III. LİKYA SEMPOZYUMU THE IIIrd SYMPOSIUM ON LYCIA 07-10 KASIM 2005 07-10 NOVEMBER 2005 ANTALYA ANTALYA SEMPOZYUM SYMPOSIUM BİLDİRİLERİ PROCEEDINGS II. Cilt / Volume II (Offprint) Editörler / Editors Kayhan DÖRTLÜK Burhan VARKIVANÇ Tarkan KAHYA Jacques des COURTILS Meltem DOĞAN ALPARSLAN Remziye BOYRAZ 6XQD²úQDQ.×UDo$NGHQL]0HGHQL\HWOHUL$UDüW×UPD(QVWLWV 6XQD úQDQ.×UDo5HVHDUFK,QVWLWXWHRQ0HGLWHUUDQHDQ&LYLOL]DWLRQV  SUNA –Â5(5209(h(2+,5ÂA4,+,5Â@,;3,9Â(9(Ä;094(,5:;Â;l:l :<5( Â5(5209(h9,:,(9*/05:;0;<;,654,+0;,99(5,(5*0=030A(;065: III. Uluslararası Likya Sempozyumu Sempozyum Bildirileri The IIIrd International Symposium on Lycia Symposium Proceedings Editörler / Editors Kayhan DÖRTLÜK Burhan VARKIVANÇ Tarkan KAHYA Jacques des COURTILS Meltem DOĞAN ALPARSLAN Remziye BOYRAZ Çeviri / Translation T. M. P. DUGGAN İnci TÜRKOĞLU ISBN 975-9123-23-1 ISBN 975-9123-25-8 (Vol. 2) © Suna – ‹nan K›raç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Araşt›rma Enstitüsü, 2006 Bu kitapta yayınlanan bildirilerin yayım hakkı saklıdır. AKMED ve yazarlarının yazılı izni olmaksızın hiçbir yolla çoğaltılamaz, basılamaz, yayınlanamaz. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission from the AKMED and the authors. Yaz›flma Adresi / Mailing Address Barbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 25 Kaleiçi 07100 ANTALYA – TÜRKİYE Tel: 0 (242) 243 42 74 • Fax: 0 (242) 243 80 13 akmed@akmed.org.tr www.akmed.org.tr Yap›m / Production Zero Prodüksiyon Ltd.  İçindekiler / Contents I. Cilt / Volume I X Sunuş / Preface XIII Sempozyum Programı / Symposium Program Bildiriler (Alfabetik isim sırasına göre) / Proceedings (Names in alphabetical order) AKYÜREK Engin 1 The Bey Dağları in the Byzantine Period: Trebenna, Neapolis and Their Territories ARMSTRONG Pamela 19 Rural settlement in Lycia in the eighth century: new evidence AYDIN Ayşe 31 Die Trikonchosbauten in Lykien: Ihre Entwicklung und Funktion BAKER Patrick 49 Les Telemachi de Xanthos Réflexions préliminaires à partir de nouveaux documents BAYBURTLUOĞLU Cevdet 61 Arykanda Tanrıları ve Kültleri BENDA-WEBER Isabella 69 Epichorische Elemente in Bekleidungssitten und Haartrachten in Lykien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr. BORCHHARDT Jürgen 87 Genealogische Diagramme und ihre Bedeutung für die relative Datierung von lykischen Grabmälern BUCHET Luc MANIÈRE-LÉVÊQUE Anne-Marie 107 Le peuplement de Xanthos à l’époque proto-byzantine Apports de l’anthropologie et de la paléodémographie BULGURLU Vera 121 Myra-Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazısında Bulunan Sikkeler Hakkında Notlar CAVALIER Laurence 129 L’agora supérieure de Xanthos : fouilles 2000-2005 CORSTEN Thomas 139 City and Country in the Kibyratis A Case Study in Rural Acculturation COURTILS Jacques des 145 Nouvelles découvertes à Xanthos ÇAYLAK TÜRKER Ayşe 153 Bizans Dönemi Demre-Myra Sırsız Seramik Buluntuları ÇEVİK Nevzat 175 The social structure as reflected through the necropolii of Trebenna DOĞAN Sema 209 Likya’da Bizans Taş Yapıtları IV III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia DURU Refik 225 Batı Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde Neolitik’e Geçiş EICHNER Heiner 231 Neues zum lykischen Text der Stele von Xanthos (TL 44) ELTON Hugh 239 Church Decoration in Late Roman Lycia ERDEM İlhan 243 Ortaçağ Sonlarında Likya Levant Ticareti ve Türkmenler (12.-15. yy.) FREYER-SCHAUENBURG Brigitte 253 Zur Polychromie der lykischen Zwölfgötter-Reliefs HÜLDEN Oliver 263 Chamber Tombs, Podium or Terrace Tombs, Tumuli Recently Discovered Grave Types Expand the Spectrum of Lycian Graves IRKLI ERYILDIZ Demet 281 The Acoustic Properties of Ancient Theatres: Computer Simulation and Measurements ISLER Hans Peter 301 Antike Theaterbauten in Lykien IŞIK Cengiz 317 Komşu İki Başkentin Ortaklığı: Doğal Bırakılan Kutsal Kaya Yükseltileri İPLİKÇİOĞLU Bülent 325 Doğu Likya’da Epigrafik Araştırmalar KARAKAYA Nilay 331 Restorasyon Sonrası Demre-Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Duvar Resimleri KIZGUT İsa KUNZE Max 345 Bemerkungen zu İn Önü - eine unbekannte Stadt im lykisch-pamphylischen und pisidischen Grenzgebiet KOKKINIA Christina 355 Grain for Cibyra. Veranius Philagros and the “Great Conspiracy” KUBAN Zeynep 365 Likya Mimarisi: Mimesis ve Yorum KÜÇÜKAŞCI Mustafa S. 375 VII-XII. Yüzyıllarda Likya’ya Arap İlgisi LEMAÎTRE Séverine 385 La Lycie et les échanges commerciaux dans l’Antiquité : les données du mobilier amphorique. Etude préliminaire LE ROY Christian 401 Statue de culte, rituel et sacrifices au Létoon de Xanthos LOCKWOOD Sean 409 Reading a Fourth-Century B.C. Sepulchral Relief in Northern Lycia: Iconography, Influence and Identity MANIÈRE-LÉVÊQUE Anne-Marie 425 Habitat proto-byzantin à Xanthos : les espaces de réception de la grande résidence nord-est de l’acropole lycienne MARKSTEINER Thomas 441 Wehrdörfer im Bonda-Gebiet  II. Cilt / Volume II MEADOWS Andrew 459 The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 MITCHELL Stephen 471 İ.Ö. I. Yüzyılda Likya’nın Kuzey Sınırı: İ.Ö. 46’da Roma – Likya Anlaşması MÜHLBAUER Lore 489 “Ein lykisches Fußmaß?” NOLLÉ Johannes 515 Königliches Gefolge beim Fischorakel von Sura ÖTÜKEN S. Yıldız 523 Myra-Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Mimari Değerlendirmeler ÖZGEN İlknur 537 Elmalı Ovası ve Hacımusalar ÖZGENEL Lale 557 Late antique domestic architecture in Lycia: an outline of the archaeological and architectural evidence PALAZ ERDEMİR Hatice ERDEMİR Halil 573 Akdeniz Çevresinde Gelişen Siyasi Olaylarda Likya’nın Yeri (İ.Ö. 5. yy. ile İ.S. 1. yy. arası) PARMAN Ebru UÇKAN OLCAY Yelda 587 Olympos’un Orta Çağ Dokusu PESCHLOW Urs 601 Befestigungen lykischer Städte in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit PIMOUGUET-PÉDARROS Isabella 625 Kelbessos sur le territoire de Termessos de Pisidie: Défense et Protection de la Frontière avec la Lycie PIRSON Felix 639 Das vielfältige Bild des Krieges: Kampf und Gewalt in der lykischen Reliefkunst des späten 5. und des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. RAIMOND Eric 647 La continuité de la tradition religieuse louvite dans la Lycie de l’Âge du Bronze à l’époque gréco-romaine RUGGIERI Vincenzo 657 Nicholas of Sion and the Meeting of Cultures: the Literary Models SAKEL Dean 665 A Daniel Apocalypse Attributed to Methodius of Patara SAVAŞ Savaş Özkan 679 Anadolu (Hitit-Luvi) Hiyeroglifli Belgeler Işığında: ̨attuëa’dan Lukka’ya SCHULZ Klaus 711 Architekturtheorie: Der Lykische Knoten. Versuch einer Deutung der steinernen Grabarchitektur SEYER Martin 719 Überlegungen zur Chronologie lykischer Felsgräber aus klassischer Zeit STANZL Günther 735 Neue Forschungen zum Ptolemaion von Limyra VI III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia