoningis one not of the formal logic of scientificdemonstration,but of rhetoric;and the frequentoccurrenceof it throughoutthe bookrobsBemal's argumentsof just that competitiveplausibilitywhichhe claims. Thick descriptiontumsout to be a brokenreed. A specific example will show what I mean. Chapter II (Egypt's Influence on Boiotia and the Peloponnesein the Third Millennium) is devoted to solving cultic and mythologicalproblemsraised by certain documents. The documentsthat Bernal has in mind belong to the first millennium, namely historicalGreek mythology. Let there be no mistake: there are no Aegean, or specificallyBoeotian,documentsfrom the third millennium. There are Egyptiandocumentsfrom that period and later; but it is only the languagein which they are writtenthat is importantfor Bernal, becausenoneof them of courserefersdirectly to eventsin Boeotiain the third millennium. Bemal's major assertionis that later cultic namesin Greecereveal the languageor languagesspokenin Boeotiaat the beginning of the cult (p. 103). Becausetheselater cultic namescan be given Egyptian etymologies,Bernal concludesthat various cults were introducedby Egyptiansettlersandthat the namespasseddowninto the Greek languageand mythology which emergedin the secondmillennium, but which are actuallyrecorded,apartfrom what may be somedivine names in the Linear B tablets,only in the textsof the first millennium.

142

R.A. McNEAL

Already this line of reasoningis in deep trouble. We simply do not know when the cultsin questionbegan. Bernal assumesthe third millennium. Why? To assumethis date is to beg one of the very questions which have to be answered, but which of course can never be answered.

But the troublegoesevendeeper.Evenif we grantthe Egyptianetymologies (has anyonefound an actual methodin Bemal's etymologizing?), why shouldthey indicate the languageor languagesof Boeotia at any time? And why shouldthey indicate actual settlement?Again Bernal assumesboth points. Justhow are we to accountfor the phenomenonof linguisticinfluence?Bernal assumesinvasionand settlement.Why must thisanswerbe theright one? And how were Egyptiannameslater accommodatedto a characteristically Greek language?What presentlyobservable linguisticprocesscan be applied to this unknown situationin the past? In this one chapterBernal makesso many assertionswithoutactually arguingconvincinglyfor any of themthatthe readercanbe pardoned for collapsingin a stateof mentalexhaustion. In Bemal's ChapterII the real issueseemspretty simple:in what sense are the mythologicaltextsof the first millenniumany evidencefor Boeotia in the third millennium? Blithely to assume,as Bernal does, that these historicaldocumentshave somerelevanceto the prehistoricthird millennium,withoutprovidingany groundsfor suchan assumption, is to begthe question. III.

The Mit Rahina Inscription and Source Criticism

As is alreadyevident,thereis more involvedin Bemal's abuseof sources than mere failure in the logic of dialectical argument. Let us take an actual document,one by which Bernal setsmuch store. On the basisof the Mit RahinainscriptionBernal assertsin ChapterV that the Egyptian pharaohwhom the Greekscalled Sesostriswagedan extensivecampaign of conquestthroughAnatolia,reachingprobablyas far as Troy and even Thrace, Scythia,and Colchis. This inscriptionis one of the centerpieces of Bemal's argument,and his handlingof it is indicativeof his tendency to leapto perfectlyunfoundedandthereforeunconvincing conclusions. A large piece of granite reused in the nineteenthdynasty under a colossus of RamsesII, theinscriptionappearsto be a genuinedocumentof the Middle Kingdom,mentioningthe namesof SenusertI and Amenenhet II. Its subjectis not actuallythesepharaohs,but, as we learn from a small fragment of the inscriptionfound early in this century by Petrie, some

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

143

royal servant who was endowed, perhaps after death, with a series of offerings. The inscriptionlists theseofferingsand their sources.Though it mentionsa royal campaignto "Asia" (Stt), the Egyptologistswho have published some very short preliminary analysesof the battered text emphasizeits relevanceto Syriaand Palestineand the strengthof Egypt's externalrelationswith thispart of the world in the Middle Kingdom. That there might well have been military or commercialexpeditionsin the area (the differencebetweenthe two was probablyminimal) which resultedin the shipmentto Egypt of what a pharaohcoulddescribeas bootyand captives is a reasonableconclusion.But Bernal is impatientwith even this ratherstartlingreassessment of the activity of the EgyptiansoutsideEgypt in the Middle Kingdom. For him the land of Asia must includeall Anatolia as well (p. 231), simply becausein the New Kingdom the term Stt sometimesreferredto the land of Mitanni, which lay to the northeastof Syria. There is no doubtthat a wide array of archaeologicalmaterialfrom far beyondEgypt's bordersmadeits way to the Nile Valley. But Bernal is so convincedof the historicityof Sesostris'reputedcampaignsthat he insists first on turning one or more campaignsin Palestine into some kind of world conquest,and secondlyon forcing the archaeologicalevidenceinto this already preparedProcrusteanbed: "... the desire for such luxuries would provide a motive for Egyptianexpeditionsin the region [Thrace and Scythia] and their presencein Egypt at this time providesyet another pieceof circumstantialevidencefor the historicityof the traditionsaround Sesostris'conquests"(p. 227). Bernal mentionsthe possibilityof trade, but only to toss it aside, thus leaving the reader to assumethat the hypothesisof invasionmustbe the true explanation.The whole discussionof the inscriptionand of its relevanceto the archaeologicalevidence is a tissue of suppositionswhich hardly amountseven to circumstantial evidence. So far from corroboratingHerodotus,the inscriptionmay not even indicatereal military campaignsin Palestineitself, becausewe know that the pharaohswere given to announcingall sortsof activity, whether theirown or thatof their subordinates, asbrilliantmilitaryvictories. Underlying Bernal's whole discussionof the inscriptionis a kind of extremecredulity,an unwillingnessto engagein serioussourcecriticism.

Indeed,Bernaltakesspecificaim at the skepticismwhichhe saysis the bugbearof the whole Eurocentrichistoricalprofession.Historians,in his view, are too willing to say "No", to exclude interestingpossibilities, becauseof their nit-pickingemphasison the provenanceandthe reliability

144

R.A.

McNEAL

of their sources.What is at issuehere is a problemof temperament.Professionalsare indeedinclined to draw limited conclusionsbecausethey are acutely aware of the complexissuesinvolved in any historicalquestion and becauseerror is an ever-presentpossibility. Bernal, however, is not botheredby the complexitiespresentedby even the simplestsources. Endowed with a visionary's capacity to see an issue whole in his own terms, he is, perhapsunderstandably from his point of view, impatient with more conservativehistorians.And yet I do not meanto saythat Bernal lacks learning. One must respect,in this volume as in the first, the immensebreadthof hisreading(his bibliographyrunsto 76 pages)andhis wonderful, I would even say breathtaking,ability to assimilateand somehowcope with a vast array of different subjectsand different arguments about those subjects.But the problem remainsthat Bernal runs roughshodover evidencewhich, in the eyes of others,might well repay closerattention;and for this sinhe cannotexpectmuchforgiveness. IV. The Abuse of Literary Sources

Bemal's inclinationto credulitysurfacesespeciallyin his treatmentof the literary sources,whether mythological or historical. Repeatedly he acceptsa story at face value without inquiringinto its possibleorigins. Just because,for example, Herodotus says that an Egyptian pharaoh named Sesostrismade a great military campaignin Anatolia we are to believehim implicitly. This sameattitudeis evidentin Bemal's useof the mythical storiescenteringon Argos and Boeotia, storieswhich, we are to conclude,indicatean Egyptianor Phoenicianprovenancefor at leastsome part of the population.If Bernalis disinclinedto engagein the sourcecriticism of real primary documentslike the Mit Rahina inscription,he also has no methodfor the systematictreatmentof mythologicaltexts,or for mythologicalmatedhalembeddedin historicaltexts. One of the biggest problemsin his book, which relies so heavily on myth, is his failure, perhapseven a consciousunwillingness,to developany theory of myth. He seemsto want to acceptmyth as a literal statementof historictruth.

Nobodynowadays wouldadoptthisnaiveposition. 12If we areunwilling to be as rigorouslyskepticalas George Grote, who refusedeven to deal with mythologicaltexts or with the prehistoricperiod of Greece on the groundsthat Greek mythologywas a chemicalamalgamwhich could not be resolvedinto its constituentelements,there are any numberof possible modem strategiesfor handling Greek myth. But Bernal shows no

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

145

evidence of any interest in the problem of myth as such. In the circumstanceshis judgment as to the actual historicalkernel of any given storyis purelyarbitraryandsubjective. His treatmentof Thera and Atlantisin ChapterVII is a casein point. A typical omniumgatherum,this chapterhas as its main objectto establish the historicityof the myth of Atlantis by linking the myth to the dated eruptionof Thera (p. 291). But in the courseof his discussionBernaltalks about the controversyover the date of the volcano's eruption (a reflex againof his considerableinterestin the sociologyof knowledge),the evidence of radiocarbon and dendrochronologyand its interpretation, Chinesehistoryand its chronology,the biblicalstoryof Exodus,the Axial Age, the eruptionof an Icelandicvolcano--all in preparationfor a discussionof Plato's myth of Atlantis. Claimingto belongto the moderate majority who would see somehistoricaltruth in the story, Bernal fully realizes that his problem is to sort out the wheat, that is referencesto genuineplacesandevents,from the imaginativechaff whichencapsulates them. His argumentruns as follows. If Solon went to Egypt, he may have picked up storiesdealing with Atlantis (i.e., America!), which, becauseof the activity of Phoenician sailors,may havebeenknownto the Egyptiansof the seventhcenturyBC. PerhapsPlato was descendedfrom Solon;if so, Plato's storyof Atlantis may havebeena family tradition. Speculationaboutthe etymologyof the words "Atlas" and "Ocean" leads Bernal again to Egypt or the Levant. But Solon or Plato linked Atlantis not with Thera or the Aegean, where etymologicalargumentwouldlead us,but with the AtlanticOceanbeyond the Pillars of Herakles.

Thus one or both of them falsified the real site of

the myth. Bernal concludes:"It is possiblethat someelementsof Plato's descriptionderive from the actualwealth and fertility of Thera or Kalliste before the eruption"(p. 304). He goes on to admit that Plato's detailed descriptionof the land and sea defenses,based clearly on intricate mathematicsandharmonics,is probablya falseoverlay. Presentedwith sucha seriesof leapsof the imagination(so many ifs, mights, and coulds), the reader can only despair. Whether or not Thera eruptedin 1628 BC,Bernal hasnot shownus a convincingmethodto connect the eruptionwith the myth of Atlantis. If anything,he has made it even easierto insistthat Plato's myth ought to be consideredwithin the confinesof his own eschatology,that it makesmore senseas a revelation of fourth-centuryphilosophythanit doesas a sourcefor the historyof the second millennium.

146

R.A. McNEAL

V. Archaeologyand the Hypothesisof Invasion SincevolumeII of BA is an exercisenotjust in historyderivedfrom documents,but in the applicationto historiography of archaeological evidence, Bernal lays himself open to critical commentabout his archaeological expertiseas well. He is quite right to stressthe importanceof the great "breaks" in the archaeologicalrecord--those turning points when an assemblageof artifacts (sometimes,to our distress,a mere ceramic sequence)takeson an altogetherdifferent character.These apparently suddenchangesin the typologyof artifactsindicate,we presume,important "cultural"changes,and perhapseven historicaleventsas well. Thus, that great archaeologialbreak which is of most concern to Bernal, the transitionfrom the Middle to the Late BronzeAge on the Greek mainland (Middle Helladic to Late Helladic) is invariablyseenas a momentoushistorical event. Bernal, in common with many historians, scholarsof linguistics,and archaeologists, roundsup the usual suspects--foreign invaders--and postulatesfor the origin of Mycenaeancivilizationaround 1700 Bc (his date for the Shaft Graves) an invasion by Semitic- and Egyptian-speaking Hyksosconquerorswho broughtwith them the chariot andthe sword. Bernal'ssuspects differ from theusuallot only in thatthey comefrom the southandeastinsteadof the northor perhapsAnatolia. He assumesthat a small but cosmopolitanwarrior elite fell on the Aegean, after falling on Egypt,muchin the mannerof the Normanconquerors of the Middle Ages. Displayingthe "internationalHyksosstyle" in their art, they again introducedEgyptianand West Semiticcultureto the Aegean. This culture and its associatedlanguagesthen mixed with the already existing Indo-Europeanculture and languagesto form the recognizably Greek world of the late secondmillennium(pp. 389 if.). It is ironic that Bernal so easily adoptsthe hypothesisof invasion. In combattingthe "Aryan Model" and Eurocentrichistoricalscholarshipin general,he usesan explanatorydevice inventedby the Greeks themselves and refined by the creatorsof modem historiography.The Trojan War and the descentof the Heraklidaewere the typical meansby which the Greeksorganizedtheirpast. Interestedin the res gestaeof namedpersons (or of godsfor that matter), they accountedfor changesby positingthe actionsof intrusivewarriors. Modem politicalhistoryis only an extension of thistechnique. But quite apartfrom the irony of Bernal'sposition,thereare certainreal problemswith it. What is interestingis not his derivationof the invaders

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

147

from the Levant or Egypt (though many an archaeologistwould dispute thisclaim), butjust his eageradoptionof the old hypothesisof invasionas a means of creating history from cultural artifacts. Is it the businessof archaeology,especiallyprehistoricarchaeology,to do history? Many people certainly think so, forgettingthe limitationsinherentin typological sequences basedon the three-agesystemdevelopedby nineteenth-century British anthropologists; and their efforts have clearly influencedBernal, who is anotherin the long line of Schliemann'sepigones. But it is worth remembering that archaeologistswhose subject matter is absolutely prehistoricare much lessinclinedto be interestedin historicaleventslike invasionsand much more inclined to talk about a society'sadaptationto its environmentor about its economiclife. Archaeology as it is practiced outsidethe Aegeanis apt to be a very differentkind of gamefrom the one that Bernal wantsto play. But given the usual historicizingconcernsof Aegean archaeologists, wherein lie the difficulties? Bernal himself agrees that the ceramic sequencefrom MH to LH is a seeminglyuninterrupteddevelopment:there is no need here to resortto invasionto explain the record. What has to be explained is the very splendorof the goods in the Shaft Graves, the apparentlysuddenappearance of a bodyof artifacts,includingthe chariot, which have connectionswith the contemporaryLevant and many other placesas well. It is at this point that Bernal, by no meansfor the first time in his book, resorts to the overworked term "influence" and attributes the

suddenappearanceof the wealth of the ShaftGravesto the invadingHyksos. Perhapsone of the mostpuzzling aspectsof his book is his constant use of this term, which, thoughit appearsroutinely in the work of others, seemsespeciallyprominentin BA. Justwhat is this thingwhich we are so ready to call "influence"?And why is anyonejustifiedin drawinghistorical conclusions

on the basis of it?

