Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great1

Home , Eresos, Ionia, Magnesia on the Maeander

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291861317

Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great

Article in Klio · January 2003 DOI: 10.1524/klio.2003.85.1.15

CITATIONS READS 16 361

1 author:

Krzysztof Nawotka University of Wroclaw

15 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Alexander the Great and the East View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Krzysztof Nawotka on 11 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. I KLIO I 85 I 2003 | 1 | 15-41 |

KRZYSZTOF NAWOTKA (Wroclaw)

Freedom of Greek Cities in Asia Minor in the Age of Alexander the Great1

In the summer of 334,2 shortly after his first victory over the Persians on the Granicus, Alexander marched through western Asia Minor, accepted the surrender of Sardes, and four days later arrived at Ephesus. There, as Arrian, our principal source to these events, testifies, Alexander dissolved an oligarchy, established a democracy and made the Ephe- sians pay to Artemis a tribute which used to be submitted to Persia: τήν όλιγαρχίαν καταλύσας δημοκρατίαν κατέστησε· τούς δέ φόρους, δσους τοις βαρβάροις άπέφερον, τη Άρτέμιδι ξυντελεΐν έκέλευσεν. Having done so he put an end to a massacre of the oligarchs after their leader Syrphax, his son and nephews had been killed.3 Soon the ambas- sadors from Magnesia on the Maeander and Tralles showed up in Ephesus, surrendering their cities to Alexander. He furnished them with protective garrisons and thereafter detailed a certain Alkimachos with at least 2700 soldiers to the cities of Ionia and Aeolia still under Persian control, ordering him to overthrow oligarchies, establish democracies and restore their laws, and abolish the tribute: και τάς μεν ολιγαρχίας πανταχού καταλύειν έκέλευσεν, δημοκρατίας δέ [τε] έγκαθιστάναι και τούς νόμους τούς σφών έκάστοις άποδοΰ- ναι, και τούς φόρους άνεΐναι, δσους τοις βαρβάροις άπέφερον (Arr. an. 1.18.2). In another place (1.17.7) Arrian writes about Alexander's appointment of one Nikias as an officer in charge of collecting the tribute and contribution (σύνταξις). As we learn from Alexan- der's edict inscribed under Lysimachus,4 Priene was relieved from this syntaxis. Hence, there is a universal agreement that almost all poleis of Asia Minor had to submit the syntaxis, although a matter of dispute has been whether the word syntaxis indeed meant contribution or if it was a euphemistic name of tribute. This paper aims at assessing the importance of Alexander's gesture for the cities invol- ved and at investigating the reasons behind it. Its scope will be limited to the cities of Asia Minor as their legal and political standing was fundamentally different from that of poleis of continental Greece and the islands. From the King's Peace, at the very latest, the

1 The first version of this paper was presented to the conference of the Ancient History Section of the Polish Historical Association in Rzeszow in September 2000. I would like to express my gratitude to the participants of the conference who commented on the paper (Professor Jozef Wolski, Professor Leslaw Morawiec- ki, Dr. Marek J. Olbrycht) and to other scholars with whom I had the opportunity to discuss it, in particular to Professor Fergus Millar, Mr. Robin Lane Fox and Mr. Nicholas Purcell. My thanks also go to St. John's College, Oxford, Batory Foundation and Lanckoronski Foundation for supporting my research in Oxford and Vienna. 2 All dates are B.C. 3 Arr. an. 1.17.10—12; the above quotation is 1.17.10. 4 IPriene 1; about the date and circumstances of the inscription see Sherwin-White, and Boterman, 184—6.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 16 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities cities of Asia Minor belonged to Persia and hence, by Greek standards (on that vide infra), they were not free, and by definition from 336, together with the whole realm of the Great King, they were in war with Macedonia. Of course, some islands were from time to time subject of Persian satraps, too, especially of Mausolus.5 Their situation in the age of Alexander is, however, quite well known thanks to a number of rather unambiguous sources:6 they obtained a democratic constitution and at least some of them (Tenedos, Chios, some poleis in Lesbos) became members of the League of Corinth.7 To that one may remember that in the fourth century B.C. the Greeks of Asia began to be recognised by political writers as a distinct section of the Hellenic world and that the issue of their freedom became a frequently used political slogan, especially after the King's Peace had been concluded.8 The passage from Arrian, quoted above, and a similar statement by Diodorus, pertaining to Caria,9 have sparked a prolonged discussion on Alexander's attitude to the Greek cities. Opinions voiced on this matter by various modern scholars have been, to a large degree, a reflection of their general attitude to Alexander. Droysen, the first modern Alexander scholar of note, eulogised Alexander stating that the poleis of Asia Minor had become free in his times, recognising at the same time the absolute military leadership of the king of Macedonia. As members of the League of Corinth they provided a useful counterbalance to the more sceptically-minded cities of continental Greece.10 His phrase, used in reference to Asia Minor yet smacking of the Germany of his epoch (e.g. „Reichstädte in dem Reich ihres Befreiers"), became an easy prey for later generations of historians, rightfully ridiculing too much of Bismarck in Droysen's Alexander.11 Never- theless, this perception of Alexander dominated the scene well into the 1930s,12 a notable exception being the doctoral dissertation by Baumbach who remarked that it had been Alexander who had given freedom to the Greeks of Asia and who had also been able to withdraw his gift. 3 This did not, however, leave any imprint on the scholarly discussion of his time. 4 Eulogising Alexander peaked in the book by Radet in which the king of Macedonia was the new Achilles, liberating the Greeks in his triumphal passage through Asia.15 In 1934 as a reaction to that E. Bickermann's enormously influential paper was published, proposing a legal rather than political approach to the problem of relations between Alexander and the Greeks of Asia Minor. Bickermann points out that Alexander's aim

5 Hornblower, 46, 134. 6 Besides Arrian, cf. inscriptions concerning Eresos, Mytilene (both on Lesbos), Chios, published with ample commentary by Heisserer. 7 Magie, 56 and n. 10 (on p. 822-4); Badian (1966) 50; Jehne, 21-5; Ruzicka (1997) 126; Debord, 472. On Eresos see now Lott; on Chios see Hauben. 8 Seager/Tuplin; Seager with additional remarks in Flower (1994) 89. 9 Diod. 17.24.1: μάλιστα δ' ευεργετεί τάς Ελληνίδας πόλεις, ποιών αύτάς αϋτονόμους και άφορολογήτους, προ- σεπιλέγων δτι της των Ελλήνων ελευθερώσεως ενεκα τόν προς Πέρσας πόλεμον έπανήρηται. 10 Droysen, 232-6. 11 Droysen, 236; see Badian (1966) 37; Stoneman, 28. 12 E.g. Kaerst, 343-52; Jouget, 82-8. 13 Baumbach, especially 87-90. 14 See Marinovic, 30. 15 See the apdy named chapter („Liberations et renaissance") on events in Asia Minor of 334—3 in his hagio- graphic biography of Alexander, in particular 53—4.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 17 was the conquest of the Persian empire. In accordance with the legal theories of his time, Alexander regarded the conquered land as his property by virtue of having won it with a spear (δορίκτητος χώρα).16 Thus in legal terms Greek cities in Asia and the indi- genous population alike were Alexander's subjects. In Bickermann's (and Ehrenberg's) view these poleis enjoyed the status of privileged subjects by individual decisions of Alexander who gave them freedom without having concluded treaties with them but having only accepted their submission.17 In practice the scope of their liberty was broad, including the democratic form of government, freedom from tribute and from hosting a garrison; yet it was revocable on Alexander's volition. Hence the freedom of the Greeks of Asia was 'secondary', in contrast to the 'primary' freedom of the poleis of continental Greece.18 This in turn met with a fundamental criticism by Tarn, for whom freedom was an inborn and inalienable quality of the Greek cities, which only temporarily could not be realized because of restrictions caused by the Persian rule. Upon its removal by Alexan- der, the poleis of Asia Minor automatically became free again. Their freedom was simply restored to them, which is reflected by Arrian's usage of the word άποδοΰναι.19 In more recent years the scope of freedom of the Greeks of Asia has been assessed in rather sober terms, reflecting in main points Bickermann's position to which the imagination of some scholars supplied the supervision of the poleis of Asia Minor, allegedly exercised by Alkimachos.20 A crucial role in establishing this pessimistic outlook has been played by Badian who even compared the position of poleis of Asia Minor to that of the satellite states of the Soviet Union.21 Badian's position, without perhaps this last ahistorical exag- geration, almost became an orthodoxy,22 although opinions shaped by Tarn have never disappeared completely.23 The very difference between the tribute paid to Persia and the syntaxis submitted to Alexander has been questioned as well.24 Some scholars argue, with post-modern cynicism, that what Alexander actually did in the poleis of Asia Minor was in fact replacing the pro-Persian oligarchic elites with the pro-Macedonian regimes calling themselves democratic.25 Views expressed by Bosworth in his book on Alexander, the most influential of those written in recent decades, are much more nuanced. Accepting in general the line of argument once drawn by Bickermann, Bosworth notes that from 334 the poleis of Asia Minor perceived themselves as free. At the same time he stresses the importance of ideology in decisions taken by Alexander, including the decision to make the liberation of the Greeks of Asia one of the officially proclaimed aims of his expedition.26 Not surprisingly, the discussion, in which the question of the freedom of the Greek cities in Asia Minor has been approached primarily from the point of view of the deeds,

16 See Mehl on this Greek concept of international law stressing victory in a pitched battle as a legal means of acquiring a territory. On the importance of the symbolic gesture of planting the spear in the ground on landing see now Briant (1996) 40. 17 Bickermann (1934) 358-62; Ehrenberg, 13-14, 34; also Tibiletti, 7-13. 18 Bickermann (1934) 369-71. 19 Tarn II, 202-5, 207. 20 Bengtson, 137-9; Schachermeyr, 177-8. 21 Badian (1966) 49. 22 E.g. Hamilton, 59; Hammond, 253-4; Stewart, 89; Oliva, 45; Ruzicka (1997) 127-9. 23 Magie, 56—8; to a degree Lane Fox, 129-39. 24 Green, 103-4; Stoneman, 28; Jehne, 209. 25 Green, 102: „one lot of puppet rulers was replaced by another"; cf. Seibert (1998) 17—18. But see a sober assessment of this way of historical thinking in Shipley (2000) 4. 26 Bosworth (1988) 250-8.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 18 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities motivation and even personality of Alexander, has not brought decisive results. Alexan- der's proclamation of the freedom of the poleis in Asia Minor has quite often been described as propaganda.27 On the face of it, this expression may seem attractive yet it implies that either the Greeks, who proved perfectly capable of creating philosophy and all sciences, could be easily tricked by empty words or that Alexander, a pupil of Aristotle and a shrewd politician, naively believed that unsubstantiated promises could do any good. Since both solutions are equally absurd, it may be useful to reverse the perspective and to try to approach the question of the freedom of the Greek cities in Asia Minor from the point of view of changes which occurred in them under Alexander. There is no need to dive here into the much discussed topic of the nature of theJ>olis. It suffices to remember that as Hansen, followed by a fair number of scholars, has shown the Greeks themselves applied certain criteria to establish whether a polis was free or not. A free polis was governed in accordance with its laws (nomoi), it controlled its territory {chord), also deciding to admit and expel foreigners, it exercised its jurisdiction, it could run its foreign policy, it made independent decisions concerning its finances, including taxation. In the latter matters we should not be misled by the example of Athens; in most poleis direct taxation was compatible with freedom.30 Among these criteria, the most important one was governing in accordance with one's own laws because that is the original meaning of the word αυτονομία,31 which should not be translated as 'autonomy' but as 'freedom' or 'independence'.32 Later the meaning of autonomia expan- ded to encompass also sovereignty in foreign policy matters. The Greeks, Hansen shows, did not think that participating in a military alliance (συμμαχία) and an ensuing obligation to submit a war-related contribution (σύνταξις) were incompatible with the freedom of a polis. On the other hand, those poleis were not free upon which substantial political conditions had been imposed, including the obligation to pay a tribute (φόρος). Among the poleis which the Greeks regarded as not free were those ruled by tyrants or, e.g., subjects of the Great King, members of the Delian League, and in the fourth century B.C. members of the Peloponnesian and Beotian Leagues. In fact, through a large part of the fourth century B.C., most poleis were unfree.33 For a long time democracy and oligarchy were the accepted constitutional forms of a free polis. In the fourth century B.C., however, the Greek political thinking shifted towards democracy, which in the 330s at the latest was believed to be the natural political system of a polis?* In the age of Alexander the Great democracy became a constitutional standard, referred to by the Greeks as πάτριος πολιτεία, and not only tyranny but also oligarchy were perceived as a deviation from the natural political system.35 Hence a free polis meant also a democratic polish