TALLOEN Peter 747 Pious neighbours. Pisidian religious ties with Lycia. The case of the rider deities TAŞKIRAN Harun 761 Likya Bölgesi’nin Paleolitik Dönemi TEK Ahmet Tolga 769 Hellenistik ve Erken Roma İmparatorluk Dönemlerinde Likya’da Basılan Otonom Şehir Sikkeleri TEKİNALP Vahit Macit 789 Arykanda Kenti Bizans Dönemi Mimari Plastik ve Liturjik Taş Eserleri TEKOĞLU Ş. Recai 801 On the use of Word Separation Marks in the Lycian Inscriptions THÉRIAULT Gaétan 811 Le statut des femmes lyciennes à l’époque romaine : Quelques remarques sur les grandes-prêtresses et femmes lyciarques TIETZ Werner 821 Kyaneai und die urbanistische Situation Lykiens zwischen Antike und Mittelalter TOFI Maria Gaia 829 The Banquet Iconography in the Funerary Reliefs of Archaic and Classical Lycia VANN Robert L. LEADBETTER Bill 847 The Fortifications of Aperlae in Lycia VARKIVANÇ Burhan 861 The Monumental Tomb Typology of Trebenna VISMARA Novella 869 Imagerie des monnaies et imagerie des arts plastiques en Lycie : premiers éléments pour une comparaison entre la fin du VIe siècle et le début du IVe siècle a.J.C. YAĞCI Remzi 883 The Kizzuwatna-Lukka Route in the Eastern Mediterranean Trade of the 2nd Millenium B.C. YİĞİT Turgut 897 Hitit Kralının Arinna’da (Arñna=Ksanthos) Bir Muhalifi ZIMMERMANN Martin 907 Phellos in Zentrallykien und die Grundmuster lykischer Siedlungsgeschichte ZOROĞLU Levent 917 Dağlık Kilikya ve Likya’da Ölü Gömme Gelenekleri ve Mezar Mimarisi İlişkileri Üzerinde Bir Deneme  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 Andrew MEADOWS* 1. Annexing Lycia In 197 BC, the Seleucid king Antiochus III, having returned from the eastern expedition that had earned him the title ‘the Great’ (M°gaw)1, and completed the conquest of the Ptolemaic possessions in Coele Syria, turned his attention to the western provinces of his empire: ‘At the beginning of spring he sent ahead by land his two sons <and> Ardys and Mithradates with the army, ordering them to await him at Sardis. Antiochus himself set out with a fleet of 100 decked ships together with 200 lighter ships, small boats and cutters. He thus sought simultane- ously to make an attempt on all the cities on the coast of Cilicia, Lycia and Caria that were under the control of Ptolemy and to bring help with his army and navy to Philip [V of Macedon], who had not yet been defeated2. We learn of Antiochus’ progress from Jerome’s commentary on Daniel I. 11: ‘…and he took other cities, which had previously been held by Ptolemaic forces, in Syria, Cilicia and Lycia. For at the time were captured the cities of Aphrodisias, Soloe, Zephyrium, Mallus, Anemurium, Selinus, Coracesium, Corycus, Andriace, Limyra, Patara, Xanthus and last of all Ephesus3. From Livy again we learn that Zephyrium, Soloe, Aphrodias, Corycus, Selinus and Anemu- rium had all opened their gates to the great king. Amongst these coastal cities only Coracesium certainly offered resistance4. So too did the Rhodians, who appear to have tried to abstract from Antiochus’ advance a large stretch of coast, by securing the liberty of Kaunos, Halicarnassus, Myndos and Samos: ‘The Rhodians’ intervention aimed at denying a harbour to Antiochus’ fleet beyond Telmessos’5. Needless to say, the Rhodians had a complete understanding of the * Andrew Meadows, Curator of Greek Coins, The British Museum, London WC1B 3DG – ENGLAND. E-mail: ameadows@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk 1 On the chronology and nature of this development see Ma 1999, 272-6. 2 Livy 33. 19. 9-11: principio ueris praemissis terra cum exercitu filiis duobus Ardye<que> ac Mithridate iussisque Sardibus se opperiri, ipse cum classe centum tectarum nauium, ad hoc leuioribus nauigiis cercurisque ac lembis ducentis proficiscitur, simul per omnem oram Ciliciae Lyciaeque et Cariae temptaturus urbes quae in dicione Ptolomaei essent, simul Philippum- necdum enim debellatum erat-exercitu nauibusque adiuturus. 3 FGrHist 260 F 46: et ceperit alias urbes, quae prius a Ptolemaei partibus tenebantur, Syriae et Ciliciae et Lyciae. eo enim tempore captae sunt Aphrodisias et Soloe et Zephyrion et Mallos et Anemurium et Selenum et Coracesium et Coricus et Andriace et Limyra et Patara et Xanthus et ad extremum Ephesus. 4 Livy 33. 20. 4: Coracesium…Antiochus operibus oppugnabat, Zephyrio et Solis et Aphrodisiade et Coryco et superato Ane- murio…Selinunte recepto. 5 alias auxiliis iuverunt, alias providendo ac praemonendo conatus hostis causaque libertatis fuerunt Cauniis, Myndiis, Halicar- nassensibus Samiisque. (Livy 33. 20. 12). On Rhodian motivation see Ma 1999, 84-85 (quotation from 85). 460 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia tactical importance of the Lycian and Carian coasts that faced their island. Would-be conquerors and rulers of Southern Asia Minor and the Levant could not move securely along the southern marches of Anatolia without securing the coastal route. Antiochus, of course, realised the same, and this is surely the reason that he set out westwards in 197 BC by land and by sea and, moreo- ver, took command in person of the naval advance designed to secure this crucial route. Lycia was a vital element in this long line of communication, and Antiochus the Great, resplendant in his new title, was undoubtedly conscious of the remarkable advance of his predecessor Alexander the Great in 334/3 BC. Disbanding his own navy, Alexander thought, according to Arrian, that ‘by taking the coastal cities he would break up the Persian fleet, since they would have nowhere to raise crews, nor anywhere in Asia where their ships could put in’. (Anab. 1. 20. 1) After his lengthy siege of Halicarnassus, Alexander ‘marched on Lycia and Pamphylia, so that by gaining control of the coast he would render the enemy’s fleet useless’. (ibid. 1. 24. 3)6. This apprecia- tion of the significance of Lycia and Pamphylia can perhaps be traced even further back in the campaigns of Kimon in the 470’s and 460’s, including the famous victory at the Eurymedon in Pamphylia, and later in the expeditions of the Athenian Melesandros in 430/29 and Lysicles in 428 (Thucydides 2. 69 and 3. 19)7. The strategic significance of the coast, including Lycia, could not be clearer from the westward and eastward journeys of Alexander and Antiochus: “Between Rhodes and Cyprus lies approximately 600 km. of coastline, with no islands more than a kilometer or two offshore. . . . Thus if one wanted to make this journey, one would have to secure the coastline. . . .” 