The

Greeks

of the first millennium

adoptedlarge-scalearchitectureand sculpturein stonebecauseof Egyptian influence. But so what? There was no Egyptian invasion of the Aegean at this time. We happento know that Greeks in small numbers went to Egypt as mercenaries,as traders,and as travelers,and that Egyptians did not go to Greece. Attic black- and red-figurevasesfilled the tombsof Etruria in the sixth and fifth centuriesBC, but again this remarkable ceramic presenceis not to be interpretedas the resultof an invasion. To insist that cultural or archaeologicalsimilaritiesmust be the result of invasion,to equateinvasionand influence,is to adopta reductioniststrategy which eliminatesmany other possibleanswers. The fact is, we often

148

R.A. McNEAL

do not know what "influence"means. The goodsfrom the Shaft Graves couldwell have beenthe resultof trade,perhapsin the form of the gift exchangewhich figuresso largely in the Amarna Lettersand in Homer. But resortingeither here or elsewhereto vague talk of influenceis not going to clarify matters. Archaeologialevidence,when unaccompanied by contemporaryillustrativeor explanatorydocuments,is apt to be pretty mute after all; and its interpretationmay say a good deal more aboutthe interpreterthan aboutthe evidenceitself. Despite his heterodoxopinions,Bernal has fallen too much under the tutelage(dare I say influence?)of the past and presentpanjandrumsof Aegean archaeology.Their faults appearin him, but in an exaggerated form becauseof the very vigor and impulsiveness of his thought,whichis foreverbreakingthroughthatvery cautionwhichis customaryin standard archaeologicalwriting. Bernal has clearly thoughta lot about Aegean archaeology;but he has not thoughtdeeply aboutthe foundationsof the business--the conceptualunderpinnings.What his readersget is the old archaeologyin the serviceof a new anti-racistideology. What someof them might like is a closerexaminationof basicarchaeologicalprocedure andmethodsof reasoning.But to askfor suchan examinationis probably unfair, becausea book of that sort is not the one that Bernal felt impelled to write.

VI.

Culture

and Ethnos

One measureof Bernal's debt to traditonalAegean archaeology,a paradoxicaldebt in view of his statedaversionto ethnichistory,is his nationalist orientation,his fixationnot just on the Greeks,but on otherhistorical ethn• as well: the Egyptians and the Semitic-speakingpeoplesof the Levant. And he, like many archaeologists, tendsto confusethesehistorical peoples,or ethn& with archaeologicalcultures,especiallyprehistoric cultures.Becausethe Aegeanin the secondmillenniumlay on the peripheryof the civilisationsof the Near Eastandin thepenumbraof history, there is considerabletemptationto treat artifactsas ethnic indicators,to talk, for example, about the usersof Minyan ware as Greeks. Scholars havebeensuccumbing to thistemptationsincethe nineteenthcentury,and Bemal is no exception. He would have us believe,amongmuch else,that the buildersof a pyramid-likestructurein Boiotia in the third millennium wereEgyptians. Just how pervasivethis kind of thinking is is evident in the work of

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

149

Childe, Bemal's acknowledgedmentor. Taking from Kossina(The Origin of the Germans,1911) the notionof the archaeologicalculture,Childe was careful to define it as a recurrentassemblageof type artifacts,or functionaltypes. In his view sucha culturewas basicallya matterof statistics: a number of types which, because of frequent associationwith one

another,areproducts of a commonpatternof behavior.•3He knewwell enoughthat sucha statisticalarchaeologicalgroupwas not to be confused with race, or language,or a political state,that there was in fact no necessarycorrelationamongsuchdifferentphenomena.But evenhe, in tracing the origin, movement,and interactionof his variousprehistoriccultures, thoughtin termsof peoples;and for this reasonevenhis archaeologywas

still essentially nationalist in fact if not in theory. TMIf Childecouldnot altogetherbreakfree of the incubusof nineteenth-century nationalism,it is easyto seewhy Bernalhimselfdoesnot escape. Bernal seesno particular harm in correlatingculture and ethnos. He would arguethat we can in fact reasonablyinfer ethnicityby goingbackward througha pottery sequence,the end of which was producedby a society whose languagewe know from historical sources. Mellaart has used this principle to call the makers of Uruk pottery speakersof Sumerian. Bernal would apply it, for example,to the AegeanDark Age. That age was not really dark in the conventionalsenseif we assumethat Protogeometricand Geometric pottery, which everyone associateswith the recognizedindicatorsof the historicGreek ethnos(language,poetry, place names, religion, and alphabet)had its origins in the Late Bronze Age. That is, the makersof Mycenaeanand Submycenaean potteryare apt to be every bit as "Greek" as the makersof the later Protogeometric andGeometricstyles. Bernaldiffersfrom mostarchaeologists only in his readinessto apply such reasoningto even earlier and fully prehistoric archaeologicalcultures. Hence he can find EgyptiansroamingBoiotia in the third millennium.

But Bernal departssignificantlyfrom the usual scholarlyorthodoxy whenhe maintainsthat the Greeks,even as early as the Late BronzeAge, actuallyconstituted a "mixedculture". Bernalmay be dependent to some extentagainon Childe,who sponsored thisconceptanddiscussed in some

detailwhathe meantby it.•5 In Bemal'sviewtherewasnothingespecially originalaboutGreek culture. Rather,it was a hybrid,or a composite,dependent,like Japanese culture,for muchof its character(that is, its language,religion, writing systems,artisticworks, etc.) on the contributions of intrusivegroupsbearing historicallyattestednames. Clearly

150

R.A. McNEAL

Bernal has adoptedthis notion not out of any spoiler'swish to denigrate Greek achievements,whether of the secondmillennium or of the first (he

is fully preparedto recognizeboth),but becauseof his inclinationto criticize theracialistexcesses of "Aryan" historiography, whichfoundthe true origin of the Greeksin the intrusionof suitablyblond-hairedand blueeyedIndo-Europeansfrom the north. Whatever may have been the motivationfor this conceptof a mixed culture, I wonderjust how useful it is in practice. It helps Bernal avoid coming to terms with the problem of definingthe Greeks, or rather, the definition becomeshopelesslyvague. As Bernal usesthe term, it is not strictlylinguistic,or religious,or political;and it is certainlynot archaeological. In fact, Bernal doesnot recognize,or establish,his mixed culture in any archaeologicalsense. He is interestedonly in the origins of his mixed culture,which he seesas foreign. He doesnot discuss(say) the culturalamalgamof the Late Bronze Age, the Mycenaeanculture,which he is willing to admit is alreadyfully Greek, and then tracethe apparent geneticoriginof its components (its type artifacts,if the definitionis to be archaeological),to answerthe questionwhethermostof thosecomponents are intrusive (a very ticklish issue!) and thereforethe likely result of dominanceor conquestby outsiders,or whetherthey are predominantly indigenousand thereforethe likely resultof autochthonous development. Instead Bernal directshis attentionto startlinginnovationsin the archaeo-

logical record,for exampleto the beginningsof the LH and the Shaft Graves. Thesegravesdo not representthe mixed cultureof the recognizable Greekssomehundredsof yearslater, but, he says,that of the invaders who initiatedthe processof amalgamationwhich would then producethe characteristicGreek culture. Certainly, the artifactsin the Shaft Graves are themselvesalready"mixed", in the sensein which they representthe "internationalHyksosstyle" (itself a mixture),and reveal the apparently indigenoustransitionfrom MH to LH pottery. But emphasizingthe intrusivecharacterof artifactswhich are not necessarilyrepresentativeof the culture which is, or should be, his target is deceptive, becausethe reader'sattentionis divertedfrom the real mixed cultureto a narrow range of its presumedcomponents.In short,just what is Bernal'smixed culture? Is it the culture of the Shaft Graves? Or is it somethingwhich emergedonly later?

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

VII.

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

151

The Question of Audience

One of the major issuesfacing anyonewho wantsto understandBA is the very breadthof Bernal'sinterests.His discussion rangesover many lands, many topics,and a vast spanof time. The secondvolumeeven more than the first is so multifaceted

that few readers will think themselves

com-

petent to understandmore than a small part of the book, and there are many who are apt simplyto be intimidatedby so big an undertaking.The questionis, for whom hasBernal writtenthis secondvolume? I suspect that he has not targetedhis argumentsfor someparticularaudienceand that thereforehis bookmay be bothmisunderstood andmisused. In his IntroductionBernal wonderswhy the "cultivatedlay public"has beenslowto respondto the challengepresentedby BA and speculates that the masonis the racismwhich he sayshaspenetratedeven liberal thought (pp. xx-xxii). Surelythe real reasonis prettyclear:his booksare very big andvery hardto read. Thoughthe firstvolumeof BA may havehad a certain broad appeal becauseits subjectwas modem historiography,the secondvolume is certainlynot a work for the generalpublic or even for students.Exceptto variousspecialists, it is apt to be utterlyimpenetrable. How manybroadlyeducatedpeoplearepreparedto handlethe finerpoints of ceramictypologyor abstruseetymologicalargumentsinvolvingEgyptian hieroglyphics?If Bernal aimed his argumentsat "the cultivatedlay public", the level of his discourse(to say nothingnow of the actualvalidity of his arguments)is wrong. What aboutClassicistsandAegeanarchaeologists? To them,at any rate, Bemal's thesisthat Greek cultureowed much to the Egyptiansand the Semitesis going to be old news. For at least a generationeven main-line Classicalscholarslike M.L. West, Burkert,andWalcot havebeenworking thisparticularvein; and youngerscholars(for exampleSarahMorris) are headedin the samedirection. Even if Herodotussaysthat the Greeksgot theirgodsfrom Egypt,theproperreactionto thisstatementis to try to put it into context,thatis, to understand the pointof view from whichit is made. If, asI suspect,goodold Herodotuswasgivinghis audiencea kind of intellectualjab in the ribs,we cannotnow sayin all seriousness, asBernaldoes, that this statementis to be taken absolutelyliterally. No one now doubts that Herodotuswas right in somesense. But if Bernal wantsto convince Classiciststhat they are in fact ignoringHerodotus'true import, he must demonstratemore sophisticationin the criticism of sourcesand thereby arguein termswhichthisaudienceat leastwill understand.

152

R.A. McNEAL

If the secondvolumeof BA missesthe mark with the generalpublicand with the Classicalspecialists,to whom will it appeal?The dangeris that it will come to be valuedby all the wrongpeoplefor all the wrong reasons. Already the firstvolumeis on the way to becomingan objectof cult in certain quarters,andthe secondvolumemay only speedthisuncriticaladultation. The problemis that Bernal'sconclusions, which evenhe admitsare outrageous,will be taken up by peoplewho will not themselveshave read the whole book or even part of it, and who would find it difficult to understandthe work becauseits argumentsare socomplexandsodiverse. There is a real paradoxhere--a bookwhichis alreadyinfluentialbut which,in its latestform, few cantruly judge. The reasonfor thisparadoxis easyto see: the subtextis moreinfluentialthanthe text itself. BA is a deeplypolemical work, inspiredby what Bernalcallsan anti-racialistideology;andthe public hasrespondedsympathetically to this ideologyand not to the meritsof Bernal'sarguments.If we havereachedthepointwhenstudents demandto

be toldby theirinstructors thatSocrates andCleopatra wereblack•6(and Bernal'sfirst volume seemsto have helpedto bring this situationto pass), we may be fast approachingthe time when, regrettably,any adversecriticismof BA on groundsof scholarship or argumentation will be dismissed as irrelevant. •7 R.A. McNeal

Franklin & Marshall College

NOTES

1. One reviewerhasalreadycommentedat lengthon this problem:Edith Hall, "When is a myth not a myth? Bemal's Ancient model", Arethusa 25 (1992) 181-201.

2. For the issueof differenceand uniqueness as it appliesto Americanhistory in particular,see the interestingdiscussionof Ian Tyrrell in the Forum of The AmericanHistoricalReview96 (Oct. 1991) 1031-1055. Tyrrell favorsthe internationalizationof historyandobjectsto the Germanlegacyof nationalismandexceptionalism.

3. Letter to the author,August28, 1991. One culture may be more worth studyingthananotherin Bemal's view, but any moralor culturalsuperiorityis not the result solely of conquestor domination: "I refuse to accept [the] Social Darwinist premisethat conquestor dominationthroughviolencesomehowmakes a peopleor a linguisticgroupmorally or creativelybetter thanthosewho are conqueredor dominated"(BAII 360).

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

BERNAL

ONCE

AGAIN

153

4. Like many who write aboutthe "Greeks",Bemal assumesthat the concept is fairly self-evident,that it is "a subjectiveclassificationdefinedarounda cluster of cultural artifactsand centredon language",and that it is useful to define the "Mycenaeans"as Greeks(letter to the author,May 1, 1992). But Bernal nowhere addresses the questionof what theseculturalartifactsare or how the Mycenaeans fit the picturesodefined. 5. RobertDrews, The comingof the Greeks: Indo-Europeanconquestsin the Aegeanand theNear East (1988). 6. Old-World archaeology,particularly as practiced in the Aegean, seems blissfully(and perhapsmercifully) unawareof the "new" archaeology,which was intendedto apethe methodsof naturalscience.For a descriptionof its methodology and an estimateof its place in the developmentof archaeologicaltheory,see Brace Trigger,A historyof archaeologicalthought(1989). A blisteringattack uponthenew archaeology anda pleafor a returnto thecollectionof "facts"is Paul Courbin'sWhat is archaeology? (1988). 7. There is an importantpremiseunderlyingthis line of thought.Modem philosophysinceDescarteshastendedto assumethattrue argumentation canbe based only on what is certain,not on what is probable,that rational knowledgemust dependon the formerandnot on the latter. My suggestion thathistorymustresort to argumentsfrom likelihoodwouldbring it into the realm of Aristotle'srhetoric, or dialectic, which is discourseabout opinions,not certainties. Cf. Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca,The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (1969) 1 if.

8. Robert L. Pounder,"Black Athena 2: History without rules", The American Historical Review 97 (1992) 461, takesBernal to task for indulgingin arguments from competitiveplausibility,which, he says,are a legitimatepretextfor failing even undergraduateterm papers. This criticism puzzles me, becausehistorical argumentstandsor falls on its appealto probability. The real crux of the matteris the audiencewhich will judge that probability. Will the argumentsconvincethat audience?

9. Clifford Geertz, "Thick description:Towards a theory of culture", in The interpretationof cultures(1973) 3-30. Geertz definesa culture semioticallyas a "web of meaning". Bernal seemsto use "thick description"to mean something like the "web of evidence".