27 In particular Tibiletti, 3-4; also e.g. Hornblower, 69; Seibert (1998) 18, 56-7. 28 Hansen (1995) 24-30. Similar line of argument already in Magie, 56-7; also Billows (1990) 190-7; Gau- thier (1993) 213. 29 E.g. Shipley (1997) 210; Chankowski, 209. 30 Gauthier (1991) in particular 65—6. 31 Hansen (1998) 78-82; Billows (1990) 196-7. 32 Cf. s.v. αυτονομία in: LSJ, 281. 33 Hansen (1995) 31-41. 34 Arist. poL 1286b20: ίσως ούδέ ρςιδιον ετι γίγνεσθαι πολιτείαν έτέραν παρά δημοκρατίαν; cf. Gauthier (1984) 86. 35 Quass, 37-52; Gauthier (1984) 100; Billows (1990) 197. 36 Gauthier, ib.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 19

The ancient authors never refer to the poleis of Asia Minor in the age of Alexander the Great as unfree. Yet the question whether they met the Greek criteria of a free polis can be best answered by analysing their public documents, in particular decrees, correctly believed to be the most important and certainly the most informative Greek inscriptions.37 The table below presents a synopsis of all extant decrees of the cities of Ionia, Aeolia and Caria, i.e. the countries in which Alexander, on Arrian's and Diodorus' evidence, declared Greek cities free.

City/territory Decrees preceding Fourth century Remaining fourth the fourth century decrees preceding century decrees the Macedonians Ephesus 0—238 l39 4440 Erythrai 341 5—742 4—643 Magnesia on the Maeander 0 0 1—244 Kolophon 0 0 5—645 Priene 0 0 446 Teos 347 0 0 Phygela 0 0 l48 Klazomenai 0 0 l49 Miletus 3 50 251 5—652

37 Meritt (1940) 89. 38 No proper decrees extant. But lEphesos 1, containing accounts of the Artemisium, may have been passed as a decree; the same with a lex sacra contained by lEphesos 1678B. 39 lEphesos 1417, dated by the first editor (Keil, 196) to the beginning of the fourth or even to the end of the fifth century. 40 lEphesos 1389, 1418 (3 decrees), 1419-1438, 1440, 1452, 1474, 2009-2012; SEG 33.932 (5 decrees), 39.1151, 1155—1157, 1159—1161, 1163. Most of inscriptions listed here belong to the earliest periods of Ephesian legislation in Rhodes' classification „first style" and „transitional style" (Rhodes, 358—9). Also some decrees of Rhodes' „second style" may originate in the fourth century (perhaps lEphesos 1441). They are not listed here because of uncertainty as to their dates. 41 Ery II, III, 2. 42 Certain decrees are: SEG 36.1039, 31.969; Ery 6, 8, 12. Ery 9 contains a treaty with the tyrant Hermias of Atarneus, most probably passed by the people of Erythrai as a decree, but because of the damage to the stone we no longer have the initial formulae probably pertaining to the legislative procedure. Ery 15 is either from Erythrai or Chios. 43 Certainly fourth century decrees: Ery 10, 11, 21, 22. Ery 13 and 34 are dated by the editor to the fourth/ third century. 44 IMagn. 1 and perhaps IMagn. 2 dated by the editor to the fourth/third century. 45 Meritt (1935) 379-80 IV, 382-3 VIII, 372-7 II, 377-9 III, 359-72 I, and perhaps 381-2 VII dated by the editor to the fourth/third century. 46 IPriene 2, 5, 9, 10; dates after Crowther. 47 Syll.3 37 and 38; SEG 31.984; SEG 31.985. 48 lEphesos 3111. 49 Ery 161. 50 Milet 1.6.187; Herrmann, 165—6. We learn from the later isopoliteia treaty with Olbia (Milet 1.3.136) that a treaty of this kind had been binding upon these cities much earlier, probably in the fifth century. Doubt- less, it had the form of a decree passed both by Olbia and Miletus. Cf. Seibert (1963) 179—91. 51 LSAM 45 and an unpublished decree mentioned by Ehrhardt, 382, η. 9. 52 Milet 1.3.135, 137, 142; SEG 38.1193; IG II2 1129. Milet 1.3.136, dated to 330-323 (Graham, 99), containing the isopoliteia treaty with Olbia does not have formulae typical of a decree, but without doubt such an

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 20 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

City/territory Decrees preceding Fourth century Remaining fourth the fourth century decrees preceding century decrees the Macedonians All of Ionia 9-11 8-10 66-71 Kyme 0 0 l53 All of Aeolia 0 0 1 Cnidus 0 6-12 0—654 Stratonikeia 0 0 j 55 Tralles 0 l56 0 Koranza 0 l57 258 Amyzon 0 0 l59 Iasos 360 261 1362 Mylasa 0 663 0 Halicarnassus l64 0 l65 All of Caria 4 16-22 18-24 All of Ionia, Aeolia, Caria 13-15 24-32 85-96 In the broadest terms this table reflects trends well known in Greek epigraphy: a minute number of public documents, decrees in particular, preceding the fifth century, a somewhat bigger number in the fifth century, a markedly growing number of inscriptions in the fourth century. In most Greek cities the largest number of decrees was produced (or only inscribed) in the Hellenistic age. Listing precise figures is not necessary here, but this last remark applies to the polets of Ionia, Aeolia and Caria too. On the other hand, the distribution of decrees in the cities included in the table is very uneven between the first two thirds of the fourth century and the last third: in the latter part of the century the number of extant decrees is at least three times bigger than in its (twice as long) first

agreement could only come into force as a result of a decree. The isopoliteia treaty with Istros (Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris 1.62) may have originated in the end of the fourth or in the beginning of the third century, Nawotka (1997) 33-34. 53 IKyme 1. 54 IKnidos 1, 603, 604, 5 (=SEG 39.1117), 7 are dated to the first half of the fourth century. IKnidos 605 was inscribed around the middle of the fourth century. IKnidos 4, 8—10, 160, 213, dated to the second half of the fourth century, may precede the Macedonian invasion or postdate it. 55 Robert (1983) 100. 56 ITralles 3. 57 IStratonikeia 502. 58 IStratonikeia 501, 503. 59 Robert (1983) no 2. 60 SEG 36.982 (3 decrees). 61 Ilasos 1, 52. 62 Ilasos 24, 30, 20 (reedited with substantial amendments in Gauthier [1990] = SEG 40.959), 32, 31, 27, 42, 47, 54, 59, 60, 2; SEG 36.981 (SEG 38.1059 contains another copy of the same decree). Pugliese Caratelli's (289—92) dating of SEG 36.981 to the years immediately following 334 was disputed by Gauthier (BE 1990, 276), yet without good reason, as it seems. To the fourth century may also belong at least some decrees dated by the editor to the fourth/third century: Ilasos 26, 33, 37, 39-41, 45, 46, 50, 53, 56, 57, 64, 66, 69. 63 IMylasa 1-5; SEG 40.985. 64 ML 32. 65 Michel, 452.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 21 part. Of course, this did not happen everywhere, to which I shall return later in this paper. This increase in the number of recorded decrees is most visible in large cities, like Ephesus, Miletus, Iasos, where very extensive archaeological investigation has been taking place over an extended period of time. These cities have yielded a rather substantial number of inscriptions (Ephesus alone more than four thousand). It can therefore be safely assumed that our knowledge of their legislation is not governed by accidental finds of single decrees. No accident can explain why only one Ephesian decree preceding the Macedonian invasion is extant while at least 44 from the last third of the fourth century have survived if a more or less similar number of decrees had been produced in Ephesus in both parts of that century. Quite obviously a lot more decrees were inscribed in many of the cities included in the above table in the last third of the fourth century than in any preceding period. Priene presents a somewhat special case. This city, as we know it now, was built in the period between the end of the Hecatomnid rule and Lysimachus.66 Old Priene did exist, but has not been identified so far,67 which may explain, to a degree, the almost complete dearth of pre-334 inscriptions. This explanation is not perfect since we know that in the transitional period citizens of Priene resided in Naulochos,68 where a number of inscriptions has been found. Nevertheless our knowledge of legislation of Priene may change when old Priene is found. A question which also needs to be addressed is whether these increasing numbers of recorded decrees resulted from the fact that the poleis of Asia Minor became more democratic in the last third of the fourth century, or that their citizens were in time becoming more affluent and better educated and therefore they could afford or simply wanted to inscribe more decrees in the last third than in the first two thirds of that century. The question is vital for the study of constitutional transformations in Asia Minor because one can easily imagine any form of a state, not just a democracy, as capable of producing substantial numbers of written documents, an example being the bureaucratic kingdoms of the ancient Near East.69 This line of argument does not, however, produce valid results since it overlooks the very nature of a polls, a 'citizen state'70 lacking a bureaucratic machinery producing written documents for its own use. Greek authors immersed in the world of the polis saw a close connection between the nature of a jolts' constitution and the degree of openness to which public business was conducted. Openness is one of the principal tenets of democracy, praised by Herodo- tus in the words which he has the Persian Otanes utter: πλήθος δέ αρχον πρώτα μέν οΰνομα πάντων κάλλιστον έχει, ίσονομίην. δεύτερα δέ τούτων των ό μούναρχος ποιέει ου- δέν πάλφ μέν γάρ αρχάς άρχει, υπεύθυνο ν δέ άρχήν εχει βουλεύματα δέ πάντα ές τό κοι- νόν αναφέρει (3.80.6). A demonstration of this openness was the habit of displaying documents inscribed in stone in places accessible to the general public, frequently ac-