8. It thus becomes a matter of more than idle curiosity to discover when it was that the province of Lycia, which Antiochus was removing from the Ptolemaic administration in 197 BC, had first come into the hands of the Kings of Egypt. Until comparatively recently this acquisition had been a matter for speculation. In 309 BC Ptolemy I Soter had been militarily active in Lycia, further round the coast in Caria and in the Peloponnese. Lycia, as we have seen, will have been fundamental as a staging post for the naval forces that made their way from Egypt, via Cyprus to the Aegean. It is however, not clear how thorough the Ptolemaic annexation of Lycia was in this period. All analysis must extrapo- late from the very limited literary and epigraphic evidence for these events. We know only that Ptolemy I, making a paraplous of his own, captured the city of Xanthos from an Antigonid gar- rison9, and that much later, Ptolemy Euergetes would recall the city’s relations with his grandfa- ther10. Shortly thereafter, however, Ptolemy suffered massive reverses at the hands of Antigonus Monophthalmos and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes, whose bold thrust eastwards culminated in the capture of Cyprus from Ptolemy I following the Battle of Salamis in 306. Diodorus records the presence of an Antigonid ship at Patara11, suggesting that Xanthos and its harbour – the only firmly attested Ptolemaic acquisition of 309 – had been lost by 304. Quite apart from this, it has seemed to most commentators broadly unthinkable that Lycia could have remained an isolated 6 ÂQËTØA~؀MµØ*RHÚ>TØQBØH>µØ.>JCRIÚ>TؘBFØ£TØQ‹TØM>O>IÚLRØHO>Q‰P>TØjUOB¶LKØH>Q>PQ‹P>FØQL¶TØMLIBJÚLFTØQËØK>R- QFHÊK On Alexander’s journey through these regions see Stark 1958. 7 So Keen 1993a (this is not, however, the explanation that Thucydides offers for these two campaigns). 8 Keen 1993, 72. 9 Diod. Sic. 20. 27. 1-2: €MµØA~ØQL¿QSKØ Ø.QLIBJ>¶LTØÎØQ‹TØ·D¿MQLRØ?>PFIB¿SKØMRVÊJBKLTØQLÀTØ·AÚLRTØPQO>QE- DLÀTØjML?B?IEH}K>FØQhT؀KØ)FIFHÚØMÊIBFTØMIB¿P>TØJBQhØARKgJBST؀MµØ$>P‰IFA>ØQ>¿QEKØJ~K؀GBMLIFÊOHEPBKØB·TØA~Ø QŠKØ*RHÚ>KØM>O>HLJFPVBµTØ(gKVLKØCOLROLRJ}KEKØÃM¯Ø_KQFDÊKLRØH>QhØHOgQLTØB¾IBK ØB½Q>ØQ–Ø)>¿KžØMOLPMIB¿P>TØ QŠKØJ~KØMÊIFKØM>O}I>?B 10 Bousquet 1986, ll. 23-24 (= SEG 36.1218). 11 Diod Sic. 20. 93. 3: +BK}AEJLTØA~ØQOF¡KØjCEDL¿JBKLTØQOFEJFLIF¡KØMIB¿P>TØQ‹TØ*RHÚ>T؀MµØQhØ.gQ>O>ØH>µØH>Q>I>? KØ ÎOJLÁP>KØK>ÁKØQLÁØMIEOŸJ>QLT؀MµØD‹TØÏKQLT؀KBM¿OFPBØQËØPHgCLTØMLIIhØA~ØMIL¶>ØQ¡KØHLJFWÊKQSKØQŠKØjDLOhKØ €MµØQËØPQO>QÊMBALKØÃMLUBÚOF>ØI>? K؀G>M}PQBFIBKØB·TØQŠKØ`0ÊALK But note the scepticism of Wörrle 1977 .  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 461 Ptolemaic province during the period when Cyprus was lost to Ptolemy Soter12. Moreover, given what we know of the strategic importance of this area to the paraplous of southern Asia Minor, it is surely unlikely that Antigonus and Demetrius would – or could – have left Lycia in Ptolemaic hands during their expedition to the east, particularly when they had failed after a protracted siege to take the island of Rhodes. Only with the Ptolemaic recapture of Cyprus in 295 would it have become possible for Ptolemy to consider seriously a return to Lycia, and then, surely, as part of a broader policy of acquisition of the southern coastal routes, like Alexander, Antigonus and Demetrius before him, and Antiochus III after. So, for example, Eduard Will summarizing the state of the evidence in 1978, would conclude ‘s’il n’est pas impossible que les bases égyptiennes de Lycie, de Pamphylie et de Cilicie occidentale aient été conquises dès les environs de 295 sur Démétrios Poliorcète, il se peut aussi qu’elles ne l’aient été qu’à partir de 280’ 13. In fact, there was, and remains no evidence at all for a Ptolemaic campaign in Asia Minor between the two events that shaped the geopoliti- cal make up of the region first in 301 BC and then in 281: the Battle of Ipsos which saw much of western Asia Minor pass to Lysimachus, and Corupedion which saw it pass (as the Seleucid kings would later claim) to Syria. The question of when precisely Caria, Lycia, Pamphylia and Cilicia first became Ptolemaic after the recapture of Cyprus, when it theoretically became possible, thus remained moot. But even as Will was finishing the second edition of his Histoire Politique, an important text from Limyra was published which appeared to offer early evidence for the Ptolemaic administra- tion of Lycia. 2. The Ptolemaic Annexation Wörrle 1977, 44 (SEG 27.929); Robert - Robert, Bulletin, 1978, 460. 9 >PFI;B¿=LKQL9TØ.;QL=I=B=J=>ÚLR؂Q9LR;T=؃HQLR=ØH=>=µ=Ø9QOF>H;L=P=Q=9LÁ; J=EKËTØ"¿PQOLR؂ALGBØ*FJRO}SKØQ‹FØMÊIBFØH=>=µØQL¶T 9M;BOFLÚHLFT؀MBFAŠØ_J¿KQ>TØ#ÄVSKLTØH>µØ1SPFD}9KET;Ø Ø 98;SM¿OLRØ)>¿KFLFØH>Q>PQ>V}KQBTØÃMËØQLÁØ?>PFI9}ST; 9.;QLIBJ>ÚLRØL·HLKÊJLFØQ‹TØUŸO>TØH>ILµØHjD>VL9µØH>µ; AÚH>FLFØDBDÊK>PFØB¹TØQBØQŠKØMÊIFKØQŠKØ*FJRO}SKØH>=9µ; QLÀTØMBOFLÚHLRTØH>µØB¹TØQLÀTØlIILRTØ*RHÚLRTØQ¿U9EF; Ø 9Q;‹FØjD>V‹F؀M>FK}P>FØ_J¿KQ>KØ#ÄVSKLTØH>µØ1SPFD9}KE;Ø 8=SM¿OLRØ)>RKÚLRTØjOBQ‹T؂KBH>ØH>µØBÂKLÚ>TØQ‹TØ9B·T; 9>;ÂQL¿TØB½K>FØA~Ø>ÂQLRTØH>µØBÂB=9O;D}Q>TØH>µØMOLG}K9LRT; 9Q;‹TØ*FJRO}SKØMÊIBSTØABAÊPV>FØA~ØH>µØMLIFQBÚ>K Ø 9>;ÂQL¶TØH>µØƒDHQEPFKØH>µØjQ}IBF>KØMgKQSKØ©K؍ØMÊI9FT; 9HR;OÚ>؀PQÚKØB½K>FØA~ØH>µØB¹PMILRKØH>µØ‚HMILRKØ>ÂQL¶T 9€J;ØMLI}JSFØH>µØ€KØB·O‰KEFØjPRIBµØH>µØjPMLKABÚØJBQ9B¶; 9K>FØA;~=ØH>µØQ=9¡;KظBO=¡KØ>ÂQL¶TØH>VgMBOØH>µØ*FJROBÁPF= Translation: In the 36th year of the reign of King Ptolemy, in the month of Dystros, it was resolved by the polis of Limyra and those who dwell around it as follows. Since the Kaunians Amyntas son of Euthon and Sosigenes son of Zopyros, having been appointed by King Ptolemy as oikonomoi of the land, have been fair, honourable and just towards the polis of Limyra, towards those who 12 So, for example, Meyer 1925, 32, 34; Jones 1971, 99; Will 1979 next note. 13 Will 1979, I 140. 462 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia dwell around it and towards the rest of the Lycians, with good fortune, it is resolved to praise the Kaunians Amyntas son of Euthon and Sosigenes son of Zopyros for their virtue and good will towards them, and that they should be regarded as Benefactors and Proxenoi of the polis of Limyra, and to give them citizenship, the right to possess land and immunity from all of the taxes levied by the city, and the right of entry and exit in war and peace, unmolested and with- out formality, and they shall be allowed to participate in the sacred life of the city just as the citizens of Limyra do. The inscription honours two men of Kaunos, who have been established by a King Ptolemy as oikonomoi of the land, for their beneficence towards the people of Limyra, those living around the city and to the rest of the Lycians. It is a reasonable assumption that these two men were therefore oikonomoi in Lycia. The conclusion is certainly inevitable that at the time of this inscrip- tion Lycia (or a large part thereof) was under thorough Ptolemaic