The Araxa Honorary Decree for Orthagoras: Dating and Historical Context
Junior Paper by Ilia Calogero Curto Pelle
1. Introduction
In 1946, George Ewart Bean discovered a large stone at the site of the ancient city of Araxa in the village of Ören, Fethiye district, Turkey.1 It contained a Hellenistic honorary decree for one of Araxa’s premier citizens, Orthagoras. Since Bean published this inscription, it has become a primary tool for understanding, dating, and describing the events and processes that characterized the region of Lycia in the 2nd century B.C. However, the date of this inscription has become a matter of bitter scholarly debate for almost 75 years. The Orthagoras decree has been used for characterizing and dating, among other things, the creation of the Cibyran Tetrapolis,2 other agreements between Hellenistic polities,3 and the different phases of the Rhodian-Lycian Wars in the 180s and 170s B.C.4 However, the lack of a generally agreed upon date potentially jeopardizes the validity of these arguments. The present lack of a scholarly consensus and of a recent study of the inscription outside of longer researches on Lycian history and society necessitate the creation of a paper that confronts the diverse approaches and arguments on the topic. In this paper, I will outline the different mechanisms that are used to date this inscription, discuss their relevance, and argue for placing the date of this inscription in the late 160s and early 150s B.C. The full text of
1 George Ewart Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 68 (1948): 40–58. 2 Malcolm Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη und römischer Einfluß südlich des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr,” Chiron 17 (1987): 97–118. 3 Christian Le Roy, “Une convention entre cités en Lycie du Nord,” Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 140–3 (1996): 961–980. 4 Martin Zimmermann. “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft in Lykien (189/88–167 v. Chr.).“ Klio 75 (Jan. 1, 1993): 110–130. Page | 1 the inscription can be found elsewhere and so it will not be cited in full here.5 Its contents will now be outlined briefly by using the line numbers from Bean’s original publication.
The inscription begins with a dating formula in the year of the eponymous priests
Orthagoras and Menocritos (l.1–4). It proceeds to show the deeds of Orthagoras, son of Demetrios,
ἐκ τῆς πρ[ώ]της ἡλικίας (l.4–8). During the war with Moagetes from the neighboring city of
Boubon, Orthagoras was sent on an embassy to the Κιβυράτα[ς] to complain of his behavior (l.8–
14). When Moagetes continued raiding the lands of Araxa and kidnapped many citizens,
Orthagoras was sent to the Κοινόν and was then elected ambassador of the Lycian League to the
Κιβυράτας and Moagetes himself (l.15–29). He was a cavalry officer (ἔφιππως) during the subsequent war against the Κιβυράτας and again led an embassy to the League to request assistance
(l.30–36). When Lysanias and Eudemos seized and established tyrannies at Xanthos and Tlos, he participated in the war against the tyrants (l.36–46). He also was a cavalry officer in the war between the Lycian League and the city of Termessus, camped in Termessian territory, and then represented his city before the Κοινόν in a dispute with an unnamed neighbor over the region of
Soasa (l.46–54). He again was an ambassador of Araxa to all of the individual cities of the League and to the Κοινόν itself concerning Orloanda, which was freed from tyranny and then admitted into the Lycian Συμπολιτεῖα (l.55–62). Orthagoras was then sent on an embassy to two groups of
Romans – those around Ἄππιος and those around Πόπλιος (l.62–69). He was also chosen by his city as θεωρός to the first and then to the second quinquennial festivals of the League in honor of
5 For the original Greek, see Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 46–48, Jeanne and Louis Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” Revue des Études Grecques LXIII, n. 294/298 (1950): 185–197, n. 183, Luigi Moretti, „Una Nuova Iscrizione da Araxa,” Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 78 (1 Jan. 1950): 326–327, and A.G. Woodhead, ed., “Orthagoras Demetrii f. ab Araxensibus honoratur, c. a. 180a,“ Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 18 (1962): 189–191, n. 570. For full translation in French and partial translation in English, see Jean Pouilloux, Choix d'inscriptions grecques; textes, traductions et notes (Paris: Société d'édition "Les belles lettres", 1960), 32–36, no. 4 and Kweku Garbrah, „On the Enumerative Use of ΤΕ.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 96 (1993): 191– 210. Page | 2 the goddess Ῥώμη Θεᾶ Ἐπιφανεῖ (l.69–79). The inscription mentions a gift by Orthagoras to the goddess before breaking off.
The following criteria have been used to date this inscription and will be individually studied and evaluated: the identity of Moagetes of Boubon and his relationship to Cibyra, the establishment of the tyrannies at Tlos and Xanthos, the war against Termessus and the admission of Orloanda into the League, the use of the praenomina of the Roman legates Appius and Publius, and the creation of the cult of Ῥώμη Θεᾶ Ἐπιφανεῖ. Scholars have argued for one of 3 dates for the inscription, based on one or more of the above criteria: 180s–170s,6 160s–150s,7 and 130s–120s
B.C.8 I will attempt to argue for the middle dating by reviewing and comparing explanations by previous scholars, and including my additions to the discussion, where appropriate.