10. As Ruth Edwards

did in her excellent

book Kadmos

the Phoenician:

A

studyin Greek legendsand theMycenaeanAge (1979). 11. R.A. McNeal, "The Greeks in history and prehistory",Antiquity 46 (1972) 19-28.

12. A brief summaryof the "historical"treatmentof myth appearsin Lowell Edmunds(ed.), Approachesto Greekmyth(1990) 91-138. 13. V. Gordon Childe, Piecing together the past: The interpretation of archaeologicaldata (1956) 16 and 34. 14. Childe accepteda body of people called the Hellenes, whom he also identified with the intrusive Minyan culture that usheredin the MH period. Cf.

TheBronzeAge (1930)246; Whathappened in history? 6 (1958) 177;andThe dawn of Europeancivilization(1967) 77. 15. Childe (cit. n. 13) 149-150.

154

R.A. McNEAL

16. Mary Lefkowitz, "Not out of Africa", The New Republic, February 10, 1992, 29 if.

17. The dangersof misusingBern. al's book for purposesof culturalego massageare well discussed by Molly Myerowitz Levine, "The useandabuseof Black Athena", The AmericanHistorical Review 97 (1992) 440-460. As Levine says, Bernal, despitehis disclaimers,seemsto give somecomfortto thosewho would twist his thesisto their purposes.

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

In a recent studyof the Aegean policy of Kassandrosand the first three Antigonids,KostasBuraselishastackledafreshthe vexatiousproblemsof the dates of the battles of Andros and Kos. • His date for Andros of late

246or early245hasmetwithgeneralagreement. 2 Thebattleof Kosis a different matter. Buraselis' date, 255/4, faces strong competition from anotherwidely acceptedcontender: 261, at the end of the Khremonidean War. The purposeof thispaperis to re-arguethe casefor this more "traditional" date against255/4.

I. The AncientTestimony 3 There are two separatetraditionsin the ancientliterary sourcesattestingto the battle of Kos. The first, which reports Antigonos' dedicationof his triremeto Apollo after the battle, is preservedin Athenaios(5.209e). The secondtraditioncomesfrom Plutarch;it appears,with importantvariation, twice in the Moralia (545B, 183C) and once in the Life of Pelopidas(2.4). The passagein Athenaiosdoes not identify the Antigonosin question, leaving open the possibilitythat he could have been Gonatasor Doson: "Willingly I [sc. Masourios]have left asidethe holy triremeof Antigonos, in which he conqueredPtolemaios' generalsnear Leukolla of Kos, after which he dedicatedit to Apollo; it held not a third nor even a fourth of the

Syracusan or Alexandrian ship."4 Dosonis especially attractive because there are good historical circumstancesputting him near Kos. At the beginningof his reign he made an expeditionto Karia which brought a number of cities under his control. Several Koan inscriptionsprobably

witnessto his influenceon the island.5 It mustbe admitted,however,that the attribution

of Athenaios'

anecdote to Doson rather than Gonatas rests

only on an argumentof historical plausibility. We must first consider whether internal evidence,either from Athenaiosor from Plutarch,supportsan attributionto one king or the other. Athenaiosmentionsa king Antigonos ten times. Four of these referencesare to Monophthalmos(3.101e-f, 4.128b, 13.578a-b, 15.697a), five are to Gonatas(4.162d, 5.209e, 8.334a, 8.340f, 13.603e), and only one to 155

156

GARY

REGER

Doson(6.251d), in which he is called "the Antigonoswho was called the Guardian". This passage,which relatesto Doson'smostfamousachievement, his defeatof the SpartansunderKleomenesand captureof Sparta, derivesfrom Phylarkhos(FGrHist 81 F 46). Clearly, Athenaioshasvery little to say about Doson but much about Gonatasand Monophthalmos. The one time he doestreatDoson,he carefullyidentifieshim, whereasthe mentionsof the othertwo Antigonoiare withoutfurther specification.It thereforeseemsunlikely on internal evidencethat Athenaios209e could refer to Doson.

A similar but strongerargumentcan be constructedfor Plutarch. In his case,problemsarisenot from the identificationof the Antigonos-- as we will see, there can be no doubts that he meant Gonatas-- but rather from

confusionin the tradition. At De laude ipsius(Mor. 545B), Plutarchwrites: "And the secondAntigonoswasnormallymodestandmoderate,but when, in the seabattlenear Kos, one of his companionssaid,'Don't you seeby how manymore are the shipsof the enemy?',he said, 'Againsthow many shipsdo you countme?'" The samestorywithoutexplicitmentionof Kos appearsat Mor. 183C under"Antigonosthe Second".Unfortunately,in a doubletof the anecdotewhich appearsin the Life of Pelopidas(2.4), Plutarch attributes the same event to the sea battle at Andros:

"When he was

about to have a sea battle at Andros and someoneremarkedhow many

were the enemyships,Antigonosthe old man (6 •,•Oc0v)said better, 'Against howmanydoyoucountme?',,6 In thiscaseit is crucialto separatethe issues.Plutarchclearly vacillated aboutwhich battle the anecdotebelongedto; indeed,he probablydid not know for sure. It would thereforebe hazardous,to say the least,to make any inferencesaboutthe characteror courseof eitherKos or Androsfrom this story. But therecan be no doubtthat Plutarchknew there had been a sea battle at Kos and that he attributed that battle to Gonatas, his "Anti-

gonosthe Second". A count of referencesto Antigonoi in the Moralia leadsto the sameconclusion:while Monophthalmosappearsten timesand Gonatasfifteen, there is only a single passagecertainly attributableto

Doson,andasin Athenaios it relatestohisconquest of Sparta(234B-C).7 The internalevidencefrom both Athenaiosand Plutarch,then, supports the attributionof the battle of Kos to AntigonosGonatas,not to Doson. Unfortunately,very little elsecan be said. The doubletin Plutarchforbids any inferencefrom the anecdoteabout the battle itself, and nothing in either Plutarch'sor Athenaios'texts offers firm footing for a date. Scholars have sometimespointedto other texts in an attemptto seek a date.

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

157

For example,anotherpassagein the Moralia (676D-E) reportsthat Antigonos' flagship,the Isthmia, sproutedparsley;somecommentatorshave connectedthis incidentwith the battle of Kos and arguedthat the battle must have occurredin an even year in our calendarin correspondence with the Isthmiangames. This has been usedto supporta dating at the endof the KhremonideanWar, in 262.8 Heinz Heinen pointedto a passagein SextusEmpiricus(Adv. gramm. 276) referring to a meetingbetweenone Sostratos"sent by Ptolemaios" and Antigonos. He argued that Sostratos,whom Heinen identified with the famousdedicatorof the Pharosat Alexandria, alludedby a Homeric quotationto a recentdefeatof Ptolemaiosat seaby Antigonos. He associated the incident with the end of the Khremonidean War, and the defeat with Kos.9

None of theseadditionalpassages addsanythingdecisive;the mostthat can be saidfor them is that they fit better with a date for Kos in 262 or 261 than in 255.

Given that Gonataswas the Antigonoswho beat Ptolemaicnaval forces in a battle at Kos, and that the literary evidenceapparentlyprovidesno

furtherinformation thatcansupplya date,løwe areforcedto canvass the history of Gonatas' reign for plausible occasionsin which to set the conflict. It mustbe admittedthat the stateof the evidencecannotsupport any irrefutableconclusions; the appearanceof a new inscriptionmay one

day providethe key to unlockthe puzzle. ll In thissense,the results presentedbelow cannothopeto be more than provisional.Nevertheless, in our presentknowledge,thereare only a few occasionsin Gonatas'long reign whennavalconflictwith Egypt seemslikely. At his father's

death Gonatas inherited

a shattered realm.

He tried his

hand in Asia after the death of Lysimakhos,suffered a naval defeat at the handsof PtolemaiosKeraunosin 280, and finally establishedhis claim to

Makedonby defeating theGaulsin 276.•2 Whileit is possible thata sea battle againstPtolemaic forces might fit here--his father had lost the Cycladesto PtolemaiosI in 288-287, who now was projectinghis power into mainland Greece--it seems unlikely: in 283 Antigonos needed Ptolemaios'permissionto recoverhis father's body from Asia and sail

backto Greecethroughthe Aegean, 13and in 279 a war betweenthe Ptolemiesandthe Antigonidsresultedin Ptolemaicgainson Samosandon the coastof Asia Minor. Operationsseemto have includedmilitary action in the islands,but given the outcomeof the war an Antigonidvictory at

Kosseems inappropriate here.14

158

GARY

REGER

From his recovery of Makedon to the opening of the Khremonidean War Gonataswas fully entangledin problemsin Greece, not least his strugglewith Pyrrhos;thereseemsno likely placeherefor an adventureat

Kosagainst Ptolemaios II. •5 The next two periodsof Gonatas'reign offer the mostplausibleopportunities for a conflict at Kos. From 267 to 261 •6 Gonatas was involved in

the so-calledKhremonideanWar. PtolemaiosII supportedthe rebelling Athenianswith naval and land forces,and the end of thisconflicthad generally beenidentifiedas the bestdate for the batle of Kos until Buraselis arguedfor 255. The years after the war (260-254) are also not without their appeal. Thoughthey still remainamongthe mostobscureof Gona-

tas'reign,•7we nowknow,thanksto a recentepigraphical discovery, that Ptolemaiosdid not end his diplomatic activity in Greece with the end of

thewar,•8andit maybethatpersisting competition finallyculminated in a naval battle.

Between 253 and 246, however, Gonatas was probably confined to Greece thanks to the revolt of Alexandros son of Krateros, who took

Corinth and Euboiafrom the king. Military operationsas far away as Kos

seemvery unlikelyduringtheseyears. •9 The deathof Alexandros and Gonatas' recovery of Euboia were marked by the king's victory at the battle of Andros in 246 or early 245, as Buraselis has now shown. PtolemaiosIII was involvedin the Third Syrian (or Laodikean)War from that year to 241. Nothing indicatesfurther conflict betweenhim and the

Makedonian king,whodiedin 239.20 Two periodsin Gonatas'careerstandout as plausiblesettingsfor the battle of Kos: the KhremonideanWar, and especiallyits end in 262 or

261, the datemostgenerallyfavoreduntil Buraselis'proposal; 2• and a date between260 and 254, a periodpossibleon accountboth of its great obscurityand becauseof Gonatas'much improvedpositionafter his victory in the KhremonideanWar. II.

The Date of the Battle of Kos

Buraselis' casefor a dateof 255/4restsonfivearguments: 22 1) that the four festivalsdedicatedby AntigonosGonatason Delos form two groups,the secondof which--the Soteriaand Paneiaof 245-- were connectedwith his victory at the battle of Andros, so that the othertwo- the Antigoneiaand Stratonikeiaof 253 --ought to be associatedalsowith a military event,and shouldhave occurred

THE DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

159

in a periodwhen Antigonoscontrolledthe Cyclades; 2) that Antigonosdedicateda triremeto Apollo on Delos after Kos; 3) that Antigonosfreed Athens in 255/4, removing the garrisonon the Mouseion,becausethe Ptolemiesno longerposeda threatas a result of the defeat at Kos;

4) that a Delian inscriptionattestingto peacefor 255 refers to a cessation of military activity subsequent to the battleof Kos; 5) that Antigonosbecamenewly activeon Delos after 255. We will examineeach of theseargumentsin turn. 1. Buraselismakes a good case that the Soteria and the Paneia, both dedicatedin 245 to deitiesnot usuallyso honoredon Delos, celebratedhis

victoryat Andros. 23 But the festivalsAntigoneiaandStratonikeia do not make sucha neat pair. Unlike the variousPtolemaieia,which were dedicatedto the kings themselves,the Antigoneiawas dedicatedto the triad Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, exactly like the private foundationswell known on Delos, or the two festivalsof the Attalids. In this respectthe Antigoneia more resemblesthe foundationsof kings who exercisedno sovereigntyover Delos than of thosewho did. It standsin strikingcontrast with the Antigoneia of Monophthalmosand the Demetrieia of Poliorketes, which were dedicated to the rulers themselves. As Buraselis has shown, these festivals celebrated the liberation of Delos from Athens

in 314, the foundationof the Nesiotic League, and (in 307) the second liberationof the islandsby Demetrios. Suchfoundationstendedto reflect immediatelocal benefits. The absenceof any parallel betweenthem and the Antigoneiaof Gonatas,a simplefestivalin honorof the Delian triad,

strongly presupposes a motiveof simplepietyforthelatter. 24 The Stratonikeia,founded in 253 by Antigonosin honor of his sister, probably commemoratedher death, which had occurred a few years

before. 25Her brotherhadgoodreasonto dedicate a festivalin hernameto the Delian triad (IG XI 2.287B124-125): she had exhibited her piety throughdedicationsof various preciousobjectssince at least as early as 279 (IG XI 2.161B77-78), and her attentionscontinuedthroughher mar-

riageto Seleukos downto herdeath. 26 Theconflictbetween herbrother and PtolemaiosII never impededher; she clearly had a deep personal attachment to the Delian divinities, and the natural inference is that her

brother'sfoundationrecognizedandcelebratedthat piety. The connection between these two festivals, and between them and the larger political situation, is severed.

2. Athenaiosreports that Antigonos dedicatedhis flagship at Kos to

160

GARY

REGER

Apollo; W.W. Tam arguedmany years ago that the ship was the same

vesselastheonePausanias mentions on Delos(3.29.1).27 Unfortunately, Pausaniasprovidesno details that might help date the dedication. The Delian templeaccountscontainnumerousinventoriesfor a buildingcalled the Neorion. This structurehasbeenidentifiedwith a buildinguncovered by the French excavatorsand called the Monument of the Bulls, which was evidently designedto hold a ship. The suggestionthat the Neorion held Antigonos' dedicated ship was natural, though evidence that the Neorion was begun well before Antigonos' reign required complicated hypothesesto upholdthe identification.JacquesTr6heuxhasrecentlyand definitivelyproventhat the Neorion was finishedby 272 or 271; he proposesthat DemetriosPoliorketesdedicatedthe buildingbetween306 and 301 to houseone of the large shipsthat Demetrioshad built in those

years. 28Thispieceof evidence is thusoutof thepicture. 3. Accordingto a notice in the Chronika of Eusebios,Antigonos

"freed"Athens? With this has generallybeenassociated Pausanias' (undated)remark that Antigonoswithdrew the garrisonin the Mouseion

"sometimelater"(&v&gpdvov),thatis, aftertheendof theKhremonidean War, when it was installedri ø To this evidenceBuraselishas addedthe storyin DiogenesLaertios4.39 that "after the battle at sea, when many went to Antigonosor wrotehim lettersof petition(•moxd•totnotpot•C•rl•:t•cd)he [sc.thephilosopher Arkesilaos]heldhispeace". Buraselisinfers thatthe "requests"from the Atheniansin which Arkesilaosrefusedto participate were in fact closelyconnectedwith the return of privilegesto Athensin 255/4.3• This juxtapositionprovidesthe only real independentargumentfor a date for Kos, and it is unfortunatelysubjectto two seriousobjections. First, the dateis not as absolutelycertainas Buraselisinsists. He saysthat

thepassage fromEusebios' Chronika datesto 255/4,32butin factit is only theArmenian versionthatgivesthatdate;theGreekversiongives256/5.33 Buraselisoffers no justificationfor his preference,which is especially troublingas theearlierdatecannotbe reconciledwith his interpretation of the events of 255/4.