control, financial supervision being provided by two high ranking functionaries14. But what is the date of this text? The key apparently lies on the stone itself: 9 >PFI;B¿=LKQL9TØ.;QL=I=B=J=>ÚLR؂Q9LR;T=؃HQLR=ØH=>=µ=Ø9QOF>H;L=P=Q=9LÁ;Ø| J=EKËTØ"¿PQOLR (1-2). As Wörrle noted there are only two Ptolemies who seem to have had regnal years as high as 36, Soter and Philadelphus, and “zwischen diesen fällt die Entscheidung mit großer Sicherheit für Ptolemaios I” (p. 44). The date he proposed for the stone was thus year 36 of Ptolemy Soter, or 288/7 BC15. This dating has, to the best of my knowledge, never been questioned, and now appears in the standard reconstructions of the history of this period16. Yet this early date for the establishment of an administered Ptolemaic province of Lycia, as we have noted above and as Wörrle himself realised, brings with it significant problems. We are forced either to posit an unattested military campaign to regain Lycia between the Ptolemaic recovery of Cyprus in 295 and 288/7, or (Wörrle’s preferred solution)17 to assume that Lycia re- mained in Ptolemaic hands from 309 down to the date of the decree, play down the evidence for Antigonid activity there in the interim, as well as to assume that Lycia remained a Ptolemaic prov- ince while communications with it were effectively cut by Antigonid control of Cilicia and Cyprus. We have seen above that there are strong grounds for discounting such a proposition in geographically deterministic terms. There are also specific problems in reconciling the histori- cal sources with this reconstruction. The only city in Lycia mentioned by Diodorus as part of Ptolemy’s conquests in 309 is Xanthos18. It is possible, as Wörrle notes, that Diodorus has elided the systematic subjugation of the rest of the area, but even if we assume that to be the case, we must seriously question how stable the resulting ‘province’ could have remained over the follow- ing quarter century. We might compare the history of Kaunos, another Ptolemaic acquisition of 309, which demonstrates how fluid the political situation of the period 309-285 was immediately to the west of Lycia. Kaunos had been captured during Soter’s campaign of 309, but it did not remain continuously in Ptolemaic hands thereafter19. During his siege of Rhodes (305/4 BC), Demetrius Poliorcetes appears to have been at the city with armed forces (Plut. Demetr. 22). In 302/1 the Kaunians were apparently dating their decrees by the regnal years of Antigonus 14 Wörrle 1977, 47 for the administration. 15 This assumes that the Macedonian calendar in use in Egypt at this period was similarly being used by Limyra in Lycia: see Wörrle 1977, 45-6. 16 See, for example, Borchhardt 1993, 79; Keen 1998, 178; Hölbl 2001, 23; Behrwald 2000, 60-61; Gygax 2001, 21. This dating must also, I suppose, underlie Sartre’s statement that ‘Ptolémée continuait à agir en Lycie (Limyra, v. 309)’ (Sartre 2003, 30). 17 Wörrle 1977, 47-56 restated in id. (1980) 65. 18 Above, n. 9. 19 For the acquisition see above n. 9.  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 463 Monophthalmus20. The city was apparently once more in Demetrius’ hands in 285, when his fleet was stationed there (Plut. Demetr. 49)21. It was only after this that the city was reconquered by Ptolemaic forces under Philocles (Polyaenus 3. 16). But between the two occasions when Demetrius can be placed at the city, there must have been additional upheaval. For it is now clear that the Macedonian dynast Eupolemos struck coinage at Kaunos, presumably in the 290’s BC22. The vicissitudes of Kaunos, which apparently shifted from the control of Ptolemy to Demetrius to Eupolemos, back perhaps to Demetrius before again becoming Ptolemaic, clearly illustrate the fluid nature both of the empires and protectorates of this period, and of the position of individual cities within them. This should caution us against expecting to see continuity of ad- ministration more broadly in Caria or Lycia at a similar period. It is difficult to believe that Lycia alone achieved a period of stability that Caria did not. In response to the suggestion that Lycia must have been lost after the Ptolemaic loss of Cy- prus, Wörrle responds “Diese weit verbreitete Hypothese steht freilich nicht gerade auf sehr starken Füßen” since between the capture of Cyprus, the unsuccessful attack on Egypt and the beginning of the siege of Rhodes there is no room in Diodorus’ account for the reconquest of Lycia by the Antigo- nids23. But would events have occurred in this order anyway? In fact, an important journey sug- gests otherwise: having been summoned to the assault on Cyprus by his father in 307, Demetrius “promptly carried out all of his father’s orders, entered Caria and summoned the Rhodians to war against Ptolemy… [and then] having made a paraplous to Cilicia he added further ships and soldiers to his force and sailed across to Cyprus”24. Demetrius was traveling westwards from Caria. It is highly unlikely that on his paraplous to Cilicia he could have skirted quickly by a recently gained Ptolemaic province of Lycia in 307, or that the assault on Cyprus could have been con- ceived with a Ptolemaic seaboard to the rear of the Antigonid fleet. As we have already noted, the movement of a fleet from the Aegean to Cilicia was impossible without the possession of Lycia. It is thus inconceivable that Lycia was not in the hands of Antigonus and Demetrius following their victory in Cyprus, and in all probability in the year before. Indeed the aim of the capture of Cyprus is at least as likely to have been the protection of Antigonid possessions in southern Asia Minor as an attack on Egypt25. Whenever we date our Limyra text, 309 simply will not do as the date for Ptolemaic acquisition of the province of Lycia. For similar reasons, the possibility that Soter might have conquered Lycia and inserted a bu- reaucracy there before the reconquest of the “core territory” of Cyprus in 295/4 may safely be discounted. We are thus left with the window of 295/4 to 288/7 for the Ptolemaic acquisition of Lycia, and since the oikonomoi have been in office long enough to have made an impression, perhaps 289/8 is a better terminus ante. We cannot simply assign Ptolemaic takeover of Lycia 20 A fragmentary inscription, beginning >PFIB¿LKQLTØ_KQFDÊK9LR؂Q;BFØMBKQBH>FABHg9Q;S9F; is noted by Frei - Marek 1997, 76. For discussion see SEG 47. 1568, 448 and Descat 1998, 190 n. 81. Identification of this Antigonus with Antigonus Gona- tas is out of the question. 21 For the history of doubting this reference see Wörrle 1977, 53. 