6 A.H.M. Jones, as relayed by Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 53, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 185–197, Moretti, „Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 326–350, Jakob Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and Roman History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1955), 217, note 26, Jakob Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription and the Lycian Confederation,” Classical Philology 51, no. 3 (July 1956): 151–169, Luigi Moretti, Ricerche sulle leghe Greche (Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider 1962), 188, Jakob Larsen, Greek Federal States. Their Institutions and History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 243, note 2, Hyla Troxell, The coinage of the Lycian League (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1982), 12, and Shelagh Jameson, “The Lykian League: Some problems in its administration,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt v. VII, part 2, ed. Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haasse (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2016), 835 and 843. 7 Jean-Louis Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme : aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate, (Rome: École française de Rome, 1988), 662, addenda on p. 131, note 297, Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,“ 110–130, Christof Schuler, “Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und den Lykiern aus Tyberissos,“ in Griechische Epigrafik in Lykien. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005, ed. C. Schuler, (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007), 55, Nicholas P. Milner, “A Hellenistic Treaty from Boubon,” In Griechische Epigrafik in Lykien. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005, ed. C. Schuler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007), 163, with uncertainty Ralf Behrwald, Der lykische Bund : Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung (Bonn: Habelt, 2000), 98, but later reaffirmed in Ralf Behrwald, “The Lykian League,” in Federalism in Greek Antiquity, ed. Hans Beck and Peter Funke, (Cambridge: University Press, 2015), 406, and indirectly Christina Kokkinia, Boubon. The Inscriptions and Archaeological Remains. A survey 2004 – 2006 (Athens: Diffusion de Boccard, 2008), 15–23. 8 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 56, Malcolm Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη und römischer Einfluß südlich des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr,” Chiron 17 (1987): 114–118, Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East (London: Duckworth, 1984), 52, Denis Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide : la convention entre les Lyciens et Termessos près d'Oinoanda (Geneva: Librairie Deroz, 2010), 127–133, indirectly Le Roy, “Une convention,“ 980 and particularly 980, note 80, Alain Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times,” in Hellenistic Rhodes: politics, culture, and society, ed. Vincent Gabrielsen, (Aarhus; Oakville, CT: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 114, and Hans- Ulrich Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichtedes hellenistischen Rhodos, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003), 261–262, note 6. Page | 3
2. Moagetes of Boubon and the Cibyran Tetrapolis.
The inscription starts with an eponymous date by the two local priests of Araxa.9 Given the general scarcity of information about the city of Araxa outside of the few inscriptions found at the site, it is impossible to use their names for dating this inscription. While the letter-forms, length, and style of the inscription point towards the late 2nd or early 1st century, as several scholars have suggested,10 the dating of inscriptions by letter-forms is “notoriously difficult and unreliable”.11
This makes us completely reliant on the content of the inscription itself for determining its date.
One of the most discussed criteria for the date of this inscription is the identity of Moagetes.
We know of 4 historical figures called Moagetes, as detailed by Bean. 12 Scholars have principally focused on the tyrant of Cibyra who dealt with Gnaeus Manlius Vulso in 189 B.C. and the
Μόλκηστης/Μοκέλτης of Boubon mentioned in Diodorus, who was killed by his brother c. 145–
140 B.C. The latter Moagetes has the benefit of actually being from Boubon, but the reconstruction of his name is based on an uncertain emendation of the original manuscript, where he is called
Μόλκηστες/Μοκέλτης.13 The earlier Moagetes, on the other hand, is mentioned as ruler over
Cibyra and two smaller towns, not over Boubon.14 It is conceivable that this Moagetes started off as a ruler of Boubon and later rose to prominence in Cibyra.15 However, this is not confirmed by
9 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 49, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 186. 10 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 51, J and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 186. Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times, 116, and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 130. 11 Bradley H McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great Down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C.–A.D. 337) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2002), 42. 12 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 52. 13 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 55, Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 114–115, Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 51, Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times,”116, Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6 are in favor of such an identification. A.H.M. Jones in Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 53, Moretti, „Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 336, and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 131 oppose it based on the uncertain emendation of the name in Diodorus. 14 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 52, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 196, Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 114–115, Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6. 15 J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 196, Moretti, „Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 336, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 165. Page | 4 any other source and is unlikely for several reasons. Firstly, the name “Moagetes” and its variants seem to occur quite frequently in the region.16 Secondly, Boubon was a member of the Lycian
League in the 190s, which would make the military conflict between the two members inexplicable.17 Finally, it is possible, as Kokkinia has argued, that an entire Moagetid regional dynasty existed in Cibyra, Boubon, and the Tetrapolis.18 So, we cannot use the name of Moagetes as a dating mechanism for the Araxa inscription or any other inscription from the region.19
Even so, we can examine the relationship between Moagetes and Cibyra. Scholars have tried to determine what the role of Cibyra was in regulating the conflicts between Boubon and
Araxa. We know that Boubon and Cibyra, alongside Balbura and Oinoanda/Termessus Minor, formed part of a shared political entity, the so-called Cibyran Tetrapolis, since sometime after 167
B.C.20 Therefore, if we can prove that the relationship between the inscription’s Κιβυράτας and
Boubon was that of a federal government to a single city, then that would place this inscription clearly in the period following 167 B.C. when the Tetrapolis was formed.