66 Boterman, 162-187. 67 Debord, 391 and n. 162. 68 Ib., 186-7. 69 This question is discussed (with references) in Hendrick, 388, 396. 70 Runciman, 347—67, followed by Hansen (1993) 7—29. See also Hendrick, 387—8 for a good polemic with the notion of „writing as an exclusionary medium of communication". 71 More on that in Vernant, 44—52.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 22 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities companied by a formula stating that this was done so that everyone could read it, e.g.: δπως άνειδώσι, σκοπεί βουλομένωι, ϊν' έξήι τώι βουλομένωι τώμ πολιτών έφορδν.72 A long time ago an enormous hiatus was noticed between the numbers of extant inscriptions, in particular of public documents, in Athens (ca. 1400 decrees alone) and in Sparta, Thebes and Corinth (very few surviving decrees).73 Dow has noticed that the reason of that was not some mysterious disappearance of a disproportionately high pro- portion of e.g. Corinthian decrees but the fact that, in many poleis of the classical age, so few of them had ever been inscribed.74 This happened despite the political importance of some of them, their affluence and the wide dissemination of at least elementary edu- cation, which enabled most citizens to read inscriptions in stone.75 What set these poleis apart from Athens was their government, tyrannical or oligarchic for the most of the archaic and classical age. As a rule tyranny and oligarchy were secretive in public affairs.76 The undemocratic poleis prided themselves in having άγραφοι νόμοι while, signifi- cantly, in Athens upon the restoration of democracy in 403 public officers were expressly forbidden to use unwritten laws.77 Dow pointedly summarizes the difference in attitude of various constitutional systems to written public documents: „Demos likes to read what Demos has done, whereas your tyrant or oligarch only invites unwanted publicity, or even defacement of his inscription, when he publishes an edict."78 This is, by the way, precisely what happened to Mausolus' statue in Mylasa.79 The interdependence between constitutional changes and the number of recorded decrees can best be followed in Athens, since due to the abundance of literary sources we almost always know what type of government was in force in Athens in a given year. The earliest extant Athenian decree inscribed in stone is IG I3 1 of 508,80 which makes it almost contemporary with the reforms of Cleisthenes. The number of early fifth-century decrees was not big and it further decreased in the period of the rule of the Areopagus (480—457).81 It grew in the later part of the fifth century and even more so after democracy was restored in 403: we have 488 decrees recorded in stone between 403 and 322, and the total number of decrees in this period, including those quoted or referred to by other sources, is c. 800.82 The number of inscribed Athenian decrees declined sharply in the epoch of oligarchy led by Demetrius of Phaleron. In the Hellenistic age the periods of oligarchic and democratic government find reflection in smaller or bigger numbers of recorded decrees.83 Thus, both the authors and the epigraphic sources attest to the close link between the openness of public life and the nature of the government of a polish

72 An in-depth study of these formulae is in the paper of Hendrick (408—425) who very correctly calls them „democratic formulae of disclosure". 73 Dow, 89, 113-9. 74 Ib., 119. 75 Thomas, 131-2. 76 Cf. Brock, 167-8. 77 And. 1.85 and 1.87; cf. Thomas, 147. 78 Dow, 119. 79 The perpetrators were expelled (IMylasa 2), but when the Persian rule was over the people of Iasos honou- red them with a decree SEG 36.981 (another copy in SEG 38.1059), cf. Pugliese Caratelli, 289-92. 80 The date is after Hendrick, 393. 81 Meritt (1940) 90; Detienne, 56. 82 Hansen (1987) 108-13. 83 Hendrick, 402—7; see also the interesting charts (392 and 394) showing a fluctuation in numbers of surviving Athenian inscriptions cut in successive periods of 100 and 25 years. 84 Dow, Meritt (1940), Detienne, and, with some reservation, also Tomas and Hendrick.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 23

The number of fourth-century decrees of cities of Ionia, Aeolia and Caria inscribed in stone, although not negligible (109—128 put together), is not big enough for a sound statistical analysis, particularly that some 30 Greek and hellenised native towns existed in this area, 18 of which produced epigraphic sources listed in the table above. Most of the inscribed decrees originate in six cities (Miletus, Ephesus, Kolophon, Erythrai, Cnidus, Iasos) and some of them at least merit closer attention. Legislative activity in Miletus, apart from Ephesus the biggest city of Ionia, is reflected in epigraphic sources originating in both parts of the fourth century, although on their evidence it increased markedly after 334.85 The epigraphic sources testify to the evolution from an Athenian-type democracy in the first part of the fourth century, through an oligarchy, probably introduced in Miletus by Mausolus, to a new democracy established in 334.86 This was a democracy of a rather moderate nature, with a probouleutic procedure in which motions of decrees were prepared and tabled by ad hoc committees or boards of magistrates,87 excluding in practice, if not by law, the so called pure decrees of the demos. This procedure, introduced most likely in 334, was predominant in Miletus throughout the Hellenistic age. Possibly it is because of the moderate nature of the Milesian democracy, that so much fewer decrees were inscribed in Miletus than in Ephesus in the last third of the fourth century. In Ephesus at least 44 decrees inscribed in the last third of the fourth century point to the active assembly, whose very existence before the Macedonian invasion is barely attested. Differently than in Miletus, in Ephesus most extant decrees were recorded in an abbreviated form, without the formulae of the proposer of motion. This makes any comparison of probouleutic procedures in these cities tricky. Nevertheless, in all six cases88 in which this formula is included in Ephesian decrees, it has the form ό δείνα εϊπεν. Even if the assumption that it was the only formula of the proposer of motion used in Ephesus in the last third of the fourth century is not fully justified, the present state of evidence indicates that the Ephesian assembly was certainly not as tighdy controlled by probouleutic bodies as that in Miletus. It is, of course, an indication of a much more radical form of democracy in Ephesus than in Miletus. What we can deduce from epigraphic sources on the character of Ephesian constitution is congruous with Arrian's account of the political development in Ephesus in the 330s. It can be inferred from Arrian's description of the events in Ephesus in 334 that two years earlier, during Parmenion's offensive in Asia Minor, the people of Ephesus rose against the Persian-supported oligarchy which was subsequendy replaced by a democracy. To its pro-Macedonian mood testifies Arrian's remark about a portrait statue of Philip II placed in the Artemisium where he became a sjnnaos, albeit not a sjnnaos theos, of Artemis.90 A honorific decree for an otherwise unknown Macedonian, Alexander son of

85 Evidence for it are decrees listed in the table and a titulus honorarius Syll.3 225 of 345/4. 86 Nawotka (1999) 30-1, 33-4. 87 Ib., 98-114. 88 IEphesos 1420, 1452; SEG 39.1151, 1156, 1159, 1160. 89 Arr. an. 1.17.11; cf. Badian (1966) 40; Bosworth (1980) 131-2. 90 Arr. an. 1.17.11. The statue is called είκών and not άγαλμα, which is the usual word for a cult statue. Yet the honour granted to Philip was very high anyway; see Badian (1981), Badian (1996) 13; Lott 26—32. The traditional view, held by Habicht, 14, or Heisserer, 67—8, is that Philip received a cult statue in the Artemi- sium.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 24 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

Amyntas, may belong in this period91. It is written in the Ionian dialect, which in Ephe- sus in the 320s gave way to the koine, and the first editor rightfully described this document as one of the earliest Ephesian decrees.92 In 335 the oligarchs, probably led by Syrphax, invited Memnon and, supported by his mercenaries, overthrew the democracy and imposed on Ephesus a short-lived reign of terror during which, Arrian says,93 many citizens were exiled, Philip's statue was toppled, the Artemisium ransacked, and the tomb of Herophytos, the leader of the democratic faction, was destroyed.94 In 334, with Ale- xander's army in sight, a new democratic revolution broke out. Violent moves of the people against the pro-Persian oligarchs, whom Alexander had to take into protection (Arr. an. 1.17.12), foretold the radical nature of the Ephesian democracy, attested to by both the abundant production of decrees and the absence of control of the legislative procedure by narrow probouleutic bodies. The decrees of Erythrai are distributed much more evenly over the whole fourth century, with no radical increase in their number traceable after 334. Perhaps the constitutional development of Erythrai provides an explanation for this situation, quite untypical of Ionia. Around 453/2 a political system shaped on the example of Athens was introduced in Erythrai95 and it survived almost to the mid-fourth century.96 Legislating was quite vigorous from the end of the 350s until Alexander, as four decrees from these period are extant.97 But the only two decrees98 whose initial formulae are extant were passed by the boule on motion {gnome) of committees. In all probability at that time Erythrai was ruled by an oligarchic government, most likely imposed with the assistance of Mauso- lus." From 334 the assembly again was the principal legislative body in Erythrai, but procedures were very different from those of the fifth and early fourth century.100 Whe- never this can be established,101 the psephismata of the last third of the fourth century were passed on motion (gnome) of probouleutic boards. Thus the renewed democracy in Erythrai was probably, like in Miletus, of a moderate nature. In Caria Iasos yielded most decrees. The sparse fifth-century evidence indicates that Iasos was a democratic polis at that time.102 At one point Iasos, too, lost its independence to Mausolus. We even hear of an anti-Mausolus conspiracy whose participants were expelled from Iasos.103 Nothing, however, indicates that in Iasos, as in Erythrai, the

91 IEphesos 1419. 92 Keil, 239. 93 Arr. an. 1.17.9 and 11-12; date: Bosworth (1980) 133. 94 On Herophytos: Polyain. 7.23.2; cf. Debord, 388. 95 See an Athenian decree on the constitution for Erythrai IG I3 14 = Ery 4. 96 A few decrees with Athenian-type formulae are extant: Ery II and 1Π; SEG 36.1039 and perhaps Ery 15 of the mid-fourth century, if this inscription is indeed from Erythrai and not from Chios. 97 Ery 8, 9, 12; SEG 31.969. 98 Ery 8 and SEG 31.969. Both are concerned with honours for Mausolus and Artemisia. 99 Hornblower, 107—10. The date he gives for the oligarchic coup (ca. 365) may be too early if Ery 15, with democratic formulae, originates from Erythrai and not from Chios. 100 The replacement of epimenioi by exetastai in 334 could also be a sign of a constitutional change from oligarchy to democracy in Erythrai, Debord, 404. 101 Ery 21 and 34, if this last one dates to the end of the fourth and not to the beginning of the third century. 102 We know that both of the better preserved decrees in the dossier contained in SEG 36.982 have the formula εδοξε ΐήι βουλήι και τώι δήμωι and the only decree (C in the dossier) with extant formula of proposer of motion was passed on the motion of a single citizen (ό δείνα εϊπεν). 103 Ilasos 1; cf. Hornblower, 112-3.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 25 overlordship of Mausolus led to the replacement of a democracy by an oligarchy.104 Most likely the democracy at that time was a moderate one.105 Beginning in 334, the legislative activity became more vigorous, bills were adopted both on motion of boards106 and of individual citizens.10 The assembly pay (ekklesiastikon 08) attests to the decidedly democratic character of Iasos in the epoch of Alexander the Great. Because sources for the age of Mausolus are not so good it is not possible to establish what exactly the scope of constitutional changes was in 334. Nevertheless, without any doubt under Alexander the democracy in Iasos became more active and radical than in the previous period, the memory of which was to be erased by honouring those who oppo- sed Mausolus in Mylasa in 361/0.109 Upon this review of fourth century constitutional transformations in the best docu- mented cities of Ionia and Caria, some conclusions can be drawn. From 334 almost everywhere in Ionia, albeit to a varying degree, there was a true explosion of legislative activity. Beside the cities analysed above, it happened in the smaller pokis too. The table on p. 19—20 shows that the beginning of the traceable legislative activity of Priene, Kolophon, Magnesia on the Maeander, Phygela, and Kla2omenai occurred in the last third of the fourth century. It is a justified conclusion, therefore, that at that time democracy was indeed established in Ionia just as, according to Arrian, Alexander had wanted. The evidence for Aeolia is so minuscule that nothing of substance can said on its basis. On the other hand, there is nothing there either to disprove Arrian's version of events. The situation in Caria is more ambiguous than in Ionia. Epigraphic sources do not attest to any example of active democracy in the last third of the fourth century beside Iasos. The hellenised Carian towns Mylasa, Tralles, Amyzon, and Koranza, and the Greek city of Cnidus had decrees inscribed under Mausolus or in the last third of the fourth century, albeit without the democratic formulae εδοξε τήι βουλήι και τώι δήμωι/εδοξε των δήμωι. Instead they employed the formulae εδοξε Μυλασεΰσιν (Άμυζονεΰσιν, Κοραν- ζεϋσιν, Κνιδίοις), έψηφίσατο Τραλδεΐς.110 Similar habit of issuing public documents in the name of the polis and not its democratic legislative bodies (boule and demos) is attested in Miletus in the era of oligarchy installed by Mausolus.111 There is no reason to believe that Carian towns were democratic before Alexander and nothing in epigraphic sources shows that their constitution changed in 334. In the light of what we know about the relation between the number of public documents and the constitution of a polis, Carian cities both before Alexander and after 334 were oligarchic. Inscriptions of Koranza, Amyzon and Stratonikeia cut under Philip Arrhidaios, besides being dated by his regnal years, also bear a formula Άσάνδρου έξαιθραπεύοντος.112 It