Second, the passagein Diogenes is much more problematic than Buraselisallows, and his interpretationdependson a numberof assumptions about the situationin Athens during and after the Khremonidean War. The passagereads in full (Loeb tr. by R.D. Hicks, slightly modified):

THE DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

161

And whereasmany personscourtedAntigonosand went to meet him wheneverhe came to Athens,Arkesilaosstayedput, not wanting to obtrudehimself into his acquaintance.He was on the best of terms with Hierokles, who held the Mounikhia and the Peiraieus,

and at every festivalwould go down to seehim. And thoughHierokles urged him to greet Antigonos,he was not persuaded,but after going as far as the gates,he turned back. And after Antigonos' battle at sea,when many went to Antigonosor wrote him lettersof

petition(•moxd•ta •apa•c•rlxt•c•),he held his peace. Nevertheless,on behalf of his native city, he did go to Demetriasas envoy to Antigonos, but failed. He spent his time completely in the Academy,shunningpolitics. Severalpointsneedto be made. In the first place,Diogeneshasnot given us a connectednarrative. Arkesilaos'friendshipwith Hierokles,the commanderof the garrisonat the Peiraieus,covered a long span of time. Hierokles is first attestedin Athens in the 280s, and Arkesilaos arrived before ca. 288, for he studied

with Theophrastos, who died about that year. Hierokles also servedas commanderof the Antigonidgarrisonat the Peiraieusafter the KhremonideanWar, and so presumablywould have beenavailableto meet and talk with the philosopheruntil he died, retired, or left, or Arkesilaoshimself

died (in 241/0).34 Thusthereis no reasonto suppose that Arkesilaos' abortedvisit to Antigonos,his keeping silent after the seabattle, and his embassyto Antigonosat Demetrias,are relatedin chronologicalorder. Second,Plutarchdoesnot identify the seabattle. Buraselisarguesthat the definite article presupposes "dab dies seine bekanntesteSeeschlacht

war",whichin turnwasKos.35 ThoughI agreethatthebattleheremost probablyis Kos, in principleAndroscannotbe decisivelyruledout. Arkesilaoswas still alive in 246-245, and Antigonosand his fleet might well haveput in at the Peiraieusafterwards. Third, Buraselis insists that the "freedom of movement" between

Athensandthe Peiraieusattestedin Diogenescouldonly haveoccurredat a time of peacewhen the two placeswere in the samehands. This is put forwardas a strongargumentfor datingKos to 255/4, when Athensand the Peiraieushad been underAntigonos'controlfor severalyears. But in fact nothingprecludesdatingArkesilaos'activity(as distinctfrom the battle of Kos) to the immediate aftermath of the KhremonideanWar. Athens

surrendered in thespringof 261.36If thebattleof Koswassubsequent to

162

GARY

REGER

the surrender,thereis no problem:Antigonosreturnedfrom Kos to a reunited Attica. If the battle precededAthens' surrender,the battlemuststill

belongin 261,37and thereforecannothaveoccurredmorethana few weeks before Athens' surrender; indeed, it could well have been news of

Antigonos' defeat of the Athenians' Ptolemaicsupportersthat decided themto give in. In thatcasethe reunificationof the Peiraieusand the asty underAntigonidcontrolwill havebeenessentiallycoterminouswith Antigonos' victoriousreturn. Diogenes' brief accountfits perfectly with the circumstances

in either case.

Finally, associatingArkesilaos' silence with the end of the KhremonideanWar suggestsa simple explanationof Diogenes' referenceto

•toxd•,ta •otpot•c•,qxt•c6t. Buraselisassumes that the letterswere petitionsfor the removalof the garrisonat the Mounykhiaon the groundsthat it was no longerneeded. But surelythe Atheniandefeat at the end of the KhremonideanWar elicited embassiesto Antigonosbeggingindulgence. Athenswas treatedharshly:garrisonsin the Mounykhiaand the Peiraieus,

theabolition of offices,andtheconcentration of all powersin theboule. 38 It would hardlybe out of placefor the Atheniansto have tried to mollify Antigonos,whom they had resistedfor so long. Nor would it be surprising if Arkesilaos,who after all enjoyeda long-standingfriendshipwith one of the king's officers,refusedto participatein a projecthe reckoned was doomed. Thus the entire situation--naval

battle, dedication of a

ship, and petitionsto the victor--fits as well in 261 at the end of the KhremonideanWar as in 255/4.39 4. In a long seriesof Delian inscriptionsthat reportthe namesof parti-

cipantsandvictorsin localdramaticfestivalseachbeginswith theformula

"Underarkhonso-and-so therewashealthandprosperity". 4øExceptionally, threeaddalsotheword"peace",œ[pfivr1.41 Muchhasbeenmadeof thesethreecases.Sinceelp•vrl usuallyrefersto a peacetreaty,or the peaceresultingfrom a treaty,the main issueis whether"peace"refersto a general,universalpeaceformalizedby a treaty endingall conflict among all powers, or only to the local situationin the Cyclades or on Delos

itself.42 Buraseliscomesdowndecisivelyon the universalist side:"Da nun diese Formel so seltenund Delos in der entsprechenden Zeit kein 10kalesHeiligtum, sondemein intemationalesKult- und Handelszentrum war, kann man schwerglauben,dab sichdieseFriedenserw/ihnungen auf

irgendwelche 10kalen Zust/inde beziehen. "43 One argument in favor of universal applicationcan be disposedof easily: the mere fact that Delos hosteda pan-Hellenicsanctuarydoesnot

THE DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

163

mean that decisionsof its officials to mention "peace" can only have reflecteda generalpeace throughoutthe Greek world. The fatal blow to the universalistview risesfrom conditionsin 255 itself, for that year saw no universalpeace: the SecondSyrian War, which had begunin 260/59,

continued until253.44 In my viewthepeaceof thatyearprobably refers to the termination

of hostilities between the Ptolemies

and the Rhodians

who had defeatedthe Egyptianfleet at the battle of Ephesosa few years

earlier. 45 Localconditions canalsoexplainthereferences topeacein 261, which saw the end of the Khremonidean War, and in 179, which saw the end of the war between Eumenes II and Pharnakes.

Eumenes'

blockade

of the straitshad provokedRhodianintervention;Rhodiancontrol of the Cycladesduringtheseyears,includingthe stationingof a fleet at Tenos,is

sufficient toexplainlocalinterest in thiswar.46 The "peace" of 255 can likewise be explainedby local circumstances. The SecondSyrianWar had presentedthe Rhodianswith their first opportunityto intervenedirectlyin the islands,for they foughtnot on the sideof their old allies, the Ptolemaichegemonesof the Island League,but against them. The poorly attested battle of Ephesos, in which the Rhodian admiral Agathostratosbeat Khremonidescommandinga Ptolemaicfleet, seemsto fit nowhereelse than in the SecondSyrian War; a date of 258

seemsgenerallyaccepted. 47 The Rhodianadmiralis usuallyidentified with an Agathostratosson of Polyaratos, the Rhodian honored by the Island Leagueon Delos, whoseearlier successfulserviceas trierarkhosis

knownfroman inscription fromLindos? Anotherinscription records a dedicationby the RhodiannauarkhosPeisistratossonof Aristolokhosand

hisfellow soldiers ('col.ox)o'cpwcœx)odq. tœvot)"fromthebootyto Apollo". The nauarkhos may be the homonymousRhodian theoros who visited Delos in or slightlybefore 257. The expression"from the booty" guaran-

teesmilitaryactivity,whichsurelyoccurred in the vicinityof Delos. 49 The Deliansalsohonoreda RhodianAntigeneselected[vtx6o•]pXog •zd xflq (px)Xtx•cflq x[6)v v•oo)v •c(xl.](•rl. ot0'c•pi(xtx6)v 'E;K)•vt0v(IG XI 4.596.3-6= Choix 39) and his three trierarkhoi. Antigenesand the trierarkhosTimaphanesare unknown. The secondtrierarkhos,Dionnosson of Polydoros,may perhaps be related to the Dionnos whose son Alkimedon served under Agathostratosca. 265-260 (ILindos 88a224). The third trierarchos, Hegesandrosson of Boulanax, was darniourgoson

Rhodesin 251.5øThepeaceat Delosin 255 will therefore referto theterminationof military activityaroundthe islandto which theseinscriptions attest.

164

GARY

REGER

5. Buraselis suggeststhat Antigonosbegan his portico and famous "Monumentof the Ancestors"soonafter 255. There is a great dangerof circularityin this argument,sinceno datehasbeengenerallyacceptedfor

thesebuildings. 5• Further,evenif thedatewereassured, it wouldhardly provethatAntigonos'activityresultedfrom a Ptolemaicmilitary defeat. Perhapsthe most seriousgeneralobjectionto Buraselis'date for Kos lies in the absenceof any evidencefor Makedonianmilitary activityin or

aroundthe Cycladesjust before255. Whether•{pfivrl was intended specificallyto allude to a treaty of peaceor only more generallyto a cessation of hostilities, no independentMakedonian expedition can be

found. 52 This argument from silencewouldhavelittle force,giventhe poor stateof evidencegenerallyfor the mid-thirdcentury,were it not for the abundantevidence for Rhodian military operations. The battle of Ephesos(258) occurredat one end of the routesof travel that passed

through theCyclades. 53 Threeor moreDelianinscriptions confirmexplicitly the presenceof Rhodiantroops.The RhodianenemywasEgypt;the Cycladesand their Leaguehad been subjectto Egypt before261, but the Ptolemies had lost interest in the islands after defeat in the Khremonidean

War. The "peace"of 255 was surelythe resultof the successful Rhodian expulsionof the Egyptianswho remainedfrom the vicinity: a sweepinto the centralAegeanto follow up the victoryoff the coastof Asia Minor. If a formal treatyof peaceis wanted,E. Bikermanenvisionedone over fifty

yearsago:a peacebetween Ptolemaios andtheRhodians. 54 The political situationat mid-centurycould also explain Antigonos' new presenceat Delos. As I have remarked,the Ptolemieslost interestin

the regionafter the Khremonidean War? Politicalvacuumsalways attractedoutsidepowersto the Cyclades. Antigonosmay have seenan opportunityto assertinterests,or at leasta presencethere;nor shouldwe dismissout of hand the possibilitythat a certain degreeof genuinepiety lay behindhis dedicationsof theseyears. But the evidencefor military activity in theseyearspointstowardthe Rhodians,not Gonatas. The only possibleAntigonidgain is Andros,which by 250 hosteda Makedonian garrison.But possession of Androssaysnothingaboutpoliticalhegemony in the rest of the Cyclades. The islandis not "f•ir denjeweiligen hellenistischenHerrscher der Kykladen ein grinstigerWachtpostenin dieser

Inselwelt "56but rathera choke-pointfor movementin and out of the northernSaronicGulf, that is, to andfrom the Peiraieus.Ptolemaios'capture of Androsin 308 as a preliminary to his operationsin Greece, Kallias' useof the islandas a basein 287, AntigonosGonatas'controlin 250,

THE DATE

OF THE BATTLE

OF KOS

165

and its ownershipby the Attalids after 200 while the rest of the Cycladic world was underRhodiansuzeraintyall illustratethe separationof Andros

in manywaysfromtherestof theislands? Buraselisalso adducessomeevidenceto attestto Gonatas'presencein Asia in the 250s as an additional,but not decisive,prop for his case. He himself admitsthat we hear nothingof thesesupposedacquisitionsafter 255; this silencehe attributeseither to Antigonos'inability to keep them

ortohiswithdrawal fromthemaspartof thepeacewithPtolemaios. 58But thisevidenceis sothin that it evanescesat the slightesttouch: 1. Accordingto Memnon of Herakleia,King Nikomedesof Bithynia, mistrustfulof Ziaelas,his exiled sonby his first wife, willed his kingdom

to his two sonsby his secondwife and"appointed as guardians (•txpd=ox)g)Ptolemaiosand Antigonosand also the demoi of Byzantion and of

Herakleiaand of Kios".59 The dispossessed Ziaelaslauncheda war against Bithynia. The Bithynians called upon the guardians,who sent troops. Memnonattributesthe victory of the Bithynians,not surprisingly, to the contingentfrom Herakleia. These events are generally dated to 255-253. This date, however, stems from Tarn's contentionthat these were the only years in which Antigonosand Ptolemaioscould have co-operatedbecausethey were at

peace. 6øThiscontention furtherdepends onTarn'scasefor a PtolemaicAntigonidpeacein 255. It is circularto useMemnon'sreportto supporta casefor datingthe battleof Kos and a peacetreatyto 255. Moreover, Nikomedes'interestin appointingguardianswas to guarantee his kingdom for his underagesons. Notably absentfrom the list are the Attalids:powerfulnearbyneighborswho might be expectedto see in their guardianshipan opportunityfor territorialadventurism.Nikomedes seemsratherto have chosenroyal (as opposedto civic) guardianswith no

nearbyinterests?Nikomedes mighthavepurposefully chosen twomutually hostileguardianseach of whom could be countedon to act quickly againstthe otherif he tried to take advantageof his position. Memnon's ßtext speaksrather againstthan for Antigonid ambitionsin northwestern Asia Minor.