There seems to be some loose relationship between Cibyra and Boubon that leads
Orthagoras to venture to Cibyra to complain of Moagetes before meeting with Moagetes himself and that makes Cibyra capable of intervening effectively to broker peace.21 Cibyra later went to war with Araxa, which would surely have involved Boubon, the territory of which the Cibyran soldiers had to pass to reach Araxa.22 Malcolm Errington’s argument that “können unter den
›Kibyraten‹ der Inschrift eigentlich nur die Organe der Tetrapolis gemeint sein” needs to be
16 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 153, Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 94. 17 Kokkinia, Boubon, 15. 18 Kokkinia, Boubon, 20. 19 As argued by Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 153, Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 113. 20 Among others Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 52. See also discussion of Termessus Minor below. 21 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 52, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 196–197, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 151 and 160. 22 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 160. Page | 5 dismissed.23 One only needs to compare the use of the name Κιβυράτας with the mention of the
Βουβονεῖς in previous lines and the Τερμησσεῖς later in the text. The name Κιβυράτας could have easily referred to the people of Cibyra, as opposed to the federal institutions of the Cibyran
Tetrapolis. His argument that the inscription postdates the creation of the Tetrapolis is also weakened by several factors.24
To start with, the inscription makes it clear that each city — Boubon, Araxa, and Cibyra — was capable of waging war individually.25 This makes a date, earlier than 167 B.C., almost impossible for the Araxa inscription, since “Kibyra will not… have had an independent foreign policy… before 167” due to its relations with Pergamon and Rhodes.26 Besides, Araxa’s course of action appears different from that of Boubon. Once the war between Araxa and Cibyra began,
Orthagoras was sent to the Lycian federal government to request help.27 Conversely, no mention is made of Moagetes sending an embassy or himself traveling to Cibyra for the same purpose. Indeed, as Larsen remarked, “the relations do not seem to be those of a member of a federal state to the central government.”28 Admittedly, this inscription relays Araxa’s version of the narrative and so it might be possible that Moagetes did undertake such steps. But to this lack of a Moagetid embassy to Cibyra, we must also add the absence of Balbura from the Araxa inscription and the lack of a mention of Cibyra in the subsequent conflict between the Lycian League and Termessus
Minor/Oinoanda, which will be discussed below.29 Therefore, it seems likely that the Araxa
23 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 111–112. 24 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 115–116, reiterated by Le Roy, “Une convention,“ 967, Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia,” 116, and Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6, and most persuasively rebuked by Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 131. 25 J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 197, “The Araxa Inscription,” 162. 26 Milner, “A Hellenistic Treaty from Boubon,” 161, contrary to the initial opinion of Moretti concerning O.G.I.S. 762, „Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 337. 27 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 161. 28 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 153. 29 First noted by Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 153–154. Page | 6 inscription antedates the creation of the Cibyran Tetrapolis.30 Indeed, the events of this inscription might well have been the first stages in the formation of the Tetrapolis, with Cibyra asserting its power over its neighbors, maybe as a reaction to the strengthening of the Lycian League in the region after it acquired its independence from Rhodes after 167 B.C., as some have proposed.31
The dating of the creation of the Tetrapolis will be discussed again in detail in part 4. For now, it is enough for us to reiterate that the name of Moagetes by itself is not sufficient for reaching any conclusions for the dating of the Araxa inscription. However, the relationship between Cibyra and
Boubon, which plays out in the inscription, does not seem to be indicative of a formal relationship between a leader and a member-city of a federal government. This means that, most likely, the
Araxa inscription predated the creation of the Cibyran Tetrapolis and, indeed, might be a testament to the first steps in its formation as a reaction to the increased power of the Lycian League after it acquired its independence from Rhodes. We can now turn to discuss the tyrannies at Tlos and
Xanthos and their validity as a dating mechanism for the Araxa inscription.
3. The tyrannies at Tlos and Xanthos, established by Lysanias and Eudemos.
According to the inscription, two figures, named Lysanias and Eudemos, were able to capture the major Lycian cities of Tlos and Xanthos and establish themselves as tyrants. Naturally, the reaction of the Lycian League was to counterattack, remove the two figures, and restore democracy.
Martin Zimmermann has argued for seeing these figures as Rhodian generals and agents, based on prosopography.32 This would place these events during the Rhodian period and so make a date in the 160s for the inscription more likely. However, such a reconstruction, based on prosopography,
30 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 154, Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 77. 31 John J. Coulton “Termessians at Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 32 (1982): 115–131, Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,“ 126, note 88, Le Roy, “Une convention,“ 968, indirectly Kokkinia, Boubon, 22–23. 32 Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,“ 126–130. Page | 7 remains too fragile to be used as a dating mechanism for the inscription, as several scholars have noted.33 Even so, we might be able to reach some conclusions on whether the tyrant regimes at
Tlos and Xanthos occurred during the period of Rhodian rule by analyzing the relationship between
Araxa and the Lycian League.
Araxa seems well-integrated into the League because it can easily send Orthagoras on embassies to both the individual poleis and to the Κοινόν. This means that they must have joined the League some time before this inscription was made. If another inscription from Araxa, published by Maiuri in 1925–1926, which honors the Rhodian Aischinas, is dated to 181–180 B.C., as is increasingly likely,34 it seems that Araxa did not take part in the first military conflict between the Lycian League and Rhodes in the years of Rhodian rule.35 This would mean that Araxa was not a member of the Lycian League in the 180s and so completely invalidates the early dating for the
Orthagoras decree. Indeed, the assertion of Bean that “the organization of the League is more reminiscent of Tacitus’s description of an organized entity, so more to 167 than 189”36 seems to have been reinforced by the recent work of Ralf Behrwald, who has argued for the (re)-joining of the Lycian League by Xanthos and Araxa as occurring during Rhodian rule.37 The Lycian League in this inscription seems to be in a state of transition.38 On the one hand, it is organized enough to
33 The following authors oppose the dating of the events to the Rhodian period and the reading of the two tyrants as Rhodians: Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 349, Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia,” 114, Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6, and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 131. No use should be made of the inscription TAM II, 582 from Tlos honoring a citizen for championing the “ancestral democracy” for dating the Araxa inscription, since it is possible that this service referred to that citizen’s participation in warfare instead of the takeover of Tlos by a tyrant, as recently argued by Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 98, contrary to the opinion of Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 331 and Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 163. 34 See particularly Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia,” 115 and Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 97, note 327, and Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 271. 35 Dated to c. 185–180 by Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 267. 36 Bean “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 54. 37 Behrwald, Der lykische Bund and more concisely in “The Lykian League,” 405–406. See also Denise Reitzenstein, Die lykischen Bundespriester. Repräsentation der kaiserzeitlichen Elite Lykiens (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011), 22 and Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 271. 38 As first noted by Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription, 163. Page | 8 have a standing assembly or another similar institution that can regulate disputes between members and conduct warfare and diplomacy without recourse to a foreign power.39 Zimmermann’s assertion that Rhodian rule over Lycia existed only “als Anspruch”40 has been countered by Hans-
Ulrich Wiemer through a study of both written and archaeological sources.41 So, while it is possible that the two tyrants worked together with the Lycian League’s enemies, this is not enough to date the conflict against them to the period of Rhodian rule.42
On the other hand, the League also seems to have been unable to prevent the takeover of two of its biggest cities.43 This, in turn, would make a date in the 160s and 150s, when the League had just acquired its independence, more likely than a date in the 130s and 120s when it was more cohesive and well-organized. The conspicuous absence of references to Rhodes in the inscription could be explained both by the fact that the overt conflicts within the inscription would postdate the Rhodian period and also by the desire for reconciliation with Rhodes following the possible covert confrontations shortly after Lycia received its independence.44 These points will become even clearer as we analyze the other political developments in the document – the war against
Termessus, the dispute over Soasa, and the admission of Orloanda into the League.
