Western Asia Minor

Chapter 3 Western Asia Minor The Epigraphic Record The richest crop of testimonies of potential citizenship comes from Asia Minor: this fact should be considered more than simple chance. The section that fol- lows contains a discussion of all surviving treaties of potential citizenship that communities in Asia Minor, other than Miletos, Magnesia, and Samos, have stipulated. I devoted separate treatments to those cities, but the treaties stem- ming from all communities contribute to the conclusions I have drawn on the material from Asia Minor. Two preserved treaties from Pergamon include grants of potential citizenship: these treaties are textbook examples of the first type of potential citizenship, as I have defined it in the introduction.1 In both cases the diplomatic function of the grant is evident and it is just as clear that the cities with which Pergamon established the agreements were politically relevant to its current geopolitical situation. No predefined power relationship is evident. Rather, these treaties show that a grant of potential citizenship was an act between cities that either had something to offer each other (from a political or economic point of view), or found themselves in situations that made strengths or former power relationships and hierarchies largely irrelevant to the agreement.2 From Temnos we also preserve two agreements,3 an impressive amount for an otherwise little-known city. In the documents, Temnos figures both as grantee and grantor. The agreement between Skepsis and Parion as- sociates a grant of potential citizenship to a military agreement.4 This case is exceptional in Asia Minor and reveals that the towns probably found themselves in a worrisome situation. P. Herrmann has stated that cities used grants of potential citizenship in peaceful situations or to seal peace treaties. His 1 AvP VIII.1 5 = no. 20 preserves the agreement between Pergamon and Temnos; AvP VIII.1 156 = no. 21 preserves the agreement between Pergamon and Tegea. The examples date to the two opposite ends of the 3rd century BC. 2 Other examples for the relative importance of power relationships in the establishment of potential citizenship include the agreements between Miletos and Seleukeia-Tralles, Milet I 3 143 = no. 5, and the peculiar peace treaty between Aitolia and Akarnania, IG IX2 I 3A = no. 40. 3 In addition to the above-mentioned treaty with Pergamon, Temnos granted potential citizenship to Teos, SEG XXIX 1149 = no. 22, at the end of the 3rd century BC. 4 J. and L. Robert BE 1972 371 = no. 23. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004425705_005 102 Chapter 3 observation is certainly correct, especially in Asia Minor, and contradicts the unjustified but common tendency of scholars to associate potential citizenship and military agreements.5 The treaty between Skepsis and Parion indeed is an exceptional testimony of the use of this tool for a different, military con- text in Asia Minor. Although this treaty contains the most common traits of a grant of potential citizenship, a few provisions reveal that the cities had to face a possibly difficult situation. Two uncertain cases and a recently revealed (but very fragmentary) inscription, complete the dossier of the evidence from western Asia Minor.6 The political (or other) relevance of the partners to an agreement that contains potential citizenship is the reason for the concession of this grant. This statement may seem like a generic and inconclusive statement, but it is neces- sary. It contradicts, on good grounds, old theories that assert that isopoliteia reflects a power relationship or was granted to replenish depopulated cities. The inclusion, in some texts, of the other pillars of Hellenistic diplomacy, such as kinship and friendship, and the use of the diplomatic language are not the ‘reasons’ for the grants, but accompany it. They may appear in one breath, which in turn suggests that potential citizenship was considered among the most important types of relationships that cities could establish between themselves to shape political, religious, and economic alliances.7 Kinship claims for example appear routinely in agreements that include isopoliteia concessions mostly to set the pace and tone of the agreement.8 When isopoliteia and other qualifications appear back to back, they express the ‘degree’ of the strength of the relationship that is in place or was going to be established.9 Gawantka is right to note that kinship alone cannot be the reason for exchanging potential citizenship. However, at the same time, recognizing why such a claim was made, can either reveal something about the communities’ history or, better, about their perception of their own history. In a way, when fictional, these ties are even more meaningful than when they are real because they show how far communities would push the limits of their collective memory and identity to serve their own current diplomatic and political goals. 5 This assessment is true for Crete only, see infra. 6 The two uncertain pieces of evidence are the agreements between Maroneia and Priene, I.Priene 10 = no. 26, and the fragmentary text of Inscr. Sardeis VI.6 = no. 25, which a few scholars think contains this privilege. The new inscription testifies to an exchange of isopoliteia between Laodikeia on the Lykos and an unknown city SEG LVIII 1541 = no. 24. 7 Gawantka 1975, esp. pp. 92–113 already made this observation but shifted his focus to legal matters that were hardly of any concern. 8 See the extreme case of the agreement between Seleukeia and Miletos Milet I 3 143 = no. 5 or infra the more standard case of Pergamon and Tegea, AvP VIII.1 156 = no. 21. 9 For example, see IG XII.6.1 6 = no. 18 (Samos-Antioch) or the asylia concessions of Gela and Kamarina to Teos, IG XII.4.1 222 and 223 = no. 67 and no. 68..

Load more