104 Hornblower, 112-3; Bosworth (1988) 253. 105 Two decrees of the boule and demos belong to the period of Mausolus: Ilasos 1 and 52. Only the last one has a formula of proposer of motion and it reads γνώμη πρυτάνεων. 106 Ilasos 24, 27, 59, 60. 107 SEG 36.981 (another copy SEG 38.1059); Ilasos 32, 42, 54. 108 Ilasos 20, republished with substantial amendments and commentary in Gauthier (1990). The date of this inscription is 330—325. 109 SEG 36.981 (another copy SEG 38.1059), passed in 334 or shortly after, cf. Pugüese Caratelli. 110 See the decrees listed in the table. 111 Syll.3 225; cf. Nawotka (1999) 34, 80. 112 Robert (1983) no. 2 (Amyzon) and 100 (Stratonikeia); IStratonikeia 501, 503 (Koran2a).

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 26 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities clearly shows that they were subject to control of the satrap of Caria Asander son of Agathon, the former Companion of Alexander the Great. It is first attested in 323,113 the year when Asander was appointed satrap by the council of the Macedonian generals in Babylon.114 It is not very likely that he would have been able to subjugate the Carian cities in such a short time if they had been free prior to his appointment. For that a considerable force and time would have been needed. Therefore an alternative explanation is much more likely: even before 323 some, or perhaps most, of the Carian cities were controlled by a satrap, and Asander simply inherited this state of affairs. Considering that the right to issue one's laws in a democratic fashion and the freedom from outside control constituted the essence of the notion of autonomia, Carian cities were not, in the light of their inscriptions, autonomoi, i.e. free. As a matter of fact this picture does not contradict Arrian's account about Alexander's resolution to transfer power in Caria to Ada daughter of Hecatomnus.115 Since Ptolemy was in charge of military affairs in this territory, the responsibilities of Ada and, after her death, a satrap (probably Philoxenos116) were of administrative nature,117 including the control of Carian towns. But we also have the passage in Diodorus quoted above which, read as a proof of Alexander maintaining the same principles in Caria as in Ionia and Aeolia,118 seems to contradict the fourth-century Carian inscriptions. Preference should be given to epigraphic sources since they, as legal documents contemporary with the events to which they refer, are more reliable. In other words, either Diodorus or his sources were carried by rhetoric or they meant that Alexander had proclaimed free only the old Greek poleis on the see shore. And indeed inscriptions show such a city in Caria, Iasos, no less autonomos than poleis in Ionia. At any rate, certainly there was no universal proclamation of freedom of all Greek and native hellenised cities of Asia Minor119 but Alexander's policy was finely tuned and selective in this respect too. Another important quality of a free polis was the right to run its finances, in particular the freedom from tribute120 such as that which the Greek cities of Asia Minor had to submit to the Great King. There are three passages in our sources pertinent to this problem: the places in Arrian and Diodorus quoted above,121 and Alexander's edict concerning Priene in which he resolved that inhabitants of villages were to submit the phoros, while Priene was being released from the syntaxir. ιούς δέ κατοικοΰντας έν ταΐς κώμαις ταύχαις φέρειν τους φόρους, της δέ συντάξεως άφίημι τήμ Πριηνέωμ πόλιν.122 This document is of particular importance because of both its date and its legal character. This second quality is perhaps of even greater importance since the legal language carries an inherently far greater precision in legal matters than historical accounts which were written some three-four hundred years after Alexander and which were no less concerned with elegant idiom than with legal details of a world long gone by (from their perspecti-

113 IStratonikeia 501 from Koranza. 1,4 Berve II, 164; Billows (1995) 91-2. 115 Arr. an. 1.23.7—8; about Ada see Hornblower, 45-51. 116 Jacobs, 55; Bosworth (1994) 870-1; Ruzicka (1992) 153. 117 Bosworth (1988) 229-30. 1,8 As maintained e.g. by Bosworth (1988) 153; Sartre, 20; Stoneman, 28; Ruzicka (1992) 138-40, 154. 119 As claimed by some, e.g. Lott, 37. More sober is Bosworth (1994) 869. 120 About the importance of this factor in determining the scope of a polls' independence see now Ma, 155. 121 Arr. an. 1.18.2; Diod. 17.24.1. 122 IPriene 1, lines 11-15.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 27 ve). The meaning of the passage from IPriene 1 is rather unambiguous: it refers to the syntaxis and (different from it) taxes called phoroi. These phoroi are taxes paid by the inhabitants of villages on the royal land (χώρα in line 10), different from the rural territory of Priene, also called χώρα.123 What is meant by phoroi here is almost certainly a variety of taxes and fees once in existence in Persia and maintained by Alexander as heir (by virtue of conquest) to the Achaemenid economic system.124 The plural (φόροι) is employed most correctly in this inscription, confirming the precision of its legal language. Since Alexander states expressly that phoroi are payable by the inhabitants of villages within the royal chora, which is clearly defined125 as an entity different than the chora of Priene, the inhabitants of the rural territory of Priene obviously were not liable to these taxes. In addition, this passage in IPriene 1 shows that Alexander was recognising Priene's right to control its territory which was a constituent factor in the Greek notion of the autonomia of apolts}26 Taking all of this into account it is hard to understand the persistent misinterpretation of the word syntaxis in this inscription as synonymous with phoros,127 The argument built on the perceived obliteration of the difference between these two words in Seleucid and Ptolemaic documents of the late third and second century128 fails to convince. This difference was quite pronounced in the political and legal language of the fourth century. The charter of the Second Athenian League of 377 consciously used the word syntaxis, stipula- ting that the member states were not required to pay a phoros, thus stressing the difference between this league and its fifth-century predecessor.129 To the nature of syntaxis in the Second Athenian League testifies also the fact that funds created by collecting it were disbursed by the decision of the synedrion of allied states: και εχ[ωσ]ιν o[i| φρουροί οί έν Ά[νδρω]ι μισ[θό]ν έκ των συντάξεων κ[α]τ[ά τ]ά δόγ[ματ]α τ[ώ]ν συμμάχων. Later, on the testimony of an inscription of 314—306, a contribution in the Nesiotic League was also called syntaxis.131 The consistent usage of the word syntaxis, with the meaning limited to the contribution paid by the members of an alliance, in the period preceding and immediately following IPriene 1 leaves no doubt as to what the word means in this context. Also Alexander did not fail to recognise the difference between phoros and syntaxis making one Nikias responsible for collecting these two different forms of payment: κατέλιπε ... των δέ φόρων (τε και) της συντάξεως (της) άποφορας Νικίαν.132

123 Sherwin-White, 83-4. 124 About these taxes in Asia Minor see Hornblower, 161—5 where there is, however, an erroneous statement that, in the light of this inscription, Alexander believed to be owner of chora of Priene, cf. Sherwin-White, 83. About appropriating Achaemenid tax income by Alexander see Briant (1980) 41. 125 Briant (1980) 41. 126 Debord, 439. 127 Recently Sherwin-White, 83. 128 Ib., 85-6. 129 Theop. FGrH 175 F 98; IG II2 43 (reedited in Cargill, 16—27): μήτε φόρον φέροντα; cf. Chankowski, 215-6. 130 IG II2 123 = Syll.3 192; see Cargill, 124-7; Seager, 171. 131 IG XI.4 1036: [από των κοιν]ών χρημάτων κατά [τήν σύνταξιν] την νϋν ούσαν τοις νησιώταις ύπ[έρ τών Άντιγο]νείων καϊ έάν τίνες τών νησιωτών [μή τηλώσιν] ίς ταΰτα τήν σύνταξιν τήν έπιβ[άλλουσαν — — ]. It is a quotation from a law of the Nesiotic League concerned with the organisation of a holiday of the League; hence in this document the word syntaxis could only be used in the meaning of contribution payable to the common fund. About the Nesiotic League in that period see Billows (1990) 220—5. 132 Arr. an. 1.17.7 with amendments proposed by Wirth, 91—8. Bosworth (1980) 130 rejects them but with arguments not pertinent to this passage.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 28 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

Additional arguments for a difference between sjntaxis and phoros is in the wording of letters exchanged between Erythrai and Antiochus I or Antiochus II, concerning the re- quest of Erythrai to be released from an extraordinary tax levied because of a war with the Celts.133 The king admitted that Erythrai used to enjoy a tax-free status under his predecessors: επί τε Αλεξάνδρου και'Αντιγόνου ήν και αφορολόγητος ή πόλις ύμών.134 If a tribute had been levied by Alexander under the new name of sjntaxis, it would have made no sense for Erythrai to claim the phoros-ftee status received from Alexander whose benevolence towards Greek cities Antiochus was asked to match by the people of Erythrai.135 In the light of both epigraphic evidence and ancient authors, the sjntaxis was a contribution levied for the purpose of common war against Persia.136 I shall return to the question whether it was voluntary or not later in this paper. Other important issues are the universal character of the sjntaxis, when it was levied and how high it was. With no source data available an attempt to answer the last of these questions would be a worth- less speculation. Similarly we do not know by virtue of which legal procedure a polis was liable to contributing its portion of the sjntaxis. Almost certainly it did not have anything to do with the charter of the League of Corinth because nothing indicates that the poleis of Asia Minor participated in it. The case of Aspendos {vide infra) suggests that there was some kind of agreement between Alexander and individual cities,13 written or only sworn, which regulated financial arrangements, among other things. Our sources do not say expressly for how long the sjntaxis was levied. But we know that in 330 upon the final defeat of Darius III and the capture of Ecbatana, Alexander released the allied Greek troops. Thus he symbolically ended the common expedition which aimed at aven- ging the Greek temples burnt by Xerxes and liberating the Greeks of Asia. Opinio commu- nis, probably rightfully, accepts that at the same moment the sjntaxis was abolished too, since on the one hand the common goal was met and on the other Alexander became financially independent of his Greek allies after having captured the enormous riches of the Great King.139 Then, there is the question of whether all cities of Asia Minor were required to pay a sjntaxis. There is a general agreement that Alexander expected all members of the League of Corinth to provide troops and the poleis of Asia Minor to deliver cash. But there is no positive proof of that. The examples of Chios, which had to provide 20 warships, and of Rhodes, obliged to furnish 10 warships, show that at least some allies who joined with Alexander during the war were expected to contribute armed forces rather than money. To that in Curtius' account of events in Bactria in 329 there are some Milesians mentio-