4. The war against Termessus and the admission of Orloanda.
The question of whether the opponent of the League in the next war was Termessus Minor or
Termessus Major in Pisidia has recently been resolved by Denis Rousset.45 Rousset has
39 Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 331, Larsen, Representative Government, 99–100, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 165, Jameson, “The Lykian League,” 835 and 843, and Reitzenstein, Die lykischen Bundespriester, 29. 40 Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,“ 126. 41 Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 268. See also page 261–262, note 6. 42 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 162. 43 If we accept the hypothesis of Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,“ 163–164. 44 As, among others, Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,“ 129, Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 96, and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 133. 45 G.E. Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 49, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin “Epigraphique,” 191, Coulton, “Termessians at Oinoanda,” 120, Troxell, The coinage of the Lycian League, 11, Kokkinia, Boubon, 22, note 131 have Page | 9 persuasively argued in favor of the earlier by showing that the ethnonyms Οἰνοανδεύς and
Τερμησσεῖς οἱ πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις/Οἰνοανδεῖς denote members of the same political entity, which here will be referred to here as Termessus Minor.46 He does so by analyzing a stela from the Letoon at
Xanthos, originally studied by Christian Le Roy,47 which represents a treaty between Termessus
Minor and the Lycian League. This “convention” is relevant to our discussion for two reasons: it can give us a terminus post quem for the creation of the Cybiran Tetrapolis and a terminus ante quem for the Araxa inscription.
These considerations have already been advanced by both Le Roy and Rousset, to whom we are beholden for the thorough analysis of this inscription. The Termessians are depicted on an equal footing with the League, as independent political actors, which means that they were not yet part of the Cibyran Tetrapolis and that, indeed, the Cibyran Tetrapolis had not yet been formed.48
This is reinforced by the Araxa inscription, which does not mention the involvement of Cibyra in the war between the Lycian League and Termessus Minor. On the other hand, the cities of Tlos and Kadyanda are here depicted as “bien intégrée” within the structure of the Lycian League.49 The
Tetrapolis, then, would have been formed sometime after this inscription was created.50 The stela is dated by Rousset to 160–150 B.C. based on his tracing back of the year 34 of an unknown era mentioned within the inscription. This era must have begun with the Treaty of Apamea in 188 or another event during the early 2nd century since an earlier date would not agree with the established terminus post quem of 167.51 Such a terminus post quem is provided by the cult of the goddess
all argued in favor of Termessus Major. Conversely, Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 332–333, Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 961–980, Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 94, implicitly Larsen, Representative Government, 98 and Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6. 46 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 85–87, 96–98, and 128. 47 Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 961–980. 48 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 77 and Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 961–980. 49 Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 963 and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 43, 77. 50 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 131 and 168. 51 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 95. Page | 10
Roma (see below) and by the mentioning of Caunos as a party to receive and safeguard a copy of the agreement, which would presuppose that it had already revolted from Rhodian control in 166 and had acquired its independence.52
Let us now return to the Araxa inscription. Rousset was right to be cautious about exaggerating the relationship between the two decrees and to point out that the convention would not have brought eternal peace in the relations between the Lycian League and Termessus.53
However, his arguments for a late dating are not internally consistent, as, at various points in his work, he seems to rather argue that the two inscriptions are contemporaneous.54 Indeed, some of his arguments make the Araxa inscription fit in quite nicely with what we know of Lycian history.
Firstly, the indemnity of 25 talents, mentioned in the “convention” can be connected with potential reparations for Orthagoras’s devastation of the Termessian lands when he spent the winter in
Termessian territory, as the Araxa inscription asserts (l.46–54).55 Moreover, the tone of the two inscriptions is different, possibly pointing to a desire for reconciliation after a long war.56 If this conflict began shortly after the conflicts with Cibyra and Moagetes in the years immediately after
167 and if this “convention” is a type of peace treaty that was agreed upon in the 150s, then the war might fit this description. After all, we never hear about the result of the war against Termessus in the Araxa inscription, unlike those of the first war against Moagetes and of the war against the tyrants, which might mean that the war was not finished by the time the Araxa inscription was completed. Finally, such a conflict would help contextualize the subsequent actions of the Lycian
League against Orloanda.