2. In his biographyof Arkesilaosof Pitane,DiogenesLaertiosreports thatthe philosopher,who lived at Athens,undertookan embassyon behalf of his hometown to Antigonos;the outcome was not happy (4.39). Buraselisputs this event in 255 in the aftermathof the battle of Kos. He stressesparticularly Arkesilaos' travelling between the city and the

Peiraieus asevidence of theexistence of peace. 62 Thepassage, however,

166

GARY

REGER

cannot bear such close dating. In the end, Arkesilaos' unsuccessful embassy to Antigonos in Demetrias-- therefore an event clearly not linked with the king's visit after the sea-battle--floats without date: Diogenes' point in this passageis not to give a chronologicalseriesof events,but to stressthat despiteArkesilaos'refusal to meet Antigonos

wheneverhe couldconveniently havedoneso, he nevertheless (6gt0q) undertook an embassyon behalf of his hometown. This could have occurredat any time duringAntigonos'long reign, and furthersaysnothing about Antigonid control or even interestsin Pitane or the region; indeed,the failure of the missionsuggests ratherthat Antigonosfelt no specialresponsibilities there. 3. Fouillesde DelphesIII 4.417 recordsthree awardsof proxeny,two for citizens of Padon and one for Philarkhos son of Hellanion, Mak-

edonian from Pytheion. J. Pouilloux in his commentaryon these texts (p. 91) suggested that they formedan embassyto Gonatas,a view which Buraselisshares;but this is pure speculation.Further,the date given by GeorgesDaux, 257/6 (?), is too early to supportBuraselis'case. If Antigonoswon at Kos in 255, it shouldhave been after the battle that main-

landcitiesbeganto solicithisfavor.63 4. IPriene 37.141-149 (cf. 40.8-9) atteststo interventionby a King Antigonosin city affairs. Buraselisthinks this could have been Gonatas rather than Doson,the usualidentification, 64but in fact RichardBillows has recently and persuasivelyargued for an identificationwith Mono-

phthalmos. 65 The evidencedoesnot supportan Antigonidpresence in Asia in the 250s.

In contrastto Buraselis'date, placingthe battle of Kos at the end of the KhremonideanWar offersno difficulties,andexplainsa greatdeal. In the first place, the war entailedimportantmilitary operationsin the Cyclades.

In thefirstyearof theconflict--generally takenas26766--thePtolemaic admiral Patroklos sailed from Itanos in Krete to Keos, where he esta-

blished a base at Koresia (renamedArsinoe) facing the Attic coast. At Theta eitherthe passageof an importantofficial or the establishment of a new naval stationpromptedlocals to put their grievancesto Patroklos, who dispatcheda boardof dikastsfrom Ioulis. Soldiersand sailorsmust have stoppedon Delos and the other islands,as during the Secondand

ThirdMakedonian Wars.67 Despitetheabsence of directevidence naval operationsno doubt continuedin the Cyclades,though probably at a reducedlevel, for the next five years. Moreover,theseoperationsat sea explainwhy Antigonoswouldhaveengagedthe Ptolemaicfleet. Though

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

167

Ptolemaios'help was perhapsnot all the Atheniansmight have expected, his general Patroklos held Keos and the little island off the Attic coast namedafter him (Paus.1.1.1), managedto fortify severalstrongpointson

themainland, 68andco-ordinated histroopswiththeAthenians in operationsin Attica.69 Theseactivities werepossible because Ptolemaios hada fleet and enjoyed control of the central Aegean, which served as a stepping-stone to Attica. A decisivedefeat of Ptolemaios'naval forces at the end of the war wouldhave servedAntigonos'interestin punishingthe Egyptiansfor meddlingin mainlandaffairs, thoughit did not entirely

preventfutureinterference. TMThiscontextlendsforceto Patroklos'taunt, recordedby Athenaios(8.334a) followingPhylarkhos,that Gonatasmust controlthe seaor "eat figs". Further,a raft of evidencefrom varioussitesin the easternAegeansuggestsa temporarywaningof Ptolemaicpower or a temporaryresurgence of the Antigonidsright around260. Admittedly,noneof this evidenceis decisive by itself, and it may seem as thin as the evidence Buraselis marshalledfor an Antigonidpresenceon the Asia Minor littoral ca. 255. Put together,however,the individualpiecestell a consistentstory,most easily explainedby assuminga Ptolemaicdefeat by Antigonos'forcesat the end of the Khremonidean

War.

In the firstplace,thereis someevidenceto suggestAntigonidgainsat Samos,an importantPtolemaicbase. A Samian inscriptionin honor of judgesfrom Kos, but knownfrom the Koan copy, was set up on Samos "in the ternenos voted for Phile".

The first editor identified Phile with the

wife of Demetrios Poliorketes and dated the document to 306-301, a

periodwhenbothKosandSamoswereunderAntigonidsuzerainty. TMBut as Louis Robert noticed, the letter-forms and the formulae do not sit well

with so early a date; Christian Habicht also remarked on the rather developed character of the formulae, which are more elaborated than

thosefrom decreesdatedfirmly in the 280s.TMAs a resultthis decree seemsto belongafter 278 (the dateof Antigonos'marriageto Phile), but before259, whenSamosfell underSeleukidcontrolas a resultof capture by Timarkhosandthe revoltof Ptolemaiosthe Son.73 If the Koandecree is rightly datedand interpreted,then Gonatas'influenceover Samoscannot have followed from a victory over the Ptolemiesin 255, but must belongbefore260. An Antigonidvictoryover the Ptolemiesat Kos at the endof theKhremonidean War providestherightbackground. The evidencefor Antigonidinfluenceat Kos itself, unfortunately,is much more problematic.Several inscriptionswhich mentiona King

168

GARY

REGER

Antigonosare probablybest understood as intendingDoson. TM More importantare a pair of mid-third-centurydecreesattestingto Koan relations with the Thessalian koinon, which Gonatas controlled. As Susan Sherwin-White remarks, "The lack of evidence of the Coan state's earlier

relationswith Thessaly,in spiteof the Coans' traditionof their Thessalian origin, suggests that the alterationof power in the Aegeanmay underlie the Coans'apparentlyunprecedented embarkationuponrelationswith the koinon."75 But this is far from certain.76

Another piece of evidence associatedwith the battle of Kos which would supporta date at the end of the KhremonideanWar comesfrom Miletos. An importantinscriptionrehearsesMilesian-Ptolemaicrelations throughthe late fourthand third centuriesandthen saysof currentevents: "And now, when many and great wars seizedus on land and sea and the enemysailedagainstour city, the king [sc.PtolemaiosII], havinglearned that the city had nobly abidedby its friendshipand alliancewith him, dispatchedlettersand the ambassador Hegestratos,and praisedthe city,

etc."77 This documentdatesto 262-260. Its editor,A. Rehm,associated these events with the aftermath of the battle of Kos, a view in which F.W.

Walbankat onetimeconcurred. TMThe language of the decreesuggests circumstances under which Ptolemaios was unable to come to Miletos'

aid. A recentnaval defeatat Kos could explain this situation.

Indeed,evidencefor Ptolemaicpresencein the centralAegeanfalls off sharplyafter about260. No Ptolemaicnesiarkhoscan be tracedafter this date. The numerousdedications,festivals,and gifts of the Ptolemieson

Delosstopped by 260 anddidnotresumeuntilthe240s.TMTheabsence of a strongPtolemaicpresencecontributedto a senseof confusionin thecentral and easternAegeanfollowing the war. The inability of the Ptolemies to assertauthorityin the region after the KhremonideanWar is reflected mostclearly in two importantevents:the revolt of Ptolemaiosthe Son and his associates, which robbedEgypt of its controlof importantparts of Asia Minor, beginningin 259; and the decisionof the Rhodiansto oppose

Egyptin the SecondSyrianWar, whichled to a temporaryRhodiansuz-

eraintyin theCycladicislands in themid-250s. 8ø This apparentPtolemaicuninterestis easily explained:for the Ptolemies, the islandshad alwaysrepresenteda steppingstoneto Greece. The attitudeis clear in 308 when Androsservedas staging-ground for Soter's expeditionagainstthe Peloponnesos, in 288-287 when the liberation of Athenswas launchedfrom AndrosandZenon'sfleetmerelyvisitedIos on its way to Athens,and againin the KhremonideanWar. Defeat in this last

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

169

war markedthe endof an aggressivepolicy towardGreecefor the Ptolem-

ies. While theyengagedstill in somediplomaticinitiativesin Greece, 81 henceforth they concentratedmore on Thrace, Asia Minor, and the Levant. For these ends their naval bases at Itanos, Thera, and Samos con-

tinuedto serve,and were retainedlong after their other centralAegean holdingswere abandoned.But the Cycladeshad temporarilylost their

appeal. 82Thesechanges are mosteconomically accounted for by an important Antigonid naval victory at the end of the KhremonideanWar: the battle of Kos.83

Trinity College

Gary Reger

Hartford, Conn.

APPENDIX

In connectionwith the identificationof the Antigonos(or Antigonoi) attestedby inscriptionson Kos, it is necessaryto say a few wordsabout the evidencefor large-scaleAntigonidcontrolin the Aegeanduring the mid-thirdcentury. The Delian inscriptionIG XI 4.1052 (= Choix no. 45), which shows Antigonid influence on Syros, belongs in the decade 250-240 (P. RousselapudIG XI 4, p. 86; Durrbach,Choix,p. 56), and so reflectsthe aftermathof the battleof Andros,not of Kos. Nor do I accept a Makedonianhegemonyover Astypalaiainferred from Hegesandros, FHG IV 421 (Athen. 9.400d), as do Shipley 187-188, Sherwin-White109 with nn. 138-139, and others. F.W. Walbankhasremarked:"The possibility is not to be ruled out that Antigonusacquiredcontrol of certain islands[at the end of the Khremonidean War]. Severalinscriptions from Syros,los, Amorgos,Cimolosand Cos mentiona king Antigonusas influentialthere;and a similarinscriptionwithouta king's namevisible comesfrom Ceos" (Adams-Borza222). In my view the probabilities rather are againstit. The Koan evidenceactuallyprobablybelongsto Doson,as I have remarkedabove (cf. text to n. 74). The Amorgan inscriptions(IG XI! 7.221-223) also belongunderDoson;inscriptions from Delos (IG XI 4.566) and Ios (IG XII Suppl. 168) refer to Monophthalmos:see now Richard A. Billows (n. 65) 223-224; another Ietan document,IG XII 5.1008, is dubious,as is the Keian inscriptionIG XII 5.570, which might belong under Monophthalmosand Poliorketesor Gonatasand DemetriosII; cf. mostrecentlyJohnF. Cherryand JackL.

170

GARY

REGER

Davis, BSA 86 (1991) 15-16; the Kimolian inscription,actually from Euboia (Thomas W. Jacobsenand Peter M. Smith, Hesperia 37 (1968) 184-199 with Plate 57), does not prove general hegemony over the islands. Nor do I find persuasiveRolandEtienne'srecentsuggestion that Makedonianinfluencelay behind a board of Tenian judgeson Siphnos (G. Daux, Klio 52 (1970) 68-70, no. 1; Etienne 189). I basemy views, which I hopeto presentin detail in anothercontext,on autopsyof several of theseinscriptionsconductedin the summerof 1990 with financialsupport from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities. (See "The political historyof the Kyklades260-200 Be", forthcomingin Historia.)

NOTES 1.

Buraselis

119-151.

I usethe following abbreviations: BEFAR = BibliothbxtuedesEcolesFran•aisesD'Ath•nes et de Rome Choix = F61ix Durrbach, Choix d'inscriptionsde D•los avec traduction et commentaire (1921-1922) IC = InscriptionesCreticae,ed. MargaritaGuarducci,4 vols. (1935-1950) ID -- Inscriptionsde D•los, ed. F61ixDurrbach (1926-1929) ILindos = Lindos. Fouilles de l'Acropole 1902-1914. II. Inscriptions,ed. ChristianBlinkenberg,2 vols. (1941) IPriene = F. Hiller von Gaertringen,lnschriftenvonPriene (1906) Milet = GeorgKawerauandAlbert Rehm,Milet. Ergebnisseder Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit demJahre 1899. III. Das Delphinionin Milet (1914)

Adams-Borza= Philip H, Alexanderthe Great, and the Macedonianheritage, ed. W. LindsayAdams and EugeneN. Borza (1982) Bagnail = Roger S. Bagnail, The administrationof Ptolemaicpossessions outsideEgypt, Columbia Studiesin the ClassicalTradition 4 (1976) Bruneau= Philippe Bruneau,Recherchessur les cultes de Ddlos ti l'dpoque helldnistiqueet ti l'dpoque imp•riale, BEFAR 217 (1970)

Buraselis = Kostas Buraselis, Dashellenistische Makedonien unddie•giiis. Forschungenzur Politik des Kassandrosund der drei erstenAntigoniden(Anti-

g..onos Monophthalmos, DemetriosPoliorketesund AntigonosGonatas)im AgiiischenMeer undin Westkleinasien, Mi.inchenerBeitdigezur Papyrusforschung undAntikenRechtsgeschichte 73 (1982) Etienne = Roland Etienne, T•nos II. T•nos et les Cycladesdu milieu du IV e sibcleavant J.-C. au milieu du III e si•cle apresJ.-C., BEFAR 263bis (1990) Green = PeterGreen,Alexanderto Actium. The historicalevolutionof the Hellenisticage, HellenisticCulture and Society 1 (1990) Habicht = Christian Habicht, Studien zur Geschichte Athens in hellenistischer Zeit, Hypomnemata73 (1982)

THE DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

171

Hammond-Walbank = N.G.L. Hammond and F.W. Walbank, A history of Macedonia. Ill. 336-167B.C. (1988)

Heinen -- Heinz Heinen, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Geschichtedes 3. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Historia Einzelschrift 20 (1972) LGPN I = P.M. Fraser and E. Matthews, ed., A lexicon of Greek personal

names.I. TheAegeanIslands,Cyprus,Cyrenaica(1987) Sherwin-White= SusanSherwin-White,AncientCos. An historicalstudyfrom the Dorian settlementto theImperial period, Hypomnemata51 (1978) Shipley= GrahamShipley,A historyof Samos800-188 B.C. (1987) Tam, AG -- W.W. Tam, AntigonosGonatas(1913)

Will 12,II 2 = EdouardWill, Histoirepolitiquedu mondehelldnistique (323-30 av. J.-C.), Annalesde L'Est 30: vol. I, 2nd ed. (1979), vol. II, 2nd ed. (1982) All ancient dates are BC.

2. R. MalcolmErrington,A historyof Macedonia,tr. CatherineErrington,HellenisticCultureand Society5 (1990) 248; N.G.L. Hammond,The Macedonian state. Origins, institutions,and history (1989) 313; Walbank in HammondWalbank 587-595; Waldemar Heckel, Phoenix 40 (1986) 461; F.W. Walbank,

JHS 107 (1986) 243, by implication;P.M. Fraser,CR 34 (1984) 260-261. Shadow of doubtin A. Mastrocinque,Gnomon66 (1984) 515. Green 150 doesnot seemto know Buraselis.

3.

Cf. Buraselis 147-151.

4. Athen.5.209e. On thetextualproblem(•rt•tbfi,cod.A, 6rto•)bfi Meineke), see Buraselis148. Monophthalmosis excludedfor good historicalreasons;cf. Buraselis 120-121.