133 Ery 30 (decree of Erythrai) and 31 (Antiochus' response); about the circumstances of this exchange see Billows (1995) 76-7. 134 Ery 31, lines 22-3. 135 About Greek cities craftily manipulating Hellenistic monarchs see Billows (1995) 72—80. The book by Ma is, to a very large extent, concerned with this peculiar type of dialogue between poleis and kings in the Hellenistic age. 136 Wirth; Bosworth (1988) 253-4. 137 Despite the total absence of source evidence for the membership of Greek cities of Asia Minor in this league, a prolonged but absolutely fruitless discussion of this subject has been raging for more than a century; see Bosworth (1988) 155. 138 Cf. Magie, 828. 139 Badian (1966) 60; Lane Fox, 131; Ruzicka (1997) 129.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 29 ned among the soldiers of Alexander.140 It was of course after the allied Greek contin- gents had been released and these Milesians, like many other Greeks, certainly served as hired troops. Nevertheless this presumably sizeable detachment of the Milesians in Ale- xander's army may have originated in the original responsibility of Miletus and perhaps some other cities of Asia Minor to field troops141 instead of submitting a syntaxis. There could be an explanation of a military nature of Alexander's decision to release Priene from the syntaxis as well. Unfortunately, IPriene 1 is broken and the last readable word is φρουρ[άν] (garrison), immediately following the decision of releasing Priene from the syntaxis. If there was some connection between this decision and a garrison, it had to do either with expenditures incurred by Priene in maintaining a Macedonian garrison in its territory or with Priene fielding its own troops on garrison service as its share of responsibilities in the common war effort. IPriene 1, as we know it, is an excerpt of the authen- tic edict of Alexander but it was inscribed in a prominent place only much later, under Lysimachus.142 It is hard to understand why Priene would have been interested at that time in advertising the fact of once having had a foreign garrison in its territory. The very fortress of Teloneia and a garrison maintained there by Priene are well attested to in the third century.143 Hence it would not come as a surprise if it was garrisoned also by Priene against the Persians in 334 in fulfilment of the city's obligation in the alliance with Alexander. Two exceptions to the rule of the freedom from a tribute are Ephesus and Aspendos. Alexander ordered Ephesus pay to Artemis this amount of money which until then it used to submit to the Great King as a tribute (Arr. an. 1.17.10). The conventional explanation of this decision is that Alexander felt slandered by the Ephesians who turned down his offer to rebuild the Artemisium saying that it was unfit for one god to build a temple to the other.144 The greatest difficulty in accepting this story as a precise reflection of Alexander's dealings with Ephesus in 334 is not as much its anecdotal charac- ter145 as some details which are unlikely for that year. In 334 and in fact even later, until the capture of the imperial treasures of Persia, Alexander was in no position to incur expenses of rebuilding the Artemisium and also nobody would have referred to him as a god as early as 334.1 6 The story of Alexander's offer, although most likely genuine, is difficult to date147 and should not be used to draw conclusions about relations between the king and Ephesus in 334. The decision to let Ephesus pay a tribute to Artemis should be seen in no connection with it. To that, it was made before the embassies from Magnesia and Tralles appeared before Alexander, i.e. before his policy towards the poleis of Asia Minor crystalised and Alkimachos was dispatched to make the cities of Ionia and Aeolia free. Therefore one must not look at the Ephesian tribute from the perspective of the later tnbute./syntaxis arrangements throughout Asia Minor. Ephesus was still liable to

140 Curt. 7.5; about this whole episode see Parke and Holt, 73—5. 141 Parke, 66-7. 142 About the decision to inscribe the most important documents in the temple of Athena and Priene's selectivity in that regard see Sherwin-White, 67—82. 143 Robert (1976) 198, 201-2, 205; Crowther, 229-30. 144 Strab. 14.1.22; accepted in the context of the events of 334 by Badian (1966) 45, later (Badian [1996] 24—5) withdrawn. 145 Stressed by Habicht, 18-9; also Stewart, 98-9. 146 Badian (1996) 24-5. 147 Bosworth (1980) 132-3.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 30 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities submit a tribute, which, on the face of it, made it underprivileged when compared with its Ionian neighbours, but of course the tribute money ended up in the Artemisium which was controlled by the city itself,148 certainly offsetting a large part of the costs of its reconstruction149 for which Ephesus was responsible, tribute or not. Therefore Ale- xander's tribute arrangements were in fact a privilege for Ephesus which undoubtedly appreciated his policy, since Alexander's image was soon placed in the Artemisium.150 The case of Aspendos was completely different. It first agreed to submit a contribution, and Arrian's wording (οί δέ ύπέρ τε τοΰ άργυρίου και τούς ίππους παραδώσειν ξυνθέ- μενοι άπήλθον) (1.26.3) suggests a negotiated covenant and not a unilateral decision imposed by Alexander.151 Thereafter the people of Aspendos reneged on the financial side of the agreement, only to change their mind again when faced with Macedonian soldiers. They asked for pardon and received it on condition of accepting far worse arrangements: a one-time contribution doubled to 100 talents, satrapal control, phoros, and hostages (Arr. an. 1.27.3—4). But the example of Aspendos is no gauge of Alexan- der's policy since this city was punished after reneging on the previous agreement and not burdened with a heavy tribute as a matter of Alexander's policy. Then, Aspendos is in Pamphylia to which no attested declaration of autonomia and freedom from the tribute applies, hence it should not be expected to be treated in the same way as Ionia, Aeolia or Caria. On the other hand the examples of Aspendos and earlier of Miletus prove that neu- trality in the conflict between Alexander and Darius III was not an option for the Greek cities in Asia Minor. In a way it heralds the Hellenistic age when even the most powerful poleis were able to keep aloof of conflicts between major powers only when one of them wanted it.152 A few dozen years earlier Plato stated that war was the natural state of things in politics.153 Indeed, in the Greek world every state could expect hostilities from its neighbour unless there was a binding peace treaty between them. This political doc- trine made it necessary for the poleis of Asia Minor to choose their side in the war. If the Persian side was chosen, the city could face siege, taking, in keeping with the laws of war of that epoch,154 the risk of destruction of property and loss of freedom. That this was not a legal theory only, Thebes and Gryneion provided ready examples. Indeed, in 334, by letting Alexander dedicate a bronze chandelier, taken a year earlier from Thebes, to the local temple of Apollo155, Kyme showed that the sack of Thebes was, in the eyes of many Greeks of Asia, a legitimate act of war. Choosing Alexander's side meant having to pay a sjntaxis to him for some time since it automatically meant being in a state of war with the Great King. The fact that most Greek cities of Asia Minor selected an alliance with the winning side, which in addition offered them better conditions, does not prove that they were not free, but only testifies to their political wisdom. Perceiving

148 Ehrenberg, 14. 149 Lane Fox, 131. 150 Plin. nat 35.92; cf. Habicht, 18; Bosworth (1980) 113. 151 Tarn II, 212. 152 A poignant example is that of Rhodes being able to withstand the siege of Demetrius Poliorcetes and to remain neutral only thanks to Ptolemy's assistance; cf. Cawkwell, 114. 153 Plat. leg. 625e: άνοιαν δή μοι δοκεϊ καταγνώναι των πολλών ώς οϋ μανθανόντων δτι πόλεμος άεί πδσιν διά βίου συνεχής έστι προς άπάσας τάς πόλεις. 154 Cf. Bickermann (1934) 358-60. 155 Plin. nat 34.14; on the date see Debord, 439.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 31 the decision of the overwhelming majority of poleis of Asia Minor as proof of their subject status156 means that one has a highly idealised view of a free polis as an entity enjoying an absolute freedom in foreign policy matters: in this view only some Greek superpower, such as Athens was in the fifth century, would be free, and almost no one else. This outright or hidden athenocentrism of many classical scholars157 has been ad- versely affecting the study of the Hellenistic age for years, which has often been dismis- sed as unimportant in the history of the Greek polis. In fact, at least from the King's Peace the Greeks were used to the idea that the autonomia of a polis was compatible with restrictions on the freedom of foreign policy.158 Decrees recorded in stone and accounts by the authors provide some information about the foreign policy of the poleis of Asia Minor in the time of Alexander and immediately afterwards. Relations with Macedonia and its king were of course of paramount importance. We know of numerous embassies dispatched to Alexander, which are either attested to expressly, as those of Tralles and Magnesia (Arr. an. 1.18.1), Miletus (Arr. an. 1.19.1), and Iasos (Ilasos 30), or which may be deduced from decisions taken by Alexan- der. This was undoubtedly the case with Priene. Alexander dedicated the shrine of Athe- na, which was the principal temple of Priene.159 It is a justified guess that Priene's decision to agree on this serious encroachment by the king on the territory of civic pride must have been preceded by serious negotiations and accompanied by hefty subsidies towards building expenses. Good relations with the ruling power were also built by means of granting citizenship to Macedonians, both to high ranking generals, like Antigonus Monophtalmos and Klei- tos (Alexander's admiral),160 and to persons (probably officers of Alexander and the dia- docbt) otherwise unknown.161 Perhaps some of them took over manors once held by Iranian aristocrats162 and they were granted citizenship because their real estates were united with the chorai of the neighbouring poleis,163 Of course, honours were granted to citizens of other states too.164 Soon after freedom was restored to them, poleis of Asia Minor began negotiating and signing treaties with other Greek cities: Miletus with Sar- des, Kyzikos, Phygela, Olbia,165 and later, but most likely still in the fourth century, with Istros, Priene with Maroneia.167 Priene is also known to have sent an embassy to

156 As has been done by Bickermann and scholars following in his footsteps. 157 About that see Gauthier (1984) 82-6 and Gruen, 341. 158 Billows (1990) 195. 159 IPriene 156. 160 IPriene 2; IEphesos 1435. Other decrees of the last third of the fourth century granting citizenship and/ or other honours to identifiable Macedonians are IEphesos 1431, 1436, 1440, 1452, 2011 (all from Ephe- sus); IG II2 1129 (Miletus); Ilasos 32 (from Iasos). 161 IEphesos 1427, 1429, 1432-1434, 1422, 2009, SEG 33.932V, 39.1157 (all from Ephesus); Ilasos 60 (from Iasos). 162 On real estates in Asia Minor held by Iranian aristocrats see Debord, 183—196. 163 I owe this suggestion to R. Lane Fox. 164 IEphesos 1420, 1424-1426, 2010, SEG 33.932II-IV, 39.1152, 1156, 1159, 1160 (all from Ephesus); SEG 38.1139 (from Miletus); Meritt (1935) 379-80 IV (from Kolophon); SEG 36.981, Ilasos 42, 54, 59 (from Iasos); IKyme 1 (from Kyme). 165 Milet 1.3.135-137, 142. 166 Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris 1.62. 167 IPriene 10.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 32 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Gties