52 Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 968 and 979 and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 77. 53 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 98 and 133. 54 For example Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 41. 55 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 98 56 Le Roy, “Une Convention,” 963 and 980. Page | 11
Orloanda was located in the mountains between Araxa and Termessus.57 The tyrant of Orloanda might have chosen to initially remain neutral in the conflict between his two powerful neighbors, which might explain why he seems “isolated”.58 After the territorial dispute over Soasa, which would have involved Araxa and one of its neighbors (Tlos or Kadyanda),59 Araxa would have felt cautious about taking unilateral steps to improve its position. Therefore, the embassy of Orthagoras to all of the different poleis might have been nothing else than an attempt to persuade them that taking over Orloanda and adding it to the League would strengthen the League’s strategic position against Termessus, coating it, of course, in the language of “liberation from tyranny”.60 This would then explain why Orloanda did not become a voting member of the League but a sympolity or κόμη of Araxa61 — it was not admitted to the League, but conquered.
Of course, this should remain only a hypothesis until more comes to our knowledge about the history of Orloanda. However, placing the conflicts over Soasa and Orloanda within the war against
Termessus seems more logical than discussing them as separate incidents, especially given their geographic orientation towards the Araxa-Tlos-Kadyanda-Termessus border zone. To sum up, the
“convention” from the Letoon of Xanthos can comfortably be put in relation with the Araxa decree and would provide us with a terminus post quem for the creation of the Cybiran Tetrapolis and with a terminus ante quem for the conflicts against Termessus and Orloanda, described in the Araxa inscription, of c. 155 B.C. This would make a slightly antecedent dating for the Orthagoras decree
57 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 129 58 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 163. 59 J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 191, Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 41 and 129. 60 Described in J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 193 among others. 61 As described by Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 333, Moretti, “Ricerche sulle leghe Greche,” 206–207, Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 129, and Behrwald, “The Lykian League,” 406. Page | 12 far from unattractive. It also could explain the embassies to the Romans Publius and Appius and the theoria to the festival of Thea Roma Epiphanes, which we will describe in the next chapters.
5. The embassies of Orthagoras to Appius and Publius
The two embassies that Orthagoras was sent on were to the ‘Ρωμαίων πρεσβευτὰς τοὺς περί
Ἄππιον, καὶ ... τοὺς περί Πόπλιον (l.63–66). Supporters of the early dating for the Araxa inscription have identified the Appius and Publius here with Appius Claudius Nero and Publius Cornelius
Lentulus (or Publius Aelius Tubero), members of the commission of the decemviri tasked with regulating and enforcing the provisions of the Treaty of Apamea (188 B.C.).62 On the other hand, scholars who favor a late date for the inscription have identified the two figures as Appius Claudius
Centho, who was active in the region in 156–154 B.C., and Publius Scipio Aemilianus, who was in Asia Minor c. 140.63 Errington has shown that the identification of Appius and Publius with members of the decemviri is impossible.64 However, a late date seems more unlikely given the naming of the two Romans only by their praenomina, a practice that was common until the 140s but “had been abandoned by the time of the revolt of Aristonicus.”65 Indeed, we see some inscriptions, both from other parts of the Greek world and, more importantly, at neighboring
Xanthos, which show the use of both a praenomen and nomen by the second half of the second century.66 Of course, we cannot be certain at what point Araxans started using both names to refer to Romans since we do not have an inscription from Araxa from, say, the 130s or 120s B.C., and we are unsure of how intensive the direct diplomatic contact between Araxa and the Romans was
62 Supported by, among others, A.H.M. Jones in Bean, “Notes and Inscription from Lycia,” 53–54, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 190, Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 344, Larsen, Representative Government, 217, note 26, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 153, and Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 98. 63 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 114–117 and Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 50. 64 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 114–115. 65 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 154. Similarly J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 188. 66 See for example Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 343, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 154, Larsen, Greek Federal States, 246, note 1, and Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 95. Page | 13 due to the lack of historical sources.67 But several factors make a date for the embassies in the 160s and 150s more comfortable.
To begin with, if we dismiss the early dating, as Errington has done, there is no 20-year gap between the “admission” of Orloanda and the embassies, which made Bean uncomfortable,68 to be explained. Moreover, the Romans did not just free states, but took an active interest in the management of their internal affairs and organization, as Errington has explained in detail and as can be seen from many other inscriptions.69 Even if we dismiss most of them as dating mechanisms for the Araxa inscription, as Rousset has done, it is also possible that one such embassy would have been sent to resolve the conflict between Cibyra and Araxa if Cibyra was already allied to Rome.70
A similar embassy would then possibly have been sent to end the war between the Lycian League and Termessus Minor, especially if it had dragged on for a long time, as we suggested above. This would also provide us with a resolution to the conflicts against Cibyra and Termessus in the inscription and might point us towards the first steps to the creation of the “convention” from the
Letoon between the League and Termessus Minor. It is also entirely possible that there were other
Roman embassies in the region following the territorial changes in 167, unknown to us.
Prosopography, as explained in the discussion of the tyrannies at Tlos and Xanthos above, is not a reliable tool that can be used for finding known “Apii” and “Publii” in our inscription and consequently must be abandoned as a dating mechanism. There might have been other figures with these fairly common praenomina, who were dealing with some or other political dispute in post-
67 Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie, 261–262, note 6 and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 130–132. 68 Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 55. 69 These include the synoikismos of Plarasa and Aphrodisias, the territorial changes to the lands of Antiocheia on the Menander, the Roman-Cibyran alliance, and the Roman intervention in favor of Caunos’s independence, mentioned above. For context and analysis, see Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 97–118., supported by Milner, “A Hellenistic Treaty from Boubon,” 162, and also Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 132. See Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 95–96 for the previous period. 70 As proposed by Milner, “A Hellenistic Treaty from Boubon,” 162. Page | 14
167 Asia Minor. The explicit reference to a Roman intervention in the resolution of these conflicts would have been omitted both out of tact and out of a desire to create an “éloge” of Orthagoras.71
Since the chronological sequence here is clear due to the use of πάλιν, it is entirely conceivable that the decree would have mentioned the two embassies together instead of separately. This, in my opinion, is similar to the mentioning of Orthagoras’s two theoriai, which, despite being 5 years apart, are mentioned together in this inscription, as will be explained in the next chapter.