Many modemcommentators have supposedthat Athenaios'sourcefor this storyaboutKos wasMoskhion,from whomhe hadjust quoteda lengthypassage: W.W. Tam, JHS 30 (1910) 212; Bruneau 554; JacquesTr•heux, REG 99 (1986) 303; GeorgesRoux, "L'inventaire1D 1403 du N•6rion d•lien", BCH 113 (1989) 261-275 at 271 n. 35. In fact, however, the citation from Moskhion ends just beforethispassage,in whichthe speakerMasouriosresumesin his own voice. We thereforehaveno sourcefor this passage;cf. F. Jacoby,FGrHist 575 (Moschion) F6; Charles Burton Gulick, in the Loeb ed. of Athenaios (1928) I1447 note b.

5. Trog. Prol. 28, alsoPolyb.20.5.7-11; JonasCrampa,Labraunda1111: The

Greekinscriptions (1969)5.7,48;7.12-13;cf.discussion atWill 12366-371;Walbank in Hammond-Walbank 343-345; Hermann Bengtson,Die lnschriften von Labranda und die Politik desAntigonosDoson, SBAW 1971, 3 (1971); SherwinWhite 114-118 for the Koan inscriptions,with further references. On 1Priene 37.141-149 (cf. 40.8-9), seep. 166. 6. By "old man"Plutarchtwice meansGonatas(330E, 531E-F), onceMonophthalmos(360C, but cf. also791E, whichis not quiteparallel). 7. Monophthalmos:Mor. 11B-C, 182A-183A, 337A, 360C, 457E, 458F, 506C-D, 633C, 791E, 850D; Gonatas: 118D, 119C-D, 183C-D, 233E-F, 250F,

486A, 531E-F, 534C, 545B-C, 562F, 668C-D, 754B, 830D-E, 1078C, probably also 330E. Uncertain:633D. The attributionof 234B-C dependson which Antigonosthevictoriesat Androsand/orKosareattributedto. The Vitae tell a differentbut relatedstory. They bear thirty-sixreferencesto Dosonalongsidenumerousreferencesto the othertwo Antigonoi(cf. the indexin

172

GARY

REGER

the Teubner ed. IV 2, pp. 39-41), but twenty of thesecome from the Agis and Kleomenesand twelve from the Aratos. As Phylarkhoswas probablyPlutarch's primarysourcefor the first and a secondary sourcefor the second(cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist IIC (1926) p. 134), it is interestingthat Phylarkhoswas also Athenaios' sourcefor his singlereferenceto Doson(6.251d -- FGrHist 81 F 46).

8. Will 12225,followingthesuggestion of W.W. Tarn,CAHVII (1928)262, who howeverput the battle in 258, cf. alsoJHS 30 (1910) 218-221; contra,Walbank in Hammond-Walbank

596-597

n. 9.

9. Heinen 196-197. The passageis II. 15.201-203, in which Iris, actingas intermediarybetweenZeus and Poseidon,mollifiesthe latter'sangerby saying(tr. Richmond Lattimore), "'Am I then to carry, o dark-haired, earth-encircler,this word, whichis stronganddeep,backto Zeusfrom you? Or will you changea little? The heartsof the greatcanbe changed.'" 10. But seefurtherbelow on varioustheoriesspunoff othertestimony. 11. Louis Robert, "Epigraphie", in L'histoire et ses m•thodes, ed. Charles Samaran,Encyclop•diede la Pl•iade 11 (1961) 466. 12. Will 1297-110 with sourcesand further references. 13.

Plut. Dem. 53.1-4.

14. Milet III 139.29-32 with M. W6rrle, Chiron 5 (1975) 67-68 (peace);OGIS

219.13-14;MiletIII 123.38-40.Will 12140-141;Tarn,AG 168. On theattempt of G. Dunstto placeOGIS 41 in this war ("Das samischeDekret fi•r Straton",ZPE 4 (1969) 197-199), seeJ. & L. Robert,"Bull. •p.", REG 83 (1970) 448. 15. Will 12208-219. 16.

Cf. n. 66 below.

17. W.W. Tarn entitled his chapteron this period "The Lost Years" (AG 311),

anddespite recentdiscoveries muchremains unclear.Cf. Will 12228-233. 18. Roland Etienne and Marcel Pierart, "Un d•ret

du Koinon des Hellenes h

Plat•es en l'honneur de Glaucon, ills d'Et•ocl•s, d'Ath•nes", BCH 99 (1975) 51-75.

19. Olivier Picard, Chalcis et la confederationeub•enne. Etude de numisma-

tiqueet d'histoire(Ive-]ersi•cle),BEFAR234 (1979)272-274;Will 12316-324. Contra: Ralf Urban, Wachstumund Krise des ach•iischenBundes. Quellenstudien zur Entwicklung des Bundesyon 280 bis 222 v. Chr., Historia Einzelschrift 35 (1979) 31-32.

20. Buraselis119-157•Will 12313-343. 21. Heinen 193-197; Will 12 224-226; F.W. Walbank in Adams-Borza 220-221; but Walbank changedhis mind in Hammond-Walbank595-599. Green 147 putsKos in "261 (?)". 22. Buraselis 141-144, 146-151,162. 23. Buraselis 144-145. On the cults, see Bruneau 560-561.

For some of the

objectionsto Buraselis' view given in this section, see already Walbank in Hammond-Walbank598-599; F.W. Walbank, JHS 107 (1986) 243. 24. ID 298A83 with Bruneau 564-568 (Antigoneia), 570-573 (Attalids). For the Antigoneia and Demetrieia, cf. Buraselis60-75, Bruneau 564-568; on the character of such foundations, see Christian Habicht, Gottmenschentum und

griechische Stiidte 2,Zetemata14(1970)160-165. 25. Bruneau561-562; JuliusBeloch,GriechischeGeschichteIV 2 (1927)

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

173

2.199-200. Tam mistakenlyidentifiesStratonikewith Antiokhos'daughter,married to Antigonos'sonDemetrios(CAH VII (1928) 715 n. 1). 26.

Full details at Bruneau 546-550.

27. W.W. Tam, "The dedicatedship of AntigonusGonatas",JHS 30 (1910) 209-222. At pp. 209-210 Tam offeredan argumentbasedon a passagein Pollux which,if accepted,woulddecisivelyput the battleof Kos in Gonatas'reign. Pollux (1.82-83) endsa longlist of wordsfor shipswith the phrase•cot• II'co3a•gtxlov

vot•gnevxe•cotdSer4pqg, •cot•'Avxtydvovxptdtpgevog. Tam arguedthat "Antigonos'tfiarmenos"was the victoriousflagshipof Kos. SincePollux's list omitsall of the largershipsbuilt by PtolemaiosII in the latterpart of his reign (cf. Athen. 5.203d; OGIS 39), Kos must have fallen before (roughly) the last decadeof PtolemaiosII's reign. Similarly:Fik Meijer, A historyof seafaringin the Classical world(1986) 138-139; Lionel Casson,Shipsand seamanship in theancientworld, pap.ed. with add.andcorr.(1986) 140.

28. PhilippeBruneau andJeanDucat,GuidedeD•los3 (1983)138-140.P.L. Couchoudand J. Svoronos,BCH 45 (1921) 270-294; Ren6 Vallois, L'architecture helldniqueet hell•nistiqued Ddlosjusqu'd l' f'victiondesD•liens (166 av. J.-C.) I. Les monuments (1944) 38-42; Bruneau554-557. JacquesTr•heux, "Un document nouveausur le Nd&rion et le Thesmophorionh D•1os", REG 99 (1986) 293-317

and "Sur le Nddrionh D•1os",CRAI 1987 168-184. I am not convincedby the attemptof GeorgesRoux (cit. n. 4) to savethe dedicationby Antigonos,thoughhe makessomegoodpointsagainstTr•heux'sreconstruction. 29. Eusebius,Chron.vol. IIp. 120 (Schoene). 30. Paus.3.6.6; Apollodorosof Athens,FGrHist 244 F 44. 31.

Buraselis 149-150.

32.

Buraselis 150.

Cf. also Walbank in Hammond-Walbank

596-597.

33. Habicht 16, cf. 54.

34. Polyain. 5.17;Diog.Laert.4.29. Cf. OCD2,s.v.Arcesilaus. This is not the placeto enterinto the vexedquestionof whetherAntigonosheld the Peiraieuscontinuously from 287 to 222 or lostit in the 280s only to regainit duringthe Khremonidean War. Cf. ChristianHabicht,Untersuchungen zur politischenGeschichteAthensim 3. Jahrhundertv. Chr., Vestigia30 (1979) 95-107; Philippe Gauthier, "La r•unification d'Ath•nes en 281 et les deux archontes Nicias", REG 92 (1979) 348-399; Michael J. Osborne,"Kallias, Phaidrosand the revolt of Athens in 287 B.C.", ZPE 35 (1979) 181-194; Heinz Heinen, review of

C. Habicht, Untersuchungen, GGA 233 (1981) 175-207; Umberto Bultrighini, "Pausania1, 26, 3 e la liberazionedel Pireo", RFIC 112 (1984) 54-62; Denis Knoepfler,La vie de M•n•dOmed'Er•trie de Diog•ne Lafrce. Une contributiond l'histoire et d la critique du texte des Vies des philosophes,Schweizerische Beitr•igezur Altertumswissenschaft 21 (1991) 175 n. 13; G. Reger, "Athensand Tenosin the early Hellenisticage",CQ n.s.42 (1992) 371-379. 35. Buraselis149; similarlyWalbankin Hammond-Walbank596 with n. 7. 36. 37.

Habicht 13 with further references at his n. 1. Heinen 196.

38. Apollodoros,FGrHist 244 F 44. 39. Buraselis'furthercondition,also inferredfrom the acitivity of Arkesilaos, that all threat from the Ptolemaic fleet must have vanished, has no force if these

174

GARY

REGER

events are attributed to the end of the Khremonidean

War.

There is anotherinterestingreferenceto Antigonos'victory at sea by Arkesilaos, to my knowledgeso far unnoticedin this connection.At Mor. 1078C, in a discussion of how originallyseparatephysicalobjectsmix, Plutarchwrites,"For if there are mixturesof all things,then if a leg hasbeencut off and hasdecayedand hasbeenthrowninto the seaandthoroughlydissolved,what is to preventnot only

the fleetof Antigonosfrom sailingthroughit (06 'rbv'Av'rt'/dvox) gdvovo'rd•,ov 15ter•t•[v), asArkesilaosusedto say,but the 1200 triremesof Xerxesand the 300 Greek onesfrom fightinga naval battle in the leg?" This clearly alludesto Anti-

gonidsupremacy at sea,and,I wouldadd,to a seabattle:15ter•t•[vis a technical termfor a navalmaneuver,the diekplous.Unfortunately, I do not seethatthispassagesaysanythingone way or the otheraboutthe dateof the battle. 40. E.g., IG XI 2.108.1-2 (279). 41. IG XI 2.114, 116, 130 of 261, 255, and 179.

42. W. Kolbe, GGA 178 (1916) 451-452; Wilhelm Fellmann,AntigonosGonatas, K6nig der Makedonen,unddie griechischen Staaten(1930) 73-74; E. Manni, Athenaeum 34 (1956) 255.

43. Buraselis151; cf. Heinen 186-189, Will 12238-239. Tam, AG 315-316 n. 10, 477-478, infersa formalpeacein eachcase. 44. Willy Clarysse,"A royal visit to Memphisand the end of the SecondSyrian War", in Studiesin PtolemaicMemphis,StudiaHellenistica24 (1980) 83-89; Will

12 234--243.The point was madelong ago by Walter Otto, Beitriigezur Seleukidengeschichte des3. Jahrhundertsv. Chr., ABAW 14 (1928) 44-45. For a recentdefenceof 253 for the end of the war, seeClarysse88-89. Tam's general peace can no longer be accepted(Tam, AG 265, 325-326, cf. 315-316 n. 10, 462-463). Tam, CAH VII (1928) 713-714 thoughtSex. Emp. Adv. gramm. 276 attestedto the participationof Sostratosof Knidos in negotiatingthis peace;see the properlycautiousremarksof Heinen 196-197. Walter Otto's separatepeace betweenMakedonand Egypt (43-45) is gratuitous.Buraselisseemsto acceptit

despite Will's cogentcriticism (Buraselis 164--165, butcf. also150-151;Will 12 238-239, who also speaksagainstthe "aberrant"view of E. Manni, Athenaeum34 (1956) 255 if., who seesa treaty betweenPtolemaiosII and Alexandrosson of Krateros). The problemwith theseinterpretations, as Will haspointedout, lies in theirassumption of participationby AntigonosGonatasin the SecondSyrianWar. 45. E. Bikerman, "Sur les bataillesnavalesde Cos et d'Andros", REA 40 (1938) 381-382. On the battle of Ephesoscf. Richard M. Berthold,Rhodesin the HellenisticAge (1984) 89-91, with furtherreferences.See G. Reger, "The political historyof the Kyklades260-200 Bc", forthcomingin Historia. 46. Polyb. 27.7.5, the dateinferredfrom 25.2, whichrelatesunder 180 the treaty which endedthe war. Cf. Strabo12.3.11;Diod. 29.24; IOSPE 12 402; Will 112 288-290. ErichZiebarth,MflangesGustaveGlotz (1932) II.914 datesthe expedition to 181 precisely. On Rhodian control, see Etienne 101-124. For a court official of Eumenes honored on Delos, see IG XI 4.765-766. Eumenes II also made a number of dedications on Delos, cf. Bruneau 569. W. Kolbe, GGA 178

(1916) 452 associated the "peace"of 179 with the generalamnestyissuedby Perseusin the first year of his reign and publishedon Delos (Polyb. 25.3.2; Liv.

42.12),butthiswouldseemto gofar beyondthenormalmeaningof •pfivq.

THE DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

1'/5

47. Polyainos5.18; cf. ChronicumLindium XXXVII, C97-99, ed. Chr. Blinkenberg(1916); Berthold89-91; M. Rostovtzeff,The social and economichistory of the Hellenistic world (1941) I 226, whoseexplanationfor the conflict is however unsatisfying;P.M. Fraser,PtolemaicAlexandria(1972) I 163. Contra:Jakob Seibert,Historia 26 (1976) 45-61.