22 The coinage of Eupolemos was convincingly moved from Mylasa to Kaunos by Ashton 1998; see further Ashton 2004. The fact that it appears to share a monogram control mark with bronze issues of Demetrius, strongly suggests that Billows’ chro- nology for Eupolemos’ career is correct and that his coinage belongs between 305 and 285, and not c. 314 BC as has been suggested by Descat 1998. 23 Wörrle 1977, 52-53. 24 Diod Sic 20.46.6 - 47.1: PRKQÊJSTØMgKQ>ØMOgG>TØH>QhØQhT؀KQLIhTØQLÁØM>QOËTØH>µØHLJFPVBµT؀MµØ)>OÚ>TØM>OBHgIBFØ QLÀTØ `0LAÚLRTØ MOËTØ QËKØ H>QhØ .QLIBJ>ÚLRØ MÊIBJLK Ø Ø Ø (and then) M>O>MIB¿P>TØ B·TØ )FIFHÚ>KØ HjHB¶VBKØ K>ÁTØ H>µØ PQO>QFŸQ>TØMOLPI>?ÊJBKLTØAF}MIBRPBKØB·TØQŠKØ)¿MOLK Ø Ø Cilicia was now in Antigonid hands again because Demetrius had moved swiftly to recapture its cities in 310 (Diod. Sic. 20.19.4-5, 20.27.1). 25 So Billows 1990, 152. 464 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia to this period and have done, however. What had happened to the area since Ipsos? Immedi- ately after the battle, Demetrius apparently retired to his eastern heart-lands before returning to Greece, sailing from Ephesus via Caria and Lycia to Cilicia, and thence to Cyprus26. Lysimachus, we know, was to take Caria27. Did he also take the opportunity to bring with it its old annexe, Ly- cia. Did he allow it to remain Antigonid until the arrival of a Ptolemaic force in the latter half of the 290’s? Or was it nominally under the control of Lysimachus until his death in 281? Certainty is impossible. As we have seen, Plutarch (Demetr. 49) implies that Kaunos was back in the hands of Poliorcetes in 285. On the other hand, there is a strong likelihood that Lycian Telmessos at least was in Lysimachus’ gift at the time of his death28. In reality, this southern fringe of Lysimachus’ kingdom may have experienced a further period of unsettled oscillation between the three kings (Lysimachus, Demetrius and Ptolemy) who might lay claim to it. It seems likely, however, that the 5-7 years from 295/4 - 289/8 form the only available period for Soter’s conquest of Lycia on Wörrle’s dating of the Limyra text. But is this date correct? Wörrle favoured Soter over Philadelphus in identifying the King in the dating formula. He cites two main reasons for this choice. (a) The description of the reign, 9 >PFI;B¿=LKQL9TØ.;QL=I=B=J=>ÚLR corresponds to the usual practice in naming Soter, but not Philadelphus who is generally given the fuller title ?>PFIB¿LKQLTØ .QLIBJ>ÚLRØ QLÁØ.QLIBJ>ÚLR or QLÁ .QLIBJ>ÚLRØ 1SQ‹OLT. Yet as Wörrle himself admits29, certainty is impossible on this point. Philadelphus is not always referred to in inscriptions or papyri by his full filiation. Certainly it is in the realm of dedications and passing references to Philadelphus that he loses his filiation, but this should alert us to an important point: when it was clear enough to a “writer” to which Ptolemy he was referring, filiation could comfortably be omitted. Even on documents within Egypt itself, scribes did not always insert clear reference to the Ptolemy concerned, merely regnal year and date. They were satisfied simply to establish dates within reigns; the concern with the ability to date a document over the longer term is a modern one. If the formulation of such an honorific decree as our text were left to, say, the local grammateus, we need not necessarily expect any sort of conformity with dating custom elsewhere30. Moreover, there is in all probability a text from Caria dated simply ?>PFIB¿LKQLTØ.QLIBJ>ÚLR which cannot belong to the reign of Soter: FAmyzon 631 9 >PFIB¿LK;QLTØ.QLI9B;J>ÚLR؂QLR9TØØca 2-3; Ø 9€MµØKBSM;LFLÁØ)I=9B;g=9K;AOLRØQLÁØ"FLK9R; Ø 9PÚLRØ؂AL;GBKØ_JRWL9KBÁPFØØØØØØØØØØ; Robert comments, “le simple nom du roi Ptolémée, sans filiation, ne peut guère désigner que Ptolémée Sôter. Sous son règne déjà, Amyzon était devenue lagide. Notre petit fragment devient 26 Plutarch Demetr. 30, Polyaen 4.7.4, Diod Sic. 21.4b. Wehrli 1968, 153-154. 27 Plutarch Demetr. 4 (and Seleucus Cilicia Pedias [ibid. 47]). 28 This, I shall argue in a forthcoming study, is the background to the remarkable text from this city published by Wörrle 1978 (SEG 28. 1224). 29 He denies the relevance of this, however: “Dass die Filiation bei Nennung des Ptolemaios II. in anderen Zusammenhängen durchaus auch fehlen kann. . . ist angesichts dieses Befundes hier ohne Gewicht.” ([1977] 44-45 n. 3). 30 A nice example of precisely this lack of concern comes from another Lycian city, Araxa, where a decree is dated merely a#QLRTØÍDAÊLRØJEKËTØ%LOMF>ÚLR Ø Ø (Maiuri [1925-6] no. 1). The editor opts for Ptolemy II or III, but to whichever king (or dynasty) this date refers, the point remains that specificity could be dropped when it seemed superfluous. 31 Robert’s text appears to be misprinted. In line 1 either [e] or e` should presumably be read for [e`]; in line 2 KBSM;LFLÁØ LOØKBS;MLFLÁØCLOØKBS;LFL  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 465 alors, dans l’Asie Mineure méridionale de l’Ouest, un parallèle au décret de Limyra récemment publié. . . .”32. However, no other indication exists that Amyzon was Ptolemaic under Soter, and Robert of- fers no suggestion as to when it might have become Ptolemaic, how long it remained so, and thus to what rough date we might assign this stone. It is, in fact, almost impossible to see when Amyzon could have been in Soter’s possession during his reign. In 312 Monophthalmos had launched a thorough land assault on Caria and brought it firmly into his grasp33. Antigonid control was con- solidated at least in parts by a programme of military settlement34. In 309 Ptolemy campaigned in the area, but his force was seaborne and his conquests apparently limited to coastal cities.35 Perhaps at around this time he entered an alliance with the newly free city of Iasos, although the chronology of this episode has recently been disputed36. Inland, however, there can be little doubt that Antigonid control remained unscathed. Ptolemy cannot have had the troops aboard ship to contemplate the conquest of the Carian hinterland, and indeed after 306 it is clear that Antigonus and Demetrius had a firm military grasp on Caria37. It is highly unlikely that Amyzon was conquered by Ptolemy in 309/8, but even if it were, it would be inconceivable that it re- mained Ptolemaic for more than a year or two. The position after the battle of Ipsos has been the subject of much debate. There is general agreement that Caria now fell to Lysimachus, and that he handed control of the area to Pleistarchos38. Robert himself argued that Pleistarchos, having lost his kingdom in Cilicia in c. 299 - 298 was given Caria by Lysimachus, and kept this for at least seven years (until c. 290)39. The known area of his “province” grows as more epigraphic and nu- mismatic evidence emerges, and can be said with certainty to have included Herakleia Latmos, Tralles, Euromus, Sinuri, Hyllarima, and conjecturally Mylasa and Bargylia40. Amyzon must have been included and it is surely correct to suggest that “here, like Alexander before him, Lysima- chus preferred to administer the satrapy by time-honoured methods”41. Robert’s chronology has not won complete acceptance. Billows has suggested bringing the start of Pleistarchos’ rule up to the year of Ipsos (301), with the result that his rule might have ended as early as 294. This al- lows him to suggest that Pleistarchos was followed as dynast in Caria by Eupolemos, whose rule 32 Robert 1983, 128. 