Panathenaia.168 This review shows that the poleis of Asia Minor handled the foreign policy lore typical of the Greek cities of that epoch. They appreciated the importance of Macedonia and successor states, as 20 out of 46 readable decrees dealing with foreign policy matters are concerned with relations with these states. Our sources, especially those produced in Asia Minor, point at 334 as the year when fundamental changes began in Ionia, Aeolia and the old coastal Greek cities of Caria. The few democracies which survived the Persian rule became, for the most part, more active and radical; in other poleis oligarchic regimes were replaced by democratic gover- nments. The abundant legislative production and signs of active assemblies indicate that not only the name but the very nature of the states was democratic. The poleis of Ionia, Aeolia and on the coast of Caria controlled their rural territories and finances, were in general not liable to tribute and were only for a limited time (probably for four years) required to submit a contribution for the purpose of the war with Persia, which for them was the war of liberation. In all probability they, in contrast to inland Caria, were not subject to satrapal control. During the whole rule of Alexander only two Macedonian interventions in internal affairs of a polis of Asia Minor are attested to.169 The first occurred in 334 when Alexan- der made the slaughter of oligarchs in Ephesus cease. Putting an end to an internal struggle {stasis) should not be considered a serious encroachment on a polis1 liberty;170 the step taken by Alexander in Ephesus was well received by the Greeks. 71 The second intervention was by Philoxenos, probably the satrap of Caria after Ada's death,172 when Ephesus refused to hand over the three brothers Anaxagoras, Kodros and Diodotos who had killed a tyrant Hegesias. They were apprehended and sentenced by Philoxenos. No precise date can be assigned to this event, although its historicity should not be doub- ted.173 This intervention of course infringed upon the sovereignty of Ephesus, although Philoxenos probably aimed at preventing an internal strife in this city. Despite these, admittedly rare, examples of outside intervention in their affairs, in 334 the Greek cities of Asia Minor became free by Greek standards of that epoch, as the overwhelming evidence of the ancient sources shows. They believed in that too. Already in 334 the people of Priene proclaimed in an inscription: αυτονόμων Ιόντων Πριηνέων.174 The precise meaning of that was not quite the beginning of a new era,175 this method of counting years had not yet been invented by the Greeks;176 but still for the people of Priene a new epoch dawned in 334.177 Long after 334, also Erythrai associated its acqui-

168 IPriene 5. 169 Not counting of course with Jehne, 209 the original intervention when oligarchies were overthrown on Alexander's order. 170 Magie, 824-5. 171 Arr. an. 1.17.12. 172 This episode is described by Polyaenus 6.49 using an unidentified source. About Philoxenos, see Bosworth (1994) 870-1; Jacobs, 55. 173 Badian (1966) 56-7, 64. 174 IPriene 2. 175 As Lane Fox, 130 wants. 176 Only in Gambreion in Mysia were years counted according to regnal years of Alexander (Leschhorn, 12), but this was not an era either since this habit did not live longer than Alexander. The first Greek era was that of the Seleucids, Leschhorn, 9—10. 177 Habicht, 25.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 33 ring the autonomia with Alexander, and Kolophon remembered that its freedom (eleutherio) was gained thanks to him.178 Another measure of the attitude of the Greeks of Asia toward Alexander are his cults. Although there is little support for the traditional view that they were first instituted as early as 334,179 their beginning certainly dates to some time in Alexander's lifetime, perhaps as late as 324.180 His cult is attested to in a quite limited number of places: Alexan- dria in Egypt, Rhodes, Thasos, Apollonia Mordiaion in Pisidia, Alexandreion of the Io- nian Koinon, Troy, Ephesus, Priene, Erythrai, Teos, Bargylia, Magnesia on the Maeander, Gerasa, Kommagene, Skopos, Koinon of Macedonia.181 The cult in Alexandria is that of the founder of the city. In Kommagene it was introduced in the first century by Antio- chus I who claimed Alexander as his ancestor. Alexander cults in Alexandria Mordiaion and Gerasa, allegedly founded by Alexander, sprang up under Caracalla and Heliogabal respectively when these originally native towns were searching for good founders to gain respectability as Greek poleis. The cults in Macedonia are of third-century A.D. origin.182 The cults of Alexander with a Hellenistic pedigree which are not connected with the foundation of a city are few, and they are concentrated predominantly in Ionia. They ought not to be perceived only as a sign of political expediency as some of them would last well into the early Empire.183 This territorial distribution of the Hellenistic-age cults of Alexander is not accidental: it further confirms the good memory his deeds left first of all in Ionia and also in some other countries of Asia Minor and in adjacent islands. The long discussion of the question of liberating the Greeks of Asia by Alexander has been progressing largely without touching upon things truly important for the Greeks of the fourth century. The rigorism of academic disputes about returning or granting freedom and the monarch's inability or power to cancel it as well as attempts to describe the precise degree of dependence of the poleis of Asia Minor in the epoch of Alexander the Great would have been alien to the fourth-century Greeks. It ought to be remembered that their political language, refined and rich beyond comparison, altogether lacked technical expressions referring to relations between a king and a polis, such as the Romans had, for whom every foreign city within their Empire was civitas stipendiaria, civitas foederata, or civitas sine foedere libera et immunis.184 For the fourth-century Greeks, with whom this paper is concerned, the practical aspects of liberty of which the most important was δημοκρατία, often identified with ελευθερία, were of greatest interest. Now the motivation behind and the very shape of Alexander's decision may be considered in some detail, bearing in mind that whatever his true intention was, in the end it led to liberating the poleis of Ionia, probably also of Aeolia and a part of Caria. Tarn made a sober remark185 that the most important factor determining Alexander's deci-

178 Ery 31 and Meritt (1935) 359-72 I, respectively. 179 So Habicht, 22-5; Sartre, 20. 180 Badian (1996) 24-5; Stewart, 98-102. 181 Lists with reference to sources are in Habicht, 17—22, 26—8, 36; Stewart, 419—20. 182 Stewart, ib. 183 E.g. in Ephesus: SEG 4.521 of the second century A.D.; cf. Lane Fox, 131. 184 Bickermann for lack of Greek terms obviously imprecisely referred to Hellenistic poleis subject to monarchs as ävitates stipendiariae and to free cities as dvitates sine foedere liberae et immunes (Bickerman [1939] 348). 185 Tarn II, 200.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 34 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities sion-making process in 334 was that he was waging war on the powerful Persian empire, and despite Granicus he was still in a weaker position and therefore in need of all support he could acquire. The Aegean coast was dotted with Greek cities, many of them powerful fortresses, which could become bases for the superior Persian navy, or, siding with the Macedonians, they could isolate the Persian fleet from the interior of Asia Minor. Obviously, thanks to his modern siege equipment, Alexander was able to take any of them by force, but because of time constraints and the lack of money he could not capture and hold all of them exclusively by military force. The events of 334—333 proved the crucial importance of popular support for a garrison, usually (with the notable exception of Halicarnassus) composed of a small number of hired troops. The small Persian garrison of Miletus supported by the oligarch-controlled city could engage the Macedonians while mercenaries fled from Ephesus when faced with open enmity from the people hostile to the pro-Persian oligarchy. Similarly the Macedonian garrison in Mytilene had to leave the city when its citizens decided to capitulate.186 In general Ale- xander tried to avoid maintaining unnecessary garrisons, e.g. in the islands; he planted them either in response to pleas of pro-Macedonian parties or for paramount military reasons.187 Strategic considerations alone were pushing Alexander towards offering Greek cities of Asia Minor conditions good enough to make them join with him against Persia. This policy proved to be rather effective since only two (Miletus and Halicarnas- sus) out of c. 30 Greek cities in Asia had to be taken by force. There is very little in the sources to lend support to the hypothesis of the general Greek resistance to Alexan- der,188 even if the story of 'invitation' of Alexander to liberate the Greeks of Asia allegedly pronounced by their envoy Delius of Ephesus has to be approached with caution.189 The added benefit of Alexander's policy was depriving Memnon and then Pharnabazos of a source of coined money indispensable to wage a mercenaries-based war, since Ionia was the only country submitting its tribute in cash.190 If strategy required winning over the coastal poleis of Ionia, Aeolia and Caria, only ideology could prevent Alexander from doing so. It is not possible to read the mind of a historical character but this person's way of thinking can be deduced from our knowledge of his behaviour in similar situations. Alexander's dealings with local elites are best visible on the examples of Caria, Egypt and Babylon, the last two quite well known from contemporary, non-Greek sources. The celebrated Carian episode 91 consisted not only of transferring satrapal power to the popular local ruler Ada, but also of Alexander's consent to his adoption by the queen. The support of the Carians acquired by these moves was probably of importance in the face of the Persian counter-offensive in which Orontobates, the previous Persian satrap of Caria, played a prominent part.192

186 Arr. an. 2.1.4. 187 Debord, 472-3. 188 As claimed by Heckel, 194-7. 185 Plut. mor. 1126d: ό δε πεμφ&είς προς 'Αλέξανδρον ύπό χών έν Άσί<> κατοικούντων Ελλήνων και μάλιστα διακαύσας και παροξύνας αψασΟαι τοΰ προς τοϋς βαρβάρους πολέμου Δήλιος ήν Έφέσιος, εταίρος Πλάτωνος. On conflicting views regarding the historicity of this passage see: Brunt, 291, Flower (1994) 107 and Ruzicka (1997) 124-5. 190 Lane Fox, 153. 191 Arr. an. 1.23.7-8. 192 Ruzicka (1992) 144.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 35

Numerous Egyptian inscriptions193 call Alexander a pharaoh, but no native source refers to the Egyptian coronation of Alexander. The Greek tradition of Alexandrian origin, which had him assume the Egyptian crown,194 is no longer accepted, although on mostly negative grounds, such as irregularities in the set of names and titles of Alexander in the hieroglyphic scripture.195 But the historicity of his other deeds in Egypt is not questioned. Alexander sacrificed duly to Apis, to another bull, Buchis, and to other local gods.196 He made sure that Egyptian shrines were not polluted by ill-advised steps of foreigners.197 He further ordered (and paid for) repairs and construction work in Luxor and Karnak.198 Of the two high officials referred to by Arrian (3.5.2) as nomarchs, but in fact probably satraps,200 nominated by Alexander in Egypt, one was an Egyptian. His resignation has been cited as the most important argument to support a hypothesis of Alexander's rule in Egypt as the continuation of Achaemenid practices and of the disillusionment of the Egyptian elite with the king of Macedonia.20 Yet this interpretation of a single event, about the circumstances of which we have no knowledge, under- states other evidence. The Temple of the Bark is of particular significance. Although paid for by the king, it was constructed in the inner sanctum of the Ammon temple in Luxor of which its priests had absolute control, hence all decisions as to its shape and decoration were theirs. The temple and the reliefs covering its walls were executed in the most rigidly canonical form, unlike perhaps any other structure in Egypt of the fourth century. The only persons in Egypt capable of appreciating that were the priests, as they happened to be the only people admitted to see it in the heart of Amnion's temple. Therefore this audience understood the message carried by the Temple of the Bark, the message of Alexander viewed by the priesdy elite of Egypt as the lawful heir to the pharaohs.202 Although the kings of Persia were also referred to in Egyptian inscriptions as pharaohs, no similar example of such recognition of Egyptian legitimacy of an Achae- menid ruler is known,203 nor had any of them ever gone to such lengths as Alexander to win over the priesdy elite of Egypt. The story of Alexander in Babylon is very similar. His policy used to be rendered as opposite to that of the Persians which allegedly was marred with disregard for the Baby- lonian religion and culture all the way to the destruction of Esagila by Xerxes. Alexander was to rebuild Esagila, thus earning respect and enthusiastic support from the Babylo- nians. It was first made apparent by the jubilant greeting of Alexander entering Babylon after Gaugamela by the people who were hoping for the reversal of the Persian policy.204