6. The theoria of Roma Epiphanes and the cult of Dea Roma in Lycia.
The establishment of religious cults and festivals in honor of deified rulers as a reciprocation or anticipation of major acts of euergetism to a particular city has been well-documented since the
Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods and has been extensively studied by several scholars.72
While the topic of royal patronage and late-Hellenistic euergetism is interesting enough to warrant its own study, it is necessary to keep in mind only, for this paper, that the institution of cults was reserved for concrete and large-scale benefactions.73 The main question concerning the date of the institution of the cult and festival of the goddess Roma can be framed thus: what occasion in Lycian history would be considered by the Lycians “large-scale enough” to warrant the institution of a cult and festival of the goddess Roma?
Bean proposed a few possible dates, but the most relevant to our discussion are the Treaty of
Apamea in 189 B.C., the liberation of Lycia from Rhodian rule in 167 B.C., and the non-inclusion of the Lycian League into the newly created province of Asia in 129 B.C.74 The initial consensus
71 See for example Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 133’s comments on the initial suggestion by the Roberts in “Bulletin Épigaphique.” 72 See, for example, Marc Domingo Gygax, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 42, 47, Larsen, Greek Federal States, 246, and Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 97–118. 73 Succintly explained in Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 100–102. 74 Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 52. Page | 15 focused on the earliest date, attributing the creation of the cult to a misperceived Roman promise of providing Lycia its “freedom” and to a hope for the future by the Lycian League, once it became known that Lycia was to be given to Rhodes.75 However, this has been persuasively countered by
Errington: „Wegen der römischen Entscheidung von 189/8 hatten weder die Lykier noch die meisten Karer Grund, den Römern durch jene höchste Ehre, die ein griechischer Staat an ein
Wohltäter vergeben konnte, die Errichtung eines Kults, zu danken“.76 Even if an early date for the creation of the Roma cult is not to be completely dismissed,77 the scholarly consensus has now shifted almost beyond doubt to dating the establishment of the cult after 167.78
While some scholars favor a date in the 130s or 120s due to the “Lycians’ gratitude for being left free” from the newly established province of Asia,79 the liberation of Lycia from Rhodian control seems to fit the context of this inscription best.80 To begin with, it is unclear why the
Lycians would have feared being annexed into the province of Asia, given that the Romans had not occupied Lycia or Caria during the war against Aristonikos.81 Therefore, it is unclear to me what the Lycians would presumably have been thankful for to institute a cult in honor of the goddess Roma. Moreover, the epithet Ἐπιφανεῖ can be used only in the context of a large-scale and
75 Supported by A.H.M. Jones in Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 53–54, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 189, Moretti, “Una Nuova Iscrizione,” 343–349, Larsen, Representative Government, 217, note 26, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 155–159, Larsen, Greek Federal States, 246, and Troxell, The coinage of the Lycian League, 12. 76 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 99. 77 Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 93. 78 Bean, „Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 54, Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 50, especially Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 97–118 and Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times,” 118. 79 Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 55–56, Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 117, and Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 132. 80 Among others J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 188–189, Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme, 662, addenda on p. 131, note 297, and Behrwald, “The Lykian League,” 406. 81 Robert Kallet-Marx, Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 109, note 53, and 113, http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft1x0nb0dk/. Page | 16 direct benefaction and would sit more comfortably earlier in the century.82 It would fit the description of the period of the war against Perseus, the numerous Roman embassies in Asia Minor, and the direct conferral of Lycia’s independence more than the military affair of Aristonikos’s revolt, especially as other inscriptions from the period show us that neighboring political entities already had a Roma cult in the 160s and 150s and it is inconceivable that Lycia would be the only client state to not repay Rome for its independence.83 To these should be added inscription CIL XII
725, first mentioned by Larsen, which describes the Lycian League dedicating a statue at Rome in the mid-160s.84 There is no reason to believe that the cult of Thea Roma and the festival of the goddess would have been the product of two separate benefactions or would have been instituted a long time apart, as Rousset seems to believe.85 Also, there is nothing in the grammatical structure of τὴν πρώτην πενταετηρίδα to suggest that Orthagoras’s theoria was to a later festival and not to its first and second iterations.86
If we accept that the wars and embassies, which preceed the theoriai in the inscription, happened at some point between the liberation of Lycia from Rhodes and Aristonikos’s Revolt, we would then have to believe that Orthagoras had not been recognized for his services to the city for close to 40 years. Although this is possible, it is unlikely, considering his numerous contributions, even excluding the theoria to the two festivals of the goddess Roma, which, comparatively speaking, were not his greatest benefactions to the city. Furthermore, given that Smyrna instituted its cult in honor of the goddess Roma in 195 B.C. and that, by the second half of the 2nd century,
82 Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 56, J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigraphique,” 188, Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 155–156. 83 Errington, “Θεὰ Ῥώμη,” 97–118, Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme, 662, addenda on p. 131, note 297. 84 Larsen, “The Araxa Inscription,” 156–159. 85 Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 132. 86 Contrary to Reitzenstein, Die lykischen Bundespriester, 22–23, note 9. Page | 17 we have a list of victors in the Ῥωμαῖα at Xanthos,87 it becomes incredibly hard to delay the instigation of the pan-Lycian festival of Ῥώμη Θεᾶ Ἐπιφανεῖ so deep into the 2nd century.