33 For a reconstruction see Billows 1990 and Jones 1992 on the role in this of the Antigonid general Dokimos, who, he suggests (p. 96), perhaps became strategos of Caria. 34 I. Iasos 2. 19 ff. with Billows 1990, 301. 35 In Caria, Kaunos and Myndos. At Halicarnassus he was driven off by Demetrius. For the sources see Seibert 1969, 185-186. 36 I. Iasos 2-3. For recent discussion of the text see Migeotte 2005 and Giovannini 2004 who suggests a date of around 305 for the alliance. 37 Habicht 1957, no. 22: a decree honouring an Antigonid commander Hipparchos 9QBQ>ØYØDJ}KL;T؀DØ)>OÚ>F (ll. 6-7). See Habicht ad loc. (pp. 188-190). 38 For a recent discussion see Gregory 1995. 39 Robert 1945, 61 with n. 7 assumed that Pleistarchos received it through Cassander’s intervention; Pleistarchos and Lysima- chus had known each other since 302, however (Diod. Sic. 20.112). For Lysimachus’ motivation, Lund 1992, 89. The objec- tion of Buraselis 1982, 28-31 (followed by Billows 1989, 191), insisting on regarding Pleistarchos’ domain as a “monarchy”, which misses the point. Such gifts to faithful generals were not hereditary kingdoms. On the Achaemenid precedent, Briant 1985a, esp. p. 56. Thus Pleistarchos’ successor was not his son (Billows op cit. pp. 188-193). 40 Herakleia: Steph. Byz, sv. Pleistãrxheia (for recent discussion of the fortifications of Herakleia, probably not to be attrib- uted to Pleistarchos, see Hülden 2000; Sinuri: Robert ad Sinuri no. 44, a document dated by Pleiastarchos’ 7th year; Tralles: Merkelbach 1975 – the dedication of a statue of Pleistarchos; Euromus: Errington 1993, no. 1 (document of uncertain year dated by Pleistarchos); Hyllarima: Roos 1975, 339 (documented dated year 3 of Pleistarchos); Mylasa: for the attribution of Alexander issues of Mylasa to the period of Pleistarchos’ rule see Delrieux 2000; Bargylia: for the appearance of the cult statue of the Bargylian Artemis Kindyas on the Alexander coinage probably minted at Mylasa in this period, Thompson 1981, 215; note, however, the caution of Price 1991, 313. 41 Lund 1992, 142-143. 466 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia there lasted perhaps down to 29042. Subsequently, Gregory has suggested maintaining the order of events proposed by Billows, but also the higher chronology of Robert, giving Pleistarchos dates of c. 298/7-290 in Caria, and Eupolemos c. 290-28743. More recently, Descat has sought to re-evaluate Eupolemos’ position as a general rather than dynast in Caria, and move it up into the 4th century. This attempt has been rejected by Corsaro who returns to the old view of Eupolemos as dynast, and prefers the chronological scheme proposed by Billows44. Clearly there is much uncertainty here over who was in charge when, but there seems very little scope for a period of Ptolemaic control of Amyzon within the period 305-290 on any of these reconstructions. With the 290’s thus ruled out, only the years 289 - 282 remain to Soter, and it is difficult to see how he could have taken and held a piece of inland Caria when it seems that Demetrius’ only rival for this land in 287 was Lysimachus45. If Soter took this land after the capture of Demetrius by Seleucus, then he took it from Lysimachus, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such hostilities ever took place. It seems clear that FAmyzon 6 cannot belong to the reign of Soter46. Thus, not only is a parallel for such a dating for the Limyra text removed, a parallel now exists for a dating formula without filiation for a king other than Soter. (b) “die . . . Familienverhältnisse der Geehrten einen so frühen Ansatz des Dokuments er- forden”47. Wörrle draws attention to a letter of March 257 from the Zenon archive: _J¿KQ>TØ8‰KSKFØU>ÚOBFK Ø8ŸMROLTØÎØQŠK؀MFPQLI‰KØPLFØjML=9AFAL¿T; €PQFKØR¸ËTØ1SPFD}KLRTØQLÁØ)>RKÚLR Ø Ø Ø (PCZ 59045) The likelihood of a connection between the Amyntas and Zopyros Sosigenous of Kaunos of this letter and the Amyntas Euthonos and Sosigenes Zopyrou of Kaunos of the Limyran honorific is very strong, but how precisely are we to envisage this connection? It is known from another papyrus from December 257 that Amyntas, the author of PCZ 59045, was recently married and the father of a young child48. The chances are that he was a relatively young man at this date, perhaps in his late 20’s or early 30’s. Now, the position of oikonomos of a Ptolemaic “province” must have been quite senior and we may assume with some safety that the men who held it were in at least their late 30’s or 40’s. If we accept the regnal date of 288/7 proposed by Wörrle for the decree49, then the Amyntas therein is clearly of a different generation to that of the Zenon corre- spondence - the latter is perhaps slightly too old to be a grandson, but if a son50 then born to his father rather late in life, say 5 - 10 years before his tenure of the post of oikonomos at the earliest. Assuming a slightly younger age of fatherhood for the other oikonomos, Sosigenes, his son, the Zopyros of PCZ 59045, must have been in his 40’s by 257. On Wörrle’s dating then, the scenario is this. The young Amyntas (c. 25-30 yrs.) writes a letter of introduction for an older (approx. 40- 45 yrs.) contemporary who is the son of an acquaintance of his father and, given the wording of 42 Billows 1989. 43 Gregory 1995, 24-26. 44 Descat 1998; Corsaro 2001, 239-240. On the date of the coinage, more likely to belong in the 290’s than 314, see above n. 22. 45 Plutarch Demetr. 46. Cf. Polyaen. 4.7.4. Meyer 1925, 33; Beloch 1912-27, IV.1. 219. For the suggestion of Rhodian posses- sions in Caria between Ipsos and Corupedion, Fraser - Bean 1954, 100-101. 46 Philadelphus, Euergetes or, at a pinch, Philopator must be the king in question: Robert reproduces no photograph. 47 Wörrle 1977, 44. 48 The fragments of this letter (previously known as PSI 4.340 and PJand. 6.92a+b) have now been assembled as P. L. Bat 20.51. 49 Wörrle 1977, 45-46. More precise dating depends (a) on the version of the Macedonian calendar being used in Lycia at this time and, if this were the Egyptian, (b) the date of calendar reform under Soter. See further Samuel 1972, 145-146, 151. 