193 The largest set in the Temple of the Bark in Karnak, see Raziq. 194 Alexander Romance 1.34.2; see Wilcken, 114; Lane Fox, 196. 195 The point most strongly made by Burstein (1991); also Badian, CHI Π, 433, η. 1; Stewart, 139-144. 196 Sacrifices to Apis and other gods: Arr. an. 3.1.4; this is important since there was no Greek counterpart to Apis, O'Brien, 86. Sacrifices to Buchis: Burstein (1994) 382. 197 Turner. 198 In particular the Temple of the Bark in Luxor, see Raziq. About the repair project in Karnak see Porter/ Moss (1929) 44-5. 199 Jacobs, 58-62. 200 Burstein (1994) 385-6. 201 Burstein (1994) 386-7. 202 Following the analysis of the Temple of the Bark in Stewart, 175—8. See also O'Brien, 86. 203 Stewart, 175. 204 E.g. Wilcken, 239-41; Bengtson, 336; Schachermeyr, 282; Lane Fox, 247-9; Smelik, 108. AJ] after Arr. an. 3.16.3-4.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 36 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

But this tradition has been proven untrue, as Babylonia was the prised, central province of Persia205 and Xerxes never destroyed Esagila.206 The Babylonians did not celebrate the defeat of Darius III since the Persian rule was not perceived as an unjust burden. Alexander's entry to Babylon was a carefully orchestrated event, parallel to the earlier receptions of the victorious monarchs Sargon II in 710 and Cyrus the Great in 539. The signs of jubilation were customary for the occasion rather than spontaneous.207 But Ale- xander did sacrifice to Bel-Marduk as instructed by the priests and it is quite clear in the light of Babylonian sources that major works in and around Esagila were ordered and paid for by Alexander. This was a traditional gesture for the legitimate kings of Babylon, preceded by complicated religious rituals.208 Both the positive omens accompanying the construction, not always granted to rulers of Babylonia,209 and the later ceremony of a substitute king210 attest to the fundamental acceptance of Alexander by Babylonian priests. Alexander's conduct in Egypt and Mesopotamia thus exhibits a distinct pattern of courting local elites and, by proxy, the general public of these countries. It was not limited to investing in holy places and to religion-related expenditures, although their magni- tude was not insignificant.211 Alexander was also willing to accept local royal rituals underscoring the legitimacy of his rule and respecting the sentiments of the local population. However fashionable it has become recently to portray Alexander's policy in Egypt and Babylonia as the simple continuation of the Persian policy,212 it is hard to find its parallel in the times of the last Achaemenids (after Darius I). The perceptive reaction of the Egyptian and Babylonian priestly elite shows that Alexander's policy was quite thoughtful and effective. It is not very likely that Alexander's policy in Asia Minor might diverge very much from this pattern of searching for acceptance by the local population. Alexander knew quite well the mentality of the citizens of the Greek poleis and was perfectly capable of anticipating their reaction to his moves also on the ideological and symbolic plane. In- deed, there is good evidence of Alexander's endeavours to win over the Greek public opinion e.g. by grants to major temples: Persian armour to Athena in Athens after Grani- cus or offerings to Athena Lindia after Gaugamela.213 To the same ideological face of his strategy belongs his skilful exploitation of Panhellenic themes during the early stages of the war with Persia.214 While he was waging war in Asia Minor Alexander attempted (successfully) to win over the coastal cities of great strategic importance, not taking the same steps towards the land-locked native towns of Caria. At the same time he wanted to maintain his credibility with the Greeks. Since he had announced bringing freedom to the Greeks of Asia as one of his war aims, Alexander had to liberate convincingly at

205 Stolper, 241-5; 206 Kuhrt (1990) 121-6; Kuhrt/Sherwin-White, 311-2. 207 Kuhrt (1990) 121-6 on the basis of Babylonian sources. 208 Kuhrt (1990) 126-7; Kuhrt (1996) 47. 209 Kuhrt (1990) 127. 210 Eddy, 109-10; Smelik; Kuhrt/Sherwin-White, 317; Burstein (1994) 381. 211 Besides construction projects and sacrifices, also gold for a tiara of Marduk in Babylon donated by the king, as a Babylonian tablet (Sachs/Hunger, no. 324 Β rev.) shows, cf. Kuhrt/Sherwin-White, 316—7. 212 Kuhrt/Sherwin-White, 314-5, 317; Burstein (1994) 386-7. 213 Arr. an. 1.16.7; FGrH 532 F 38 and F 42; cf. Ertington, 227. 214 Flower (2000) 96-115.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 37 least the old poleis of Ionia. Hence e.g. Miletus, once a hero and victim of the Ionian revolt, had to be pardoned for taking the Persian side,215 even if plundering the city would have been perfectly compatible with the fourth-century rules of engagement. Ale- xander's sensitivity to the symbolic side of policy is well illustrated by his willingness to remit the tribute of Mallos in Cilicia because this city claimed to have been founded by colonists from Argos, the native city of Alexander's mythological ancestor Heracles (Arr. an. 2.5.9). In Alexander's favour worked also his lack of firm conviction as to the supe- riority of one form of a polls' constitution over the other, with the exception of the broad agreement with the most of the Greek world that a tyrannical government was unacceptable.216 If the prevailing political theory of the day proclaimed democracy as the natural form of the constitution of a polis and autonomia as its intrinsic quality, Alexander was surely ready to admit that he was restoring (άποδοϋναι217) freedom to the Greek cities of Asia, rather than to insist on stressing his royal prerogative of giving freedom to these poleis as a privilege to his subjects. These symbolic gestures were even more important to attract poleis of Asia Minor because it is unlikely that Alexander's campaign brought immediate economic gains to the region already quite prosperous in the last decades of the Achaemenid rule, although in the long run Greek cities were strengthe- ned by extension of their chorai with which numerous domains of Persian aristocrats were united.218 Our sources do not contain information of any signs of discontent with Alexander's rule among the Greeks of Asia Minor. To the contrary, in their collective memory Alexander would live as their liberator and benefactor, even worshipped as a god. Thus he managed to score a long-lasting success in the area where the previous liberators of the Greeks of Asia ultimately failed. And perhaps unknowingly, by establishing democracy in Ionia Alexander made a major contribution to the triumph of this form of government in the world of the polis in the Hellenistic age.219

Summary

There are conflicting opinions in the scholarship pertaining to the real meaning of Ale- xander's actions in 333 when, according to Arrian and Diodorus, he made Greek cities of Ionia, Aeolia and Caria free. Here this topic is studied principally in the light of public documents produced in these cities. They attest to a profound constitutional change from oligarchic to democratic government or to reviving old democracies in Ionia, Aeo- lia and in Greek colonies of coastal Caria in the epoch of Alexander. These cities were democratic, free from tribute and from satrapal control, i.e. they were free (autonomoi) by fourth-century B.C. Greek standards. Alexander's action in this region followed his regu- lar routine of winning over the elites of various peoples of the Persian empire.

215 Bosworth (1980) 141; Bosworth (1988) 250. 216 Plut. Alex. 34.1: 'Αλέξανδρος... φιλοτιμούμενος δέ προς τούς "Ελληνας, έγραψε τάς τυραννίδας πάσας κα- ταλυθηναι και πολιτεύειν αύτονόμους. Hamilton (commentary, ad loc.) rightfully maintains that this statement is applicable to the Greeks in Asia and not to mainland Greece where Antipatros continued to bolster pro-Macedonian tyrannies in keeping with the policy of Philip II. 217 Arr. an. 1.18.2. 2,8 Debord, 135, 398. 219 Shipley (2000) 35.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 38 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

Bibliography

Badian (1966): E. Badian, Alexander the Great and the Greeks of Asia, in: Ancient Societies and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday, New York 1966, 37—69. Badian (1981): E. Badian, The deification of Alexander the Great, in: C. F. Edson (ed.), Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, Thessaloniki 1981, 27—71. Badian (1996): E. Badian, Alexander the Great between two thrones and Heaven. Variations on an old theme, in: A. M. Small (ed.), Subject and Ruler. The cult of the ruling power in classical antiquity. Papers presented at a conference held in the University of Alberta on April 13—15, 1994, to celebrate the 65th anniversary of Duncan Fishwick (AJA Suppl. 17), Ann Arbor 1996, 11-26. Baumbach: Α. Baumbach, Kleinasien unter Alexander den Grossen, Jena 1911. Bengtson: H. Bengtson, Φιλόξενος ό Μακεδών. Ein Beitrag zur Verwaltungsgeschichte „Ioniens" insbesondere im Alexanderreich, Philologus 92, 1937, 126-155. Berve: H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, München 1926. Bickermann (1934): E. Bickermann, Alexandre le Grand et les villes d'Asie, REG 8, 1934, 346-374. Bickermann (1939): E. Bickermann, La cite grecque dans les monarchies hellenistiques, RPhilos 13, 1939, 335-349. Billows (1990): Κ A. Billows, Antigonus the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1990. Billows (1995): R. A. Billows, Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian Imperialism, Leiden/New York/ Köln 1995. Bosworth (1980): A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Artian's History of Alexander I, Oxford 1980. Bosworth (1988): A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire. The Reign of Alexander the Great, Cambridge 1988. Bosworth (1994): A. B. Bosworth, Alexander the Great 1-2, in: CAH2 VI, 1994, 790-875. Boterman: H. Boterman, Wer baute das neue Priene? Zur Interpretation der Inschriften von Priene Nr. 1 und 156, Hermes 122, 1994, 162-187. Briant (1980): P. Briant, Conquete territorial et Strategie ideologique. Alexandre le Grand et l'ideologie monar- chique achemenide. Actes du Colloque, ZNUJ 536, Prace Historyczne 63, 1980, 37—83. Briant (1996): P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire Perse de Cyrus ä Alexandre, Paris 1996. Brock: R. Brock, The Emergence of Democratic Ideology, Historia 40, 1991, 160—169. Brunt: P. A. Brunt, Plato's Academy and Politics, in: id., Studies in Greek History and Thought, Oxford 1993, 282-342. Burstein (1991): S. M. Burstein, Pharaoh Alexander. A scholarly myth, AncSoc 22, 1991, 139-145. Burstein (1994): S. M. Burstein, Alexander in Egypt. Continuity or Change?, in: H. Sancisi-Weederburg/A. Kuhrt/M. C. Cook (eds.), Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and change, Leiden 1994, 381-387. Cargill: J. Cargill, The Second Athenian League. Empire or Free Alliance?, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1981. Cawkwell: G. Cawkwell, The End of Greek Liberty, in: R. W Wallace/E. M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Em- pire. Essays in Graeco-Roman History, 360—146 B.C., in honor of E. Badian, Norman, OK 1996, 98—121. Chankowski: A. S. Chankowski, Miasta pozbawione autonomii, podlegle, opodatkowane. Uwagi ο stosunkach polis — krol w epoce hellenistycznej, PHist 87, 1996, 207—225. Crowther: C. V. Crowther, I.Priene 8 and the History of Priene in the Early Hellenistic Period, Chiron 26, 1996, 195-250. Debord: P. Debord, L'Asie Mineure au IVe siecle (412—323 a. C.). Pouvoirs et jeux politiques, Bordeaux 1999. Detienne: M. Detienne, L'espace de la publicite, ses Operateurs intellectuels dans la cite, in: id. (ed.), Les Savoirs de l'ecriture en Grece ancienne, Lille 1988, 29—81. Dow: S. Dow, Corinthiaca, HSPh 53, 1942, 89-119. Droysen: J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus I, Gotha 21877. Eddy: S. K. Eddy, The King is dead, Lincoln 1961. Ehrenberg: V Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, Oxford 1938. Ehrhardt: Ν. Ehrhardt, Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen, Frankfurt a. M. 1983.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 39