48. IG XI 4.1128= SIG3 455= Choixno. 38, with Durrbach's commentary ad loc.,pp.44-45 (doubts at Will 12241aretoocautious: LGPNI, s.v.'A¾ot06oxpot'coqlists ten Rhodiansof this name, only two of whom date to the mid-third century); ILindos 88al, with Chr. Blinkenberg'scommentaryat p. 308; cf. Bagnall 138-139; also Wemer Huss, Untersuchungenzur AussenpolitikPtolemaios' IV., Mfinchener Beitr•ige zur Papyrusforschungund Antiken Rechtsgeschichte69 (1976) 215-216 n. 288, whose further inference, however, that Delos must have thenbeenunderMacedoniancontrol,is entirelyunsubstantiated. 49. IG XI 2.1134=Choix

no. 40; IG XI 2.226B5, 287B85. Peisistratos' son

appearsin IC III (Hierapytna)3A102 of either ca. 200 or 197. Cf. Durrbach,

Choix,p. 46; M. Guarducci,IC III, p. 38; LGPN I, s.v. II•to•o'cp0t'coq (23) and (24). For a similardedication on Rhodosof an&•0tpg&v &•b 'c•)v•,0tq)6pt0v, see ILindos 88a2. Two other Delian inscriptionsare too fragmentaryto analyze: IG XI 4.1132-1133.

50. M. Segre and I. PuglieseCarratelli, "Tituli Camirenses",ASAA 27-29 (1947-1951) no. 3, 29.1.3. Etienne92 n. 24 acceptsthe military implicationsof this evidence. 51. IG XI 4.1095-1096

= Choix 35-36.

Cf. the remarks of Bruneau 553.

52. One piece of evidence--Benjamin D. Meritt, AJP 66 (1945) 241-242 no. Ill--cited by RogerB. McShane,Theforeignpolicyof theAttalidsof Pergamum, Illinois Studiesin the SocialSciences53 (1964) 48 n. 70 as showing"the good will of Rhodesto AntigonusGonatasand Athens"mustbe rejected. Meritt himself showedin the editioprinceps(242) that the text carded no mentionof Antigonos. Nor doesit have anythingto do with the "extensivecommerceof Rhodes" (McShane 48 n. 68). 53. Cicero, Att. 105.1 (on Delos) and 106.1 (at Ephesos). Cf. also Plut. Per. 17.2-3, and the Delphic theorodokiclist, Andrd Plassart,BCH 45 (1921) 1.29-42, I C (a) 1-23 (for the date, long controversial, seenow Miltiade B. Hatzopoulos, BCH 115 (1991) 345-347). The RhodianIdomeneusstoppedat Tenoson his way to Akhaia:IG XII 5.829 with Etienne115-116, 178. Generally,GeorgesRougement,in Les Cyclades.Mat•riaux pour unedtudede gdographiehistorique.Table ronder•unie ti l'Universitdde Dijon les 11, 12 et 13 mars 1982, Editionsdu Centre Nationalde la RechercheScientifique(1983) 131-134. 54. E. Bikerman, cit. n. 45.

55. A defeatby the Antigonidsat Kos in 261 would certainlyadd force to this loss of interest. 56.

Buraselis 93-94

n. 229 at 94.

57. Plut. Aratos 12. Diod. 20.37.1; T. Leslie Shear,Jr., Kallias of Sphettosand the revolt of Athensin 286 B.C., Hesperia Suppl. 17 (1978) 2 line 20; Theophil

Sauciuc, Andros.U.n. tersuchungen zur Geschichte und Topographie der Insel, Sonderschriften des Osterreichischen Arch•iologischen Institutsin Wien 8 (1914) 83-88. J. Delamarrestressedthis pointmany yearsago (RPh 26 (1902) 320 n. 2).

176 58.

GARY

REGER

Buraselis 169. He cites the evidence at 169 n. 197.

59. FGrHist IIIB 434 F 14.1-2. •nt'cp6novg •5• 1-lxo)•egc•ov •ccd'Avx•¾ovov •co•x6v8qgovx6•vB•o•vx•tov•co•8•1• x6•v'Hpc•O•tox6)v •co•x6vx6•vKmv6•v •q01oxxlotv. 60. W.W. Tarn, AG 327 n. 38, cf. F. Jacoby,FGrHist IIIb Kommentar(Text) (1955) 277.

61. Supposed Ptolemaic-Antigonid co-operation in this war rendersimpossible Buraselis'suggestion that the peacetreatyobligatedAntigonosto withdrawfrom hispositionsin Asia. As for theprovisionof soldiers,I thinknotof nationaltroops but of mercenaries paid for by the guardian,whichmakesthe connectionbetween the kingsand Bithynianinterestsquiteloose. The two kingscouldalsothushave fulfilled their obligationsas guardianseven while maintainingtheir own mutual hostilityanddistrust. 62. Buraselis149-150. More circumspect,but reachingsimilar conclusions, Walbank in Hammond-Walbank

596-599.

63. GeorgesDaux, Chronologiedelphique(1943) 37, followed by Buraselis 169 n. 197. 64. Buraselis 169 n. 197.

65. Richard A. Billows, Antigonosthe One-Eyedand the creation of the Hellenisticstate,HellenisticCultureand Society4 (1990) 211 n. 61.

66. Cf. Will 12 219-233. JaniceJ. Gabbert,"The anarchicdatingof the ChremonideanWar", CJ 82 (1986/87) 230-235, datesthe war to 265/4-263/2, but this view considersonly activitiesat Athens and ignoresother evidencefor the war.

67. Keos: L. Robert, He!!enica XI/XII (1960) 146-160, Bagnail 141-145, Heinen 149-150; Itanoson Krete: IC III iv 3 with HermannBengtson,Die Stra-

tegie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Ein Beitragzum antikenStaatsrecht II12, Miinchener Beitrfige zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 36 (1967) 184-188; Heinen 143-144; Bagnail 120-121; Thera: IG XII 3.320= OGIS 44, with Heinen 148-150, Bagnail 123-134. On military operationsat sea, see Heinen 189-197. For soldierson Delos during the MakedonianWars, see ID 425.11,442B67-68; Liv. 33.18.5, 44.29.3-4. 68. JamesR. McCredie,Fortified military campsin Attica, Hesperia Suppl. 11 (1966). 69.

Heinen 152-159.

70.

Cf.n.

18.

71. Luciano Laurenzi, "Iscrizioni dell'Asclepieo di Coo", Clara Rhodos 10

(1941) 27-30, no. 1; followedby LGPN I, s.v. Bd•xog(11), 'En•pa•og(4), and 'EpgdSt•:og (6). 72. L. Robert, "D6cretsde Smyme", He!!enica VII (1949) 177 n. 4 (to the best of my knowledgethe promisedtreatmentnevermaterialized);ChristianHabicht,

Gottmenschentum undgriechische Stiidte 2,Zetemata 14(1970)62-64,butcf. id., "Samische Volksbeschliisseder hellenistischenZeit", MDAI(A) 72 (1957) 201 with n. 52 and esp. 268 n. 168, wherehe hesitates.The opinionof Shipley 188 n. 16, that a mid-third-century "cult of Phile couldbe a hangover"from the worship of Demetrios'wife in 306-301, is precludedby the languageof the decree, which specificallyindicatesthat honorsvoted her have not yet been carried

THE

DATE

OF THE

BATTLE

OF KOS

177

through: 6xt•vt•{Xflg•t•ot)•iOOrlg .q)t.')•t•g xt•tt•[[]ovvxœ)•o06)ot (23-24). 73. Frontinus3.2.11; Trogus,Prol. 26.9-10; Appian, Syr. 65. Habicht, MDAI (A) 220-221; Shipley 188-189. At MDAI(A) 72 (1957) 220-221 with n. 74 Habichtarguedthat Samoswas still in Ptolemaic hands in 259 when Timarkhos took it. The evidence is that 1) Ptolemaiosthe Son, for whom Timarkhoswas working, was still co-ruler in April/May 259 (PCair. Zenon 59003 lines 1, 11); and 2) Samian and Milesian goodsarrived in Egypt in May or June(ibid. 59012.45, cf. M. Rostovtzeff,Klio 30 (1937) 75-76; alsoA. Rehm,Milet III, pp. 254-264 andAppian,Syr. 65). But this is not probative:neitherPtolemaiosthe Son's statusin the springof 259 nor the shipmentof goodsto EgyptnecessarilyentailsEgyptianpossession of Samosthat year.

74.

Sherwin-White

108-109

with n. 137.

75. Sherwin-White110. Cf. Mario Segre,"Granodi Tessagliaa Coo",RFIC 12 (1934) 169-193.

76. Seeappendix. 77.

Milet III 139.32-36.

78. Milet III, pp. 303-304; F.W. Walbankin Adams-Borza220-221. 79. Irwin L. Merker, Historia 19 (1970) 159-160 (IG XI 4.565 and 2.287B 112-119); Bruneau515-545. 80. Will 12234-237. 81.

See n. 18.

82. In his review of Egyptianforeignpolicy at the accessionof PtolemaiosIV Philopator(222), Polybiosomits any interestin Greeceproper(5.34.6-8). The "islands"he mentionsare not the Cyclades,of course,but Thera, Samos,and the other islands on the Asiatic coast which served Ptolemaic interests there.

83. I would like to expressmy thanksto the two anonymousReadersand the Editorof this Journalfor their helpfulcommentsandcriticism. Responsibilityfor remainingerrorsrests,of course,with me.

A TYPOLOGY OF THE GRAVESTONES I.

WOMEN FROM

RECORDED ATTICA

ON

Introduction

Gravemonumentsare the type of sourcefrom whichwe know mostof the

attestednamesof Attic women• --and not only citizens,but alsoroetic women are widely representedin the huge corpusof sepulchralinscrip-

tionsfromAttica. Of thecitizens 2recorded 34% (about1500persons) are women,of themeticsandforeigners thepercentage is evenlarger(41%).3 Attic sepulchralinscriptionscommemoratingwomen display a more complicatedtypologythan thosecommemoratingmen. For women, we can establishsix differenttypesof which only two are found on stonesset overmen. The typologypresented in thisstudycomprises notonlyfemale citizens and metics, but also women who have neither a demotic nor an

ethnic(indications of nationality) addedto theirnames. 4 Thetypology is basedon three different criteria: relationshipto male relatives, status,and numberof personsrecordedon the stonein the nominativecase. First comesrelationshipto a man whosename (in the genitive)is added to the woman's in the nominative. There are three basic categories:no relationshipindicated;filial relationshipstated;uxorialrelationshipstated. Two subdivisionsmustbe made, and one small miscellaneous groupmust be added. Thus we can establishthe following six categories:no relation-

ship stated(markedI); filial relationshipexplicitlystated(II); filial relationshipimplied(III); uxorialrelationshipexplicitlystated(IV); filial and uxorial relationshipscombined(V); other forms of relationshipstated (VI). Second,status. This is either left unmentionedor indicatedby either a

demotic(usuallyin the genitive)or an ethnic(usuallyin the nominative). Thus, we have three categories:status unknown (marked a); citizen (markedb); metic/foreigner(markedc). It is impossibleto identify slaves with certainty,but sincethereis goodreasonto believethat,at leastsometimes, we have a slave'snameinscribed(especiallyin the caseof type I), we haveestablisheda separatecategory,d, for thesecases. Combiningthesetwo criteria, we considerrelationshipto be more 178

WOMEN

ON GRAVESTONES

FROM

ATTICA

179

importantfor our investigation thanstatus.So we can have,for example, IIb, i.e. a citizenof typeII; or Vc, a meticof typeV; etc. The third and final criterionusedis the numberof persons:when a stoneis inscribedwith the namesof morethanonepersonin the nominative, a plus is added. Theseinscriptionscommemorating family groups are placed oppositethe correspondinginscriptions,which commemorate one persononly in the nominative.A few infrequenttypes,however,are

notfoundin familycompositions. All theexamples givenarefromIG II 2 (the numberin parentheses), coveringthe period from about400 BC to about AD 250.

II. Typology

Type Ia is defined by having no indication of relationship. Thus it comprisesonly names without any addition. Ia is frequently found, in contrast to Ib, which has a demotic in the nominative feminine and is

attestedin the RomanImperialperiodonly. (Femaledemoticshardlyever occur in the Classicaland Hellenisticperiods,and even in the Roman periodthis type is foundonly occasionally.)Unlike citizens,femalemetics were often inscribed without the name of a male relative added in the

genitive,and with their ethnicin the nominativefeminine,i.e. as in Ic. Id consistsof names without demotics/ethnics,like Ia, but here, unlike

in Ia, we can be quite surethat no women of citizen statusare "hidden".

The reasonis the occurrence of oneor moreof the following:the adjec-

tive •;pqox•; the imperative•;c•p•; indications of occupation, as for example"nurse","dancer",or "vendorof salt". 5 Suchepithetswere almostnever used in sepulchralinscriptionscommemorating citizens, whetheror not they actuallydeservedthe designation"good", or had a

job.6 In theinscriptions commemorating metics theyarefound,butonly rarely. Thus, Id includespartly names of metics without ethnics, and partly--probably in most cases--names of slaves. The latter are best identifiedby typicalnameslike Thraittaor Syra, but even here we must rememberthat thesepersonsmay also have been freedwomen,who had

thesamestatus asmetics. 7 Onlyexceptionally is a womanonhergrave monument explicitlydescribed asa slave(•5o6•q).8 Type Ia providesus with a minimumof informationaboutthe person behindthename. But whena womanof thistypeis attested in a familygroupinscription,we obtainsomeinformationabouther family, and-sometimes--her socialstatus.The generalview that personsunitedin

180

T. VESTERGAARD

ET AL.

life should also be united in death was at least not alien to the ancient

Athenians, 9 andsincemoststones commemorating a familyareinscribed withtwoor threenamesonly,•øwemayassume thatmostlyit wasclosely relatedpersonswho had their namesinscribedon the samestone. Furthermore, it will be arguedbelow that, in most cases,it was husbandand wife who were buried together. (It cannot, of course,be precludedthat the woman is a concubine,but as the evidenceis, this possibilityseemsso remote that, in this context, we prefer to disregardit.) In the present typology, however, the examplesunder Ia+ are merely characterizedas indicatingan implicitly statedrelationship. If a woman's name without any additionswas inscribedtogetherwith a personbearinga demoticor an ethnic, she will consequentlybe classifiedas belongingto Ib+ or Ic+ respectively,as there is good reasonto believe that she was not only relatedto, but alsohad the samestatusas, the person(s)recorded(in most casesa man (men)). In as good as all casesshemust have been either the daughteror the wife of the man commemorated.If shewas his daughter, she must have had the same status, and if she was his wife, the ban on

marriagebetweencitizensand foreignersentailsonce againthat shemust have been either a citizen herself (Ib) or a non-citizen(Ic), accordingto his status. Admittedly, the ban on marriagebetweencitizensand metics was abolished,or at leastdisregarded,in the post-Classicalperiod, but as most gravestonescommemoratingmore than one personbelong in the

fourthcentury(about75%),thisfactdoesnotupset'the generalpicture. • The commonfeatureof typesII - VI is the combinationof a woman's name in the nominativewith a man's namein the genitive. If a demoticis added, it is almost always the man's demotic,i.e. it is in the genitive masculine, contrary to ethnics, which are generally in the nominative feminine.