50 So Wörrle 1977, 64  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 467 the letter, of Zenon too51. That is to say, that Amyntas is introducing to Zenon the forty year-old son of one his (Zenon’s) associates – possible, I think, but unlikely and certainly no proof for the dating of our inscription. On the other hand, let us see what happens if the date of the Limyra honorific inscription is changed to the thirty-sixth year of Philadelphus instead. In Egypt Dystros in this year would roughly equate to May 249, i.e. some eight years after the sending of PCZ 59045, and perhaps Amyntas’ marriage. We now have only one Amyntas who would probably be about 30 while in the service of Apollonius, and about 38 at his tenure of the post of oikonomos of Lycia. Zopyros would remain the son of Sosigenes the future oikonomos, but would become a good deal younger. Again, assuming that his father was in his late 30’s or 40’s when he held that post, then Zopyros becomes an adolescent / teenager in 257, perhaps traveling alone in Egypt for the first time and understandably requiring a letter of introduction to Zenon. This latter scenario makes at least as much sense of the evidence as the former, and this material cannot be used to support the early dating of the Limyra inscription. Whilst dealing with the identity of the oikonomoi, it is important also to remember the history of their home city, which was also that of Zenon. Kaunos, as we have seen (above pp. 000-000) oscillated between the control of Ptolemy, Demetrius and Eupolemos in the period 309-285, and demonstrates the swiftly changing allegiance of at least one important city at this time. But more than that, this history raises a significant question for the dating of the Limyra inscription. The two Kaunian honorands, along with their compatriot Zenon were part of a tight-knit community working within the Ptolemaic administration. Such men performed their duties for the Egyptian kings whilst ‘they remained influential citizens of their home-cities’52. Whilst it is not impossible that such a relationship could cross royal boundaries, it seems far more likely that a nexus of Kau- nians such as that exhibited by the oikonomoi and Zenon belongs to a period of friendly Ptolemaic relations with Kaunos than otherwise. That is to say, the presence of Kaunians as officials in Lycia is more likely to be after 285 than before, and the Limyra inscription more likely to date to the reign of Phildelphus than of Soter. 3. A Broader Picture The remainder of the early epigraphic evidence for Ptolemaic control of Lycia and its neigh- bours Caria and Pisidia forms a very clear pattern. It consists of53: Telmessos: Wörrle 1978 = SEG 28. 1224 Philadelphus, Dios, Yr. 4 = Aug / Sept 282 Termessos Robert 1966 53f. Philadelphus, Audnaios, Yr. 5 = Sept / Oct 281 Araxa Maiuri 1925-6 no. 1 ? Gorpiaios, Yr. 8 = Jun / Jul 27854 Lissa TAM II.158 Philadelphus, Artemisios, Yr. 8 = Feb / Mar 277 TAM II.159 Philadelphus, Artemisios, Yr. 11 = Feb / Mar 274 Stratonikeia Robert 1953 no.1 Philadelphus, Panemos, Yr. 9 = Apr / May 277 Amyzon FAmyzon 3 Philadelphus, Hyperberetaios, Yr. 9 = Jul / Aug 277 51 So Wörrle ibid. 52 On the phenomenon see Fraser 1972 I., 67-8 (quotation from 67), highlighting amongst others the cases of Amyntas, Zoy- pros and Zenon. 53 For the dates of all of the below, on the basis of a new study of the calendar of Philadelphus, Grzybek 1990, cf. Wörrle 1991, 229. 54 See above n. 30. 468 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia For Xanthos we must wait until Dec 260 - Jan 259 for a Ptolemaic stone (FAmyzon 4A = SEG 33.1183). There is thus no evidence from the reign of Soter, and indeed considerable support for the old theory that this area became Ptolemaic after the death of Lysimachus at Corupe- dion55. Wörrle’s dating for the Limyra decree leaves it an early outlier, a date in the reign of Philadelphus places it firmly in a known period of Ptolemaic control. When considering the internal bureaucracy of Egypt and the workings of the Ptolemaic fi- nancial systems, one always thinks first of Philadelphus. The pattern of the survival of papyri has seen to that: we simply do not know how much of the “Ptolemaic machine” existed already under Soter56. The same circumstances do not however prevail for the discovery of epigraphic texts. Unless it is appallingly bad luck that no other inscriptions have yet appeared to throw light on the administration of outside possessions from the reign of Soter, then the pattern seems clear. Soter’s policy was not, in general, to take on such administration. Garrisons were one thing, where necessary, but Soter’s openly declared policy was for freedom, and, comfortingly, the Iasos text (IIasos 2-3) shows this policy in action. Furthermore, it was the conquest of Caria that gave Philadelphus the impetus towards the thoroughgoing bureaucratic system we find in place at home and abroad in his reign, and the personnel - amongst whom a selection of Kaunians - with whom to apply this system. In this respect too the Limyra decree, on Wörrle’s dating, proves an awkward outlier57. 4. Conclusion So much tells against the early date, and so little favours it, that the obvious solution is to take the other alternative. Once it is accepted that the dating formula could and does allow Philadelphus’ 36th year, then all other difficulties disappear. The honorific decree from Limyra is best dated to the year 249 BC. Then it belongs to a time when Lycia had been a Ptolemaic province for a generation, and forms just part of the (still growing)58 evidence for a peaceful, well-managed province, established most probably by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the turmoil that followed the deaths of Lysimachus and Seleucus Nikator. 55 Leaving aside the question of the “War of Succession” between Antiochus I and Ptolemy II. Previous bibliography at Wörrle 1977, 47 n. 22. 56 Studies have tended to concentrate rather on his religious policies, eg. Jouguet 1930. Yet, at the same time, “On s’est deman- dé, en effet, si c’est un pur effet du hasard que si peu de textes aient étés conservés du règne de Ptolémée I Soter. Ne faut-il pas l’expliquer par l’absence à cette époque des formes d’organisation que l’on connaît sous le gouvernement de Ptolémée II Philadelphe?” (Peremans 1936, 160). 57 Cf. the evidence assembled by Wörrle (1977, 57-62) for the workings of oikonomoi - none earlier than Philadelphus. 58 See most recently Adak - Şahin 2004, 86-7 no. 1: a new text probably dated by Ptolemaic regnal year from Tlos and from the middle of the third century.  