Finally, we must discuss the fact that the theoria is mentioned last in the document. This creates a chronological problem. To begin with, there is no reason to believe that the decree has been arranged in a thematic order and so the events in the description are most certainly arranged in chronological order.88 Therefore, if the first iteration of the festival is placed directly after the liberation from Rhodian control, so in 167, 166, or 165 B.C. at the latest, this either forces us to place some of the previous events in the inscription in the period of Rhodian rule, which, as we have seen above, is unlikely, or to accept the latest possible date for the creation of the cult in the
130s and 120s B.C., which, though not impossible, is unlikely given the evidence advanced throughout this section and the paper as a whole.
I would like to suggest a third possibility. The two iterations of the festival are mentioned one after another, just like the embassies. Even if we dismiss Sherwin-White’s division of the decree into different topics,89 given that honorary decrees do not have a formal thematic structure,90 we can still maintain a chronological-thematic grouping of the two festivals without abandoning the chronological structure of the decree. The chronological reference point for mentioning
Orthagoras’s theoria is, without a doubt, the second iteration of the festival, not the first one. Such an attempt to bring together the two services and omit or chronologically misplace deeds of
Orthagoras in the intervening 5-year period would underline both the longevity of Orthagoras’s
87 Larsen, Greek Federal States, 246 and Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 95. 88 Bean, “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia,” 50, note 15, Kokkinia, Boubon, 21, Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 130, and Reitzenstein, Die lykischen Bundespriester, 24, note 1 have persuasively argued for a chronological arrangement of the decree. For a thematic division of the decree, see Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 50, note 114, Bresson, “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times,” 130, note 182, Behrwald, Der lykische Bund, 94 and seemingly Zimmermann, “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft,” 128–129. 89 Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy, 50, note 114. Against him Rousset, De Lycie en Cabalide, 130. 90 Bradley H McLean, An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, 236. Page | 18 benefactions and their magnitude and thus increase Orthagoras’s prestige. Therefore, if we create a chronology within the inscription, the two theoriai, which would have spanned the period between c. 166–165 B.C. and 162–161 B.C, would be the final services of Orthagoras. The inscription brakes off at this point. This has erased any other services that Orthagoras might have performed. He might have taken part in another holy event or have been chosen as a priest of the local Roma cult. Maybe he is the same person as the priest Orthagoras mentioned in l.1 of the inscription, a question which, to my knowledge, has not been paid due attention in the literature so far, but which this paper is thus far not capable of resolving. Either way, we do not know how much further his services continued, but, if we accept the inscription from the Letoon, mentioned above, as the terminus ante quem, we would have to accept a date in the late 160s and early 150s for the Orthagoras decree.
This would put the career of Orthagoras within a 10-year period, which is possible given the political vacuum, engendered by the sudden liberation of Lycia from Rhodian control.91 Such a vacuum would have left the Lycian League free, but insecure in the rapidly transforming international environment. This temporary chaos would have been used by opportunistic individuals like Moagetes, Lysanias, and Eudemos to gain land, wealth, and power at the expense of the newly independent League. Border disputes would have existed both within the League (e.g. the dispute over Soasa between Araxa and Tlos/Kadyanda) and with its neighbors (Cibyra,
Termessus Minor), which would not have always had a peaceful resolution. This early period of conflicts and uncertainty would have ended with Roman political interventions in Asia Minor. The
91 Also, we need to be conscious of arguments, espoused by scholars like for example J. and L. Robert, “Bulletin Épigaphique,” 190, who believe that “les guerres et les ambassades énumérées ne peuvent guère tenir en dix ans.” We have no idea how long the conflicts in this inscription lasted and so it is conceivable, as we have shown, that the conflicts would have continued even after the completion of this decree, considering the tone of the decree, as described in section 4. Page | 19 embassies to Appius and Publius, as well as the institution of the cult of the goddess Roma and probably the “convention” from the Letoon at Xanthos, could be seen as testaments to such a
Roman interference. This period of crisis would have spanned around 10 years, which seems a reasonable amount of time both for Orthagoras’s career and for the Lycian League to have cemented its internal cohesion and international position. Therefore, there seems to be nothing in this proposed chronology to prevent us from dating the creation of the cult and festival of Ῥώμη
Θεᾶ Ἐπιφανεῖ to the liberation of Lycia from Rhodian control in 167 and consequently to date the
Araxa inscription to the late 160s and early 150s B.C.
7. Conclusion
The Araxa inscription honoring Orthagoras is an incredible piece of information for the relationship between the different political entities in Asia Minor, the Lycian League, and the city of Araxa itself. However, the question of its date requires a reexamination of the existing scholarship both on the inscription itself and on the region of Lycia more broadly. In general, scholars have argued for three dates: an early date in the 180s and 170s, a middle one in the 160s and 150s, and a late dating in the 130s and 120s B.C. While no single criteria can be securely dated and so cannot be determinant for the date of this inscription, the sum of all the different criteria points decisively to a date in the late 160s and early 150s for the creation of this inscription. The early date is by far the least likely, given the almost certain foundation of the cult of the goddess
Roma in the Lycian League after the liberation of Lycia from Rhodian rule in 167 B.C., the membership of Boubon in the Lycian League during the 190s, and the impossibility of identifying the two Roman legati in the inscription with members of the decemviri tasked with the regulation and application of the Treaty of Apamea in Asia Minor. A late dating is possible, but the acceptance of such a dating would have to also explain both the 40-years that Orthagoras spent in service of
Page | 20 his city without an honorary decree and the lack of a benefaction that would invite the Lycian
League to use the term Ἐπιφανεῖ to describe the goddess Roma since the non-inclusion of Lycia into the Province of Asia seems unlikely.