Errington: R. Μ. Errington, A History of Macedonia, Berkeley/Los Angeles 1990. Flower (1994): M. A. Flower, Theopompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C., Ox- ford 1994. Flower (2000): M. Flower, Alexander the Great and Panhellenism, in: A. B. Bosworth/E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction, Oxford 2000, 96—135. Graham: A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Manchester 1964. Gauthier (1984): Ph. Gauthier, Les cites hellenistiques. Epigraphie et histoire des institutions et des regimes politiques, in: Πρακτικά τοΰ η' διεθνοϋ συνεδρίου έλλενικής επιγραφικής, Αθήνα, 3—9 όκτωβρίου 1982 I, Athens 1984, 82-107. Gauthier (1990): Ph. Gauthier, L'inscription d' Iasos relative a l'ekklesiastikon (I.Iasos 20), BCH 114, 1990, 417-443. Gauthier (1991): Ph. Gauthier, Ατέλεια τοΰ σώματος, Chiron 21, 1991, 49-68. Gauthier (1993): Ph. Gauthier, Les cites hellenistiques, in: Μ. H. Hansen (red.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July 1—4 1992, Copenhagen 1993, 211-231. Green: P. Green, Alexander the Great, London 1970. Gruen: E. S. Gruen, The polis in the hellenistic world, in: R. M. Rosen/J. Farrell (eds.), Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor 1993, 339—354. Habicht: Chr. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte, München 21970. Hamilton: J. R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great, London 1973. Hammond: Ν. G. L. Hammond, Alexander the Great. King, Commander and Statesman, London 1989. Hansen (1987): Μ. H. Hansen, The Athenian Assembly in the Age of Demosthenes, Oxford 1987. Hansen (1993): Μ. H. Hansen, Introduction. The potis as a citizen-state, in: Μ. H. Hansen (red.), The Ancient Greek City-State. Symposium of the 250th Anniversary of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, July 1-4 1992, Copenhagen 1993, 7-29. Hansen (1995): Μ. H. Hansen, The „Autonomous city-state". Ancient fact or modern fiction, in: Μ. H. Hansen/K. Raaflaub (eds.), Studies in the ancient Greek polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95), Wiesba- den 1995, 21-43. Hansen (1998): Μ. H. Hansen, Polis and City-State. An Ancient Concept and its Modern Equivalent (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 5), Copenhagen 1998. Hauben: Η. Hauben, La Chronologie macedonienne et ptolemaique mise ä l'epreuve. A propos d'un livre d'Ehrhardt Grzybek, CE 67, 1992, 143-171. Heisserer: A. J. Heisserer, Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The Epigraphie Evidence, Norman, OK 1980. Heckel: W Heckel, Resistance to Alexander the Great, in: L. A. Trittle (ed.), The Greek World in the fourth century. From the fall of the Athenian Empire to the successors of Alexander, London/New York 1997, 189-227. Hendrick: Ch. W Hendrick, Democracy and the Athenian Epigraphical Habit, Hesperia 68, 1999, 387—439. Herrmann: P. Herrmann, Zu den Beziehungen zwischen Athen und Milet im 5. Jahrhundert, Klio 52, 1970, 163-174. Holt: F. L. Holt, Alexander the Great and Bactria. The Formation of Greek Frontier in Central Asia (Mnemo- syne Suppl. 104), Leiden 1988. Hornblower: S. Hornblower, Mausolus, Oxford 1982. Jacobs: B.Jacobs, Die Satrapienverwaltung im Perserreich zur Zeit Darius' III., Wiesbaden 1994. Jehne: M.Jehne, Koine Eirene. Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechischen Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Hermes Einzelschriften 63), Stuttgart 1994. Jouget: P. Jouget, Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. Macedonian Imperialism and the Helleniza- tion of the East, London 1928. Kaerst: J. Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus I, Berlin 31927. Keil: J. Keil, Ephesische Bürgerrechts- und Proxeniedekrete aus dem vierten und dritten Jahrhundert v. Chr., JÖAI 16, 1913, 241-248. Kuhrt (1990): A. Kuhrt, Alexander and Babylon, in: H. Sancisi-Weenderburg/J. W Dijvers (eds), Achaemenid History V. The roots of the European tradition, London 1990, 121—130.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM 40 Κ. NAWOTKA, Freedom of Greek Cities

Kuhrt (1996): A. Kuhrt, The Seleucid Kings and Babylonia. New Perspectives on the Seleucid Realm in the East, in: P. Bilde et al. (eds.), Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship (Studies in Hellenistic Civilization 7), Aarhus 1996, 41-54. Kuhrt/Sherwin-White: A. Kuhrt/S. Sherwin-White, The transition from Achaemenid to Seleucid rule in Baby- lonia. Revolution or evolution?, in: H. Sancisi-Weenderburg/A. Kuhrt/M. C. Cook (eds), Achaemenid Histo- ry VIII. Continuity and change, Leiden 1994, 311-327. Lane Fox: R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great, London 1973. Leschhorn: W Leschhorn, Antike Ären (Historia Einzelschriften 81), Stuttgart 1993. Lott: J. B. Lott, Philip II, Alexander, and the two tyrannies at Eresos of IG XII.2.526, Phoenix 50, 1996, 26-40. Ma: J. Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford 1999. Magie: D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ I—Π, Princeton 1950. Marinovic: L. P. Marinovic, Aleksandr Makedonskij i polisy Maloj Azii, VDI 1980.2, 29—51. Mehl: Α. Mehl, Doriktetos chora. Kritische Bemerkungen zum „Speerbewerb" in Politik und Völkerrecht der hellenistischen Epoche, AncSoc 11-12, 1980-1, 173-212. Meritt (1935): B. D. Meritt, Inscriptions of Colophon, AJPh 56, 1935, 358-397. Meritt (1940): Β. D. Meritt, Epigraphica Attica (Martin Classical Lectures 9), Cambridge, ΜΑ. 1940. Michel: C. Michel, Recueil descriptions grecques, Bruxelles 1900. Nawotka (1997): K. Nawotka, The Western Pontic Cities. History and Political Organization, Amsterdam 1997. Nawotka (1999): K. Nawotka, Boule and Demos in Miletus and its Pontic Colonies, Wroclaw 1999. O'Brien: J. M. O'Brien, Alexander the Great. The Invisible Enemy, London 1992. Oliva: P. Oliva, Hellenistische Herrscher und die Freiheit der Griechen, Eirene 29, 1993, 43—60. Parke: H. W Parke, The Massacre of the Branchidae, JHS 105, 1985, 59-68. Porter/Moss: B. Porter/L. B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian texts, reliefs, and pain- tings II. The Theben Temples, Oxford 1929. Pugliese Caratelli: G. Pugliese Caratelli, Ancora su Iasos e i Cari, RAL 42, 1987 (1989), 289-292. Quass: F. Quass, Zur Verfassung der griechischen Städte im Hellenismus, Chiron 9, 1979, 37—52. Radet: G. Radet, Alexandre le Grand, Paris 1950 (11931). Raziq: M. Abd el-Raziq, Die Darstellungen und Texte des Sanktuars Alexanders des Grossen im Tempel von Luxor, Kairo 1984. Rhodes: P. J. Rhodes/D. Μ. Lewis, The Decrees of the Greek States, Oxford 1997. Robert (1976): J./L. Robert, Une inscription grecque de Teos en Ionie. L'union de Teos et de Kyrbissos, JS 1976, 153-235. Robert (1983): J./L. Robert, Fouilles d'Amyzon en Carie I. Exploration, histoire, monnaies et inscriptions, Paris 1983. Runciman: W G. Runciman, Doomed to extinction. The polis as an evolutionary dead-end, in: O. Murray/ S. Price (eds), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Oxford 1990, 347—367. Ruzicka (1992): S. Ruzicka, Politics of a Persian Dynasty. The Hecatomnids in the Fourth Century B.C., Nor- man, OK/London 1992. Ruzicka (1997): S. Ruzicka, The Eastern Greek World, in: L. A. Trittle (ed.), The Greek World in the fourth century. From the fall of the Athenian Empire to the successors of Alexander, London/New York 1997, 107-136. Sachs/Hunger: A. J. Sachs/H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia I. Diaries from 625 BC—262 BC, Wien 1988. Sartre: M. Sartre, L'Asie Mineure et l'Anatolie d'Alexandre ä Diocletien, Paris 1995. Schachermeyr: F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner Persönlichkeit und seines Wirkens, Wien 1973. Seager: R. Seager, The King's Peace and the Second Athenian Confederacy, in: CAH2 VI, 1994, 156-186. Seager/Tuplin: R. Seager/Chr. Tuplin, The Freedom of the Greeks of Asia. On the origin of a concept and the creation of a slogan, JHS 100, 1980, 141-154. Seibert (1963): J. Seibert, Metropolis und Apoikie. Historische Beiträge zur Geschichte ihrer gegenseitigen Beziehungen, Würzburg 1963.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM KLIO 85 (2003) 1 41

Seibert (1998): J. Seibert, „Panhellenischer" Kreuzzug, Nationalkrieg, Rachefeldzug oder makedonischer Erobe- rungskrieg? Überlegungen zu den Ursachen des Krieges gegen Persien, in: W Will (Hg.), Alexander der Grosse. Eine Welteroberung und ihr Hintetgrund. Vorträge des Internationalen Bonner Alexanderkolloqui- ums, Bonn 1998, 5-58. Shipley (1997): G. Shipley, ,The Other Lakedaimonians'. The Dependent Perioikic Poleis of Laconia and Mes- senia, in: Μ. H. Hansen (ed.), Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community. Symposium August 29-31 1996 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4), Copenhagen 1997, 189-291. Shipley (2000): G. Shipley, The Greek World after Alexander 323-30 B.C., London/New York 2000. Sherwin-White: S. M. Sherwin-White, Ancient archives. The edict of Alexander to Priene, a reappraisal, JHS 105, 1985, 69-89. Smelik: K. A. D. Smelik, The ,omina mortis' in the histories of Alexander the Great. Alexander's attitude towards the Babylonian priesthood, Talanta 10—11, 1978—9, 92—11. Stewart: A. Stewart, Faces of power. Alexander's image and Hellenistic politics, Berkeley 1993. Stolper: H. W Stolper, Mesopotamia, 482-330 B.C., in: CAH2 VI, 1994, 234-260. Stoneman: R. Stoneman, Alexander the Great, London/New York 1997. Tarn: W W. Tarn, Alexander the Great II, Cambridge 1948. Thomas: R. Thomas, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Cambridge 1992. Tibiletti: G. Tibiletti, Alessandro e la liberazione delle cittä d'Asia Minore, Athenaeum 32, 1954, 3—22. Turner: E. G. Turner, A Commander-in-Chief's Order from Saggara, JEA 60, 1974, 239—242. Vernant: J.-P. Vernant, Les origines de la pensee grecque, Paris 1975. Wilcken: U. Wilcken, Alexander the Great, New York 1967. Wirth: G. Wirth, Die syntaxeis von Kleinasien 334 v. Chr., Chiron 2, 1972, 91-8.

Brought to you by | American School of Classical Studies Athens / The Gennadius Library Authenticated Download Date | 7/19/19 12:37 PM

View publication stats