The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 469 Bibliography Adak – Şahin 2004 M. Adak - S. Şahin, “Neue Inschriften aus Tlos”, Gephyra 1, 2004, 85-105. Ashton 1998 R. H. J. Ashton, “The coins of the Macedonian Kings, Lysimachos and Eupolemos in the Muse- ums of Fethiye and Afyon”, in: A. Burnett - U. Wartenberg - R. Witchonke (eds), Coins of Mac- edonia and Rome. Essays in Honour of Charles Hersh (1998) 19-48. Ashton 2004 R. H. J. Ashton, “Kaunos, not Miletos or Mylasa”, NC 164, 2004, 33-46. Behrwald 2000 R. Behrwald, Der Lykische Bund. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Verfassung (2000). Beloch 1912-27 K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte2 (4 vols) 1912-27. Billows 1989 R. A. Billows, “Anatolian Dynasts: The Case of the Macedonian Eupolemos in Karia”, ClAnt 8, 1989, 173-206. Billows 1990 R. A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed (1990). Borchhardt 1993 J. Borchhardt, Die Steine von Zemuri. Archäologische Forschungen an den verborgenen Wassern von Limyra (1993). Bousquet 1986 J. Bousquet, “Lettre de Ptolémée Euergète à Xanthos de Lycie”, REG 99, 1986, 22-32. Briant 1985 P. Briant, “Dons de terres et de villes: l’Asie Mineure dans le contexte Achémenide”, REA 87, 1985, 53-71. Buraselis 1982 K. Buraselis, “Das hellenistische Makedonien und die Ägäis”, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrus- forschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73 (1982). Corsaro 2001 M. Corsaro, “Doni di terra ed esenzioni dai tributi: una riflessione sulla natura dello stato ellen- istico in Asia Minore”, Simblos 3, 2001, 227-261. Delrieux 2000 F. Delrieux, “Le rôle militaire des monnaies au monogramme 7# dans la Carie de Pleistarchos”, RN 155, 2000, 35-46. Descat 1998 R. Descat, “La carrière d’Eupolemos, stratège Macédonien en Asie Mineure”, REA 100, 1998, 167-190. Errington 1993 R. M. Errington, “Inschriften von Euromos”, EA 21, 1993, 15-32. Franco 1993 C. Franco, Il Regno di Lisimaco. Strutture Amministrative e Rapporti con le Città. Studi Hel- lenistici VI (1993). Fraser - Bean 1954 P. M. Fraser - G. E. Bean, The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (1954). Frei – Marek 1997 P. Frei - C. Marek, “Die Karisch-Griechische Bilingue von Kaunos”, Kadmos 37, 1997, 1-79. Giovannini 2004 A. Giovannini, “Le traité entre Iasos et Ptolémée Ier (IK 28, 1 2-3) et les relations entre les cités grecques d’Asie Mineure et les souvreains hellénistiques”, EA 37, 2004, 69-87. Gregory 1995 A. P. Gregory, “A Macedonian $5.!34(3. Evidence for the Life and Career of Pleistarchos Antipatrou”, Historia 44, 1995, 11-28. Grzybek 1990 E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque. Problèmes de chronologie hellénistique, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 20 (1990). Gygax 2001 M. D. Gygax, Untersuchungen zu den lykischen Gemeinwesen in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit (2001). Habicht 1957 C. Habicht, “Samische Volksbeschlüsse der hellenistischen Zeit”, MDAI (A) 72, 1957, 152-274. Hölbl 2001 G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001). Hülden 2000 O. Hülden, “Pleistarchos und die Befestigungsanlagen von Herakleia am Latmos”, Klio 82, 2000, 382-408. Jones 1971 A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces2 (1971). Jones 1992 C. P. Jones, “Hellenistic History in Chariton of Aphrodisias”, Chiron 22, 1992, 91-102. Keen 1993 A. G. Keen, “Gateway from the Aegean to the Mediterranean: The Strategic Value of Lycia down to the Fourth Century BC”, in: J. Borchhardt - G. Dobesch (eds.), Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions I. Wien, 6.-12. Mai 1990 (1993) 71-77. Keen 1993a A. G. Keen, “Athenian campaigns in Karia and Lykia during the Peloponnesian War”, JHS 113, 1993, 152-157. Keen 1998 A. G. Keen, Dynastic Lycia. A Political History of the Lycians and Their Relations with Foreign Powers, c. 545-362 BC (1998). Lund 1992 H. S. Lund, Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (1992). Ma 1999 J. T. Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (1999). 470 III. Likya Sempozyumu / The IIIrd Symposium on Lycia Maiuri 1925-6 A. Maiuri, “Nuovi Supplementi al “Corpus” delle Iscrizioni di Rodi”, ASAA 8-9, 1925-6, 313-322. Merkelbach 1975 R. Merkelbach, “Ein Zeugnis aus Tralles über Pleistarchos”, ZPE 16, 1975, 163 ff. Meyer 1925 E. Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (1925). Migeotte 2005 L. Migeotte, “Iasos et les Lagides” in: F. Duyrat - O. Picard (eds.), L’exception égyptienne. Pro- duction et Echanges Monétaires en Egypte Hellénistique et Romaine (2005) 189-204. Peremans 1936 W. Peremans, “Égyptiens et étrangers en Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C.”, Chron. d’Ég. 11, 1936, 151-162. Price 1991 M. J. Price, Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus. A British Mu- seum Catalogue, Zurich/London (1991). Robert - Robert 1953 J. Robert - L. Robert, “Deux inscriptions de Carie”, in: Mélanges Isidore Lévy’, Annuaire de l’Institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves XIII (1953) 553-572. Robert - Robert 1983 J. Robert - L. Robert, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie (1983). Robert 1945 L. Robert, Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa I: Les Inscriptions Grecques (1945). Robert 1966 L. Robert, Documents de l’Asie Mineure Méridionale (1966). Roos 1975 P. Roos, “Alte und neue Inschriftenfunde aus Zentralkarien”, MDAI (I) 25, 1975, 335-341. Samuel 1962 A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology, Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechsgeschichte 43 (1962). Sartre 2003 M. Sartre, L’Anatolie hellénistique de l’Egée au Caucase (2003). Seibert 1969 J. Seibert, Untersuchungen zur geschichte Ptolemaios’ I., Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusfor- schung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73. (1969). Stark 1958 F. Stark, “Alexander’s march from Miletus to Phrygia”, JHS 78, 1958, 102-120. Thompson 1981 M. Thompson, “The Alexandrine Mint of Mylasa”, NAC 10, 1981, 207-217. Wehrli 1968 C. Wehrli, Antigone et Démétrios (1968). Will 1979 E. Will, Historie politique du monde hellénistique (1979). Wörrle 1977 M. Wörrle, “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens I”, Chiron 7, 1977, 43-66. Wörrle 1978 M. Wörrle, “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens II”, Chiron 8, 1978, 201-246. Wörrle 1980 M. Wörrle, “Telmessos in hellenistischer Zeit”, in: Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie Antique (1980) 63-72. Wörrle 1988 M. Wörrle, “Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia”, Chi- ron 18, 1988, 421-476. Wörrle 1991 M. Wörrle, “Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens IV”, Chiron 21, 1991, 203-239.