In conclusion, a date in the late 160s and early 150s seems the most likely, especially if we adopt a chronological reading of this decree. A terminus post quem is established by the second iteration of the festival of Ῥώμη Θεᾶ Ἐπιφανεῖ, which would have taken place sometime after the institution of the cult of the goddess Roma in recognition of the decisive intervention of Rome in conferring the Lycian League its independence from Rhodian control in 167 B.C. A terminus ante quem is provided by the agreement between the League and Termessus Minor c. 160–150 B.C., which put an end to the conflict described in the inscription or maybe to a new flare-up of tensions shortly after the completion of the Araxa decree. Therefore, all the scholarly literature that had adopted one of the other two datings should be reanalyzed in line with the new chronology that we have for the events within the Araxa inscription. This dating and chronological reading of the Araxa decree is still far from certain but seems to be the most likely prospect given the current state of the literature on Araxa, the Lycian League, and Asia Minor in the 2nd century B.C. The author hopes that this paper could serve as a future reference point for scholars and that new archaeological discoveries will shed more light on this fascinating document of Lycian History. This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations.
Page | 21
Bibliography
Bean, George Ewart. “Notes and Inscriptions from Lycia.” Journal of Hellenistic Studies 68
(1948): 40–58.
Behrwald, Ralf. Der lykische Bund : Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung. Bonn: Habelt,
2000.
Behrwald, Ralf. “The Lykian League.” In Federalism in Greek Antiquity, edited by Hans Beck and
Peter Funke, 403–418. Cambridge: University Press, 2015.
Bresson, Alain. “Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times.” In Hellenistic Rhodes: politics, culture, and society, edited by Vincent Gabrielsen, 98–131. Aarhus; Oakville, CT: Aarhus University Press,
1999.
Coulton, John J. “Termessians at Oinoanda.” Anatolian Studies 32 (1982): 115–131.
Domingo Gygax, Marc. Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of
Euergetism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016
Errington, Malcolm. “Θεὰ Ῥώμη und römischer Einfluß südlich des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr.”
Chiron 17 (1987): 97–118.
Ferrary, Jean-Louis. Philhellénisme et impérialisme: aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique, de la seconde guerre de Macédoine à la guerre contre Mithridate. Rome:
École française de Rome, 1988.
Garbrah, Kweku. „On the Enumerative Use of ΤΕ.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 96
(1993): 191–210.
Page | 22
Jameson, Shelagh. “The Lykian League: Some problems in its administration.” In Aufstieg und
Niedergang der römischen Welt v. VII, part 2, edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang
Haasse, 832–855. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2016.
Kallet-Marx, Robert. Hegemony to Empire: The Development of the Roman Imperium in the East from 148 to 62 B.C. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft1x0nb0dk/
Kokkinia, Christina. Boubon. The Inscriptions and Archaeological Remains. A survey 2004 – 2006.
Athens: Diffusion de Boccard, 2008.
Larsen, Jakob. Greek Federal States. Their Institutions and History. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1968.
Larsen, Jakob. Representative Government in Greek and Roman History. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1955.
Larsen, Jakob. “The Araxa Inscription and the Lycian Confederation.” Classical Philology 51, no.
3 (July 1956): 151–169.
Le Roy, Christian. “Une convention entre cités en Lycie du Nord.” Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 140–3 (1996): 961–980.
Milner, Nicholas P. “A Hellenistic Treaty from Boubon.” In Griechische Epigrafik in Lykien. Eine
Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005, edited by Christof
Schuler, 157–164. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2007.
McLean, Bradley H. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods from Alexander the Great Down to the Reign of Constantine (323 B.C. – A.D. 337). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, 2002.
Page | 23
Moretti, Luigi. Ricerche sulle leghe Greche. Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1962.
Moretti, Luigi. „Una Nuova Iscrizione da Araxa.” Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 78
(1 Jan. 1950): 326–350.
Pleket, Henri W., and R.S. Stroud. “Araxa. Honorary Decree for Orthagoras, After 167.”
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 37 (1987): 383–384, n. 1218.
Pouilloux, Jean. Choix d'inscriptions grecques; textes, traductions et notes. Paris: Société d'édition
"Les belles lettres", 1960.
Reitzenstein, Denise. Die lykischen Bundespriester Repräsentation der kaiserzeitlichen Elite
Lykiens. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011.
Robert, Jeanne and Louis. “Bulletin Épigraphique.” Revue des Études Grecques LXIII, n. 294/298
(1950): 121–220.
Rousset, Denis. De Lycie en Cabalide: la convention entre les Lyciens et Termessos près d'Oinoanda. Geneva: Librairie Deroz, 2010.
Schuler, Christof. “Ein Vertrag zwischen Rom und den Lykiern aus Tyberissos.“ In Griechische
Epigrafik in Lykien. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Akten des Int. Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar
2005, edited by C. Schuler, 51–80. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 2007.
Sherwin-White, Adrian Nicholas. Roman Foreign Policy in the East. London: Duckworth, 1984.
Troxell, Hyla. The coinage of the Lycian League. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1982.
HathiTrust.
Page | 24
Wiemer, Hans-Ulrich. Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichtedes hellenistischen Rhodos. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003.
Woodhead, A.G., ed. “Orthagoras Demetrii f. ab Araxensibus honoratur, c. a. 180a.“
Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 18 (1962): 189–191, n. 570.
Zimmermann, Martin. “Bemerkungen zur rhodischen Vorherrschaft in Lykien (189/88–167 v.
Chr.).“ Klio 75 (Jan. 1, 1993): 110–130.
Page | 25