From the fourthcenturyBCto the third centuryAD the conventionalway of naminga male citizen was: 1) name, 2) patronymic,3) demotic(in the nominative). Female citizens were also named conventionally,but in four different ways, here representedby the typesII - V. None of thesetypes is confinedto a specificperiod:they are all frequentlyfound in the fourth century,in the Hellenisticperiodand in the Romanperiod. The variation in the formulasis determinedby: 1) with what relativesa woman is connected,and2) whetherthe relative(s)in questionis/arespecifiedor not. Type II is definedas indicatingfilial relationships, i.e. the connectionis

specified by theadditionof 0x)?dxqp. IIa andIIc arenotfrequent, while lib, with 247 examples,constitutes16.5% of all female citizens. In types

WOMEN

ON GRAVESTONES

FROM

ATTICA

181

II - V, categoryd is rare, but especiallyinterestingthroughthe occasional recordingof the mother'snameinsteadof the father's. Type III comprisesnameswith unspecified relationship, but, as will be

arguedbelow,it is probablyalways0v¾dxrlp thatis implied.Thistypeis very common,both as IIIa, IIIb and IIIc. Of IIIb there are no less than 252 examples(16.8%); thusit is aboutas commonas IIb. Both in type II and in type III the patronymicis recorded,as in the case of men's names. With a few Roman exceptions,however, men's names

are not followedby a specification, i.e. v/.dg. That the Athenians often found it necessaryto specifythe filial relationshipof a daughterseemsto be due to the fact that andronymicswere alsoused,i.e. the additionof the husband'sname in the genitive. Type IV consistsof a woman's name in the nominativeand a man's

namein thegenitivefollowedby thetermyuvr•.Thereareonly 121attestations (= 8.1%) of type IV (which statesuxorial relationship),whereas thereare almost500 attestations of typesII andIII (which stateor indicate filial relationship). IVa and IVc are rarely found. The latter we have divided into three subgroupsindicatedby Arabic numeralsand denoting the statusof the husband:1) unknownstatus;2) metic; 3) citizen. Filial and uxorial relationshipcould also be combined,so that both the father and the husbandwere mentioned-- the name of the father is usually

recorded beforethenameof thehusband, and0vydxrlpis sometimes left out, whereasyuvq is almostinvariablyaddedto the husband's name(cf. below). Type V, then,is the equivalentof type II or III plus type IV. No less than 280 names of female citizens (18.7%) belong to this type. Women of unknownstatusand especiallyfemale meticsare much more copiouslyrepresentedunder type V than under type II or IV, but among non-citizensit is still typesI and III that prevail. The meticsare divided into the same three subgroupsas thosebelongingto type IV, but among citizensof type V variantsare also distinguished, due to the information about marriagepattems,which we have wheneverboth the father's and the husband'sdemoticswere recordedand are preserved.Vb 1 comprises women married to men from their own deme, while Vb 2 comprises women married to men from any other deme than their own. The latter provides136 attestations, the former no more than20. The remaining124 names of citizens belonging to type V lack one of the demotics,either becausethe inscriptionhas been damaged,or becausethe demotic was omitted--an omissionthat might be explainedby the fact that both the father and the husband had the same demotic. But in any case,

182

T. VESTERGAARD

ET AL.

consideringthe number of examplesof Vb 2, membershipof the same demedoesnot seemto havebeenof any importancefor contractsof marriage. In the subgroupVc 3 the mostinterestingfeatureis a considerable number of mixed marriages between citizens and female metics (109 examples). All the examplesdate from the late Hellenisticor the Roman Imperial periods, and they are especially frequent for women of Miletos--a city whose inhabitantsmust have settledin Attica in great numbersduringthe first centuryand a half of the Roman period. On the other hand, there is very little evidence of marriagesbetween female citizens and metics.•2

Types II+ - V+ are best representedamong citizens,but are not frequentlyfound. The threetypesthat specifythe relationshipare particularly rare in inscriptionscommemoratingfamily groups. Of 229 stones inscribedwith the namesof one womanand one man (citizens),only 59 belong to one of the types II+, IV+, or V+. These 59 stones,however, may supportthe thesissuggested above,that it was generallyhusbandand wife who were buried togetheror at least inscribedon the same stone. Out of eighteenexamplesof IIb+, there are only two casesof a father's name inscribedtogetherwith that of his daughter. Furthermore,that the majorpart of the remainingsixteenexamplesactuallyare commemorating husbandandwife may be inferredby a comparisonwith the two typesthat stateuxorial relations:out of sevenexamplesof IV+, husbandand wife are recordedon the samestonein five cases,the corresponding figuresfor V+ beingeight casesout of thirteenexamples. On two stones,motherand sonhave beeninscribedtogether.

UndertypeVI, someaberrantandexceptionalformsof indicatingrelationship are brought together. Via includes mothers (seven examples, four of them citizens),VIb sisters(two examples,one with demotic),VIc onegrandmother(citizen),andVId adoptivedaughters(two examples). In consequence of the presenttypology,it seemsrelevantto ask the following two questions:1) what criterion--if any--was applied when in sepulchralinscriptionsa choicewas made betweenfilial and uxorial relationship;2) what relationship(s)is/are indicatedin our type III? 1) What madea bereavedfamily decidewhetherthey shouldlet a patronymic, an andronymicor a combinationof bothbe addedto the nameof a deceased female relative?

As thereare no examples(knownto the authorsof this study)of women

inscribed in oneplaceasdaughters, in another aswives,•3wemayassume

WOMEN

ON GRAVESTONES

FROM

ATTICA

183

that the choicewasmadeby somegenerallyacceptedcriterion. A priori, one would expect that a man mentionedin the genitive in a sepulchralinscriptionmusthavebeenthe woman'sguardianat the time of

her death.TMIt was compulsory for a womanto havea male guardian (•pto•), and he wouldbe eitherher fatheror her paternaluncleor her grandfather(Dem. 46.18), or her husband(Is. 3.2), or sometimesa brother or a son (cf. below). Until her marriage about the age of fourteen the

r6ptoq was the father (Arist. Rhet. 1401635),then the husband.If a woman was widowed or if she was divorced, she would stay with her father (Is. 8.8) or brother (Is. 2.8; Dem. 40.6) or (adult) son (Lys. 24.6; Men. Dysc. 22) and might afterwardsbe married again. Type V, then, may be explained as an explicit indication that a father of a married woman still had potentialcustodyof his daughter. In one case,at least,a father arrangedthe divorce of his daughterand had her married again to another man (Dem. 41.3-5).

There is no reasonto doubt that changeof designationwas practised. All evidencewe have showsthat, if anythingwas addedto a girl's name, it washer patronymic.But the evidenceof the sepulchralinscriptionsalso showsthat quite a few marriedwomenwere calledby their andronymics, from which we must infer that, when married, at least some women

changedtheir designationfrom the patronymicto the andronymic.Furthermore,it would be strangeto assumethat a divorcedwoman would stick to her andronymic. Since we know that many adult and married women kept their patronymics(sometimeswith the andronymicadded,sometimes not) it is reasonableto assumethat a divorced woman, who during her marriagehad usedthe andronymic,after her divorce would changeback to her patronymic,thuschangingher namenotjust oncebut twice. It seems, however, to be an untenable thesis that women's names of

typesII - VI are alwaysindicationsof the presentmale guardian. This is due to the following two circumstances. A) The numberof patronymicsalone (i.e. excludingtype V) is larger than the numberof all andronymics(i.e. includingtype V). If the man recordedon a woman'stombstonewere her guardian,the inferencewould be that mostwomen were undertheir father's guardianship(either because they died as girls beforethey got married,or becausethey had returnedto their father's house on their husband's death or after a divorce). But the presumptionis that sepulchralinscriptionsalmost always commemorate

adults, •5andof adultwomenmostwereundoubtedly married.Thus,most adult women were under their husband's guardianship and the man

184

T. VESTERGAARD

ET AL.

recordedon their tombstonecannotinvariablyhavebeentheir guardian. B) A considerablenumberof womencertainlyhad a guardianwho was neither

their father

nor their husband.

If the father

died before

his

daughter'smarriagethe guardianship fell to his son(or anothermale relative); if the husbanddied before his wife the guardianshipfell to their (adult) son(or someothermale relative,if therewas no adult son). There are, however,very few attestations of type VI (sevensonsand two brothers). If the man recordedon a woman's tombstonewere her guardian,we should have had more attestations of sons and brothers.

Thus we mustrejectthe hypothesisthat guardianshipwas the criterion for choosingamongtypesII - VI in theformulationof thetext. What criterion, however,was actually applied? The most likely explanationwe can offer is that the choicebetweenpatronymicand andronymicmay have followed

these lines:

a) Paternalrelationships were primary, whetheror not a father actually washis daughter'sguardian. b) Conjugalrelationships were only secondary.If a husbandwas mentioned, his name was in most casesjust added to the conventional patronymic.(Type V is twiceasfrequentastypeIV.) 2) Can we be surethat our type III implicitly statesthe samerelationshipbetweena woman(in the nominative)and a man (in the genitive)as type II, wherea womanis explicitlyreferredto as a daughter?If this is the case, the inference is that when a related man has been inscribed

without a specifiedindicationof relationship,he may automaticallybe

regarded asa father,nota husband. 16 For the following three reasonswe believe that this questioncan be answered in the affirmative:

A) The analogywith men'snames. Consideringthe standardway of designating men in inscriptions, publicas well asprivate,it seemsnatural thatthe samepracticewasfollowedwhenwomen'snameswere inscribed (exceptwhena differentrelationshipwas specified).A namein the genitive added to a name in the nominative could only be understoodas an

indicationof filial relationship.To the Atheniansit wouldhaverungfalse if thisjuxtaposition of nominativeandunspecified genitivehadbeenused of therelationship betweenhusbandandwife. B) Filial relationship,i.e. the connectionwith the fatherandhis household, was permanent,whereasuxorialrelationshipwas oftentemporary. Probablyit waseasyto obtaina divorce,andbecauseof differencein age a husbandusuallydied beforehis wife. During all the vicissitudesand

WOMEN

ON GRAVESTONES

FROM

ATTICA

185

residencesin various householdsthat an Athenian woman might meet within her lifetime, it was natural that the man with whom she was

automaticallyconnectedwas her father, not the man to whom she was marriedor the man who at any time was her guardian. This assumptionis supportedby the fact that types III and IV were frequently combined, typesII and III almostnever. Filial relationship,however, was not only permanent,it alsogaveevidenceof descent:it indicatedboththe woman's family on her father's side and her statusas a citizen by which she was entitled to marry a citizen. As mentionedabove, the father's household was regarded as a place of safety in case a woman was divorced or widowed,but the importanceof the connectionwith the paternalbranchof the family was evenmore significantif the fatherdied withoutmale issue. In that case his daughterwas epiklgrosand had to marry her father's nearest relative. The paternal householdwas a place of safety for a daughter,but converselya daughterwas alsoregardedas a guaranteefor the continued existence of a household.

We may thenconcludethat filial were more importantthanuxorialrelationships and accordingly prevailed when the woman's name was recorded on her tombstone.

C) From the inscriptionsbelonging to type V two inferencescan be made:

a) The father'snameis almostalwaysrecordedbeforethe husband's,and the reverseorder is attestedonly four times out of 280 examplesof type V.

b) In mostinscriptions the firstmale namein the genitiveis followedby

0vTd•rlpandthe secondby Tvvfi. Occasionally, oneof the termsis omitted.In 59 casesit is 0vTdxrlo,in two casesonly yuvq. The presumptionis that, when a woman'sname is recordedon a tombstone, filial relationshipis indicatedwhenever there is no information about the type of relationship. Both inferencessuggestthat an Athenianwoman--even when shewas married--was regarded as her father's daughter rather than as her husband's wife. Institute of Classics

Universityof Copenhagen

TorbenVestergaard Lars Bjertrup MogensHerman Hansen Thomas Heine Nielsen Lene Rubinstein

186

T. VESTERGAARD

Type I

No relationshipstated

ET AL.

Type I+

No relationshipstated explicitly

Ia

tI)t•,•c•cr I (12931)

Ia+ Zotoo•:•,q g.Ho•,t)o'•pdxrl

Ib Ic

K•,m)/5•ot 1-h)pot•,•,•o Mapot0tovf•ot (6810) Nfoot 'AvxtdZtooot (8256)

lb+ E$x•Z;$qg'Azapve6g. Hetot$;• (5799) Ic+

Id

Oeo•,•vq

(12635)

(10227) (11647)

Type II

Filial relationship

Type II+

Filial relationship

IIa

Aqgqxp•ot Xottp•tovog 0v•dmp (11092)

Oœo•6xot) IIa+ 'Ayvo[oxpdxq] 0vydxqp(supra) 'Ayvooxpdxrl. Oed&opo½

IIb

Y.c0oxpdxq •od,Spo'u 'Ax•pv&og 0vyd'cqp

q Z•9dvovg lib+ [M]vqmoxpdx [•]peapp[o•0•ydxqp Atd•avxogA{mvog Ke9akq0ev(7725) IIc+ 'ApxbAqgqxp/ov.Kptx/ag

(infra) (10569)

(5839) IIc

E6bc•g•c• Ho•olc0vog 'Epzogev/ov 0x)y•xqp (10034)

'H9atoxiag(8826) IId

Type III

'Pvo{gZpqox•,'Apzeoxpdxqg 0vydxrlp(12575) Filial relationshipimplied

Type

III+

Filial relationshipimplied

IIIa

BtdxqHx>ppiov (10957)

IIIa+

ß •z/vt•o• IloXv•vov. Mvqorzp•xqY.c0•:pdxot)g Mvqorzo•x q ...oo[xpd]xov

IIIb

KXec0wJrq Atocydpox) Hpoo•oc•.xiot) (7315)

IIIb+

Xmp•g Xmp•o 'A•o6mog. 'ApxeS/• 'Avxt$•9o•qyat•g (5280)

IIIc

N•rrl 'A•o•,•,c0viov

IIIc+

(12851)

(9799)

H•axat•g (10090) IIId

(12261)

WOMEN

Type IV IVa

ON GRAVESTONES

Uxorial relationship

FROM

ATTICA

187

Type IV+ Uxorial relationship

E613o6)•tx Ot•ov (11364)

IVb

Mœ•.t•oK6•),xovoqO•valov Tovfi(6976)

IVcl

Ao0