Editrler / Editors

Kayhan DRTLK
Burhan VARKIVAN
Tarkan KAHYA
Jacques des COURTILS
Meltem DOAN ALPARSLAN
Remziye BOYRAZ
Suna - Inan Kira Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Aratirma Enstits
Suna & Inan Kira Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations
III. LKYA SEMPOZYUMU
07-10 KASIM 2005
ANTALYA
THE III
rd
SYMPOSIUM ON LYCIA
07-10 NOVEMBER 2005
ANTALYA
SEMPOZYUM SYMPOSIUM
BLDRLER PROCEEDINGS
II. Cilt / Volume II
(Offprint)
SUNA |N/N K|K/C /K9|N|l |9|N|I|I||K| /K/;I|K/ |N'I|I'
'UN/ & |N/N K|K/C K|'|/KCh |N'I|IUI| N |9|I|KK/N|/N C|\|||l/I|N'
III. Uluslararas Likya Sempozyumu
Sempozyum Bildirileri
The III
rd
International Symposium on Lycia
Symposium Proceedings
Editrler / Editors
Kayhan DRTLK
Burhan VARKIVAN
Tarkan KAHYA
Jacques des COURTILS
Meltem DOAN ALPARSLAN
Remziye BOYRAZ
eviri / Translation
T. M. P. DUGGAN
nci TRKOLU
ISBN 975-9123-23-1
ISBN 975-9123-25-8 (Vol. 2)
Suna nan Kra Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Aratrma Enstits, 2006
Bu kitapta yaynlanan bildirilerin yaym hakk sakldr. AKMED ve yazarlarnn yazl izni olmakszn
hibir yolla oaltlamaz, baslamaz, yaynlanamaz.
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.
Yazma Adresi / Mailing Address
Barbaros Mah. Kocatepe Sok. No. 25
Kaleii 07100 ANTALYA TRKYE
Tel: 0 (242) 243 42 74 Fax: 0 (242) 243 80 13
akmed@akmed.org.tr
www.akmed.org.tr
Yapm / Production
Zero Prodksiyon Ltd.
indekiler / Contents
I. Cilt / Volume I

X
Sunu / Preface
XIII Sempozyum Program / Symposium Program
Bildiriler (Alfabetik isim srasna gre) / Proceedings (Names in alphabetical order)
AKYREK Engin
1
The Bey Dalar in the Byzantine Period: Trebenna,
Neapolis and Their Territories
ARMSTRONG Pamela
19
Rural settlement in Lycia in the eighth century:
new evidence
AYDIN Aye
31
Die Trikonchosbauten in Lykien: Ihre Entwicklung
und Funktion
BAKER Patrick
49
Les Telemachi de Xanthos Rflexions prliminaires
partir de nouveaux documents
BAYBURTLUOLU Cevdet
61
Arykanda Tanrlar ve Kltleri
BENDA-WEBER Isabella
69
Epichorische Elemente in Bekleidungssitten
und Haartrachten in Lykien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.
BORCHHARDT Jrgen
87
Genealogische Diagramme und ihre Bedeutung fr die
relative Datierung von lykischen Grabmlern
BUCHET Luc
107
Le peuplement de Xanthos lpoque proto-byzantine
MANIRE-LVQUE Anne-Marie Apports de lanthropologie et de la palodmographie
BULGURLU Vera
121
Myra-Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Kazsnda Bulunan
Sikkeler Hakknda Notlar
CAVALIER Laurence
129
Lagora suprieure 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 dcouvertes Xanthos
AYLAK TRKER Aye
153
Bizans Dnemi Demre-Myra Srsz Seramik Buluntular
EVK Nevzat
175
The social structure as reflected through the necropolii
of Trebenna
DOAN Sema
209
Likyada Bizans Ta Yaptlar
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia IV
DURU Refik
225
Bat Akdeniz Blgesinde Neolitike Gei
EICHNER Heiner
231
Neues zum lykischen Text der Stele von Xanthos (TL 44)
ELTON Hugh
239
Church Decoration in Late Roman Lycia
ERDEM lhan
243
Ortaa Sonlarnda Likya Levant Ticareti ve Trkmenler
(12.-15. yy.)
FREYER-SCHAUENBURG Brigitte
253
Zur Polychromie der lykischen Zwlfgtter-Reliefs
HLDEN 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
IIK Cengiz
317
Komu ki Bakentin Ortakl: Doal Braklan Kutsal Kaya
Ykseltileri
PLKOLU Blent
325
Dou Likyada Epigrafik Aratrmalar
KARAKAYA Nilay
331
Restorasyon Sonras Demre-Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Duvar
Resimleri
KIZGUT sa
345
Bemerkungen zu n n - eine unbekannte Stadt im
KUNZE Max 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
KKACI Mustafa S.
375
VII-XII. Yzyllarda Likyaya Arap lgisi
LEMATRE Sverine
385
La Lycie et les changes commerciaux dans lAntiquit :
les donnes du mobilier amphorique. Etude prliminaire
LE ROY Christian
401
Statue de culte, rituel et sacrifices au Ltoon de Xanthos
LOCKWOOD Sean
409
Reading a Fourth-Century B.C. Sepulchral Relief in
Northern Lycia: Iconography, Influence and Identity
MANIRE-LVQUE Anne-Marie
425
Habitat proto-byzantin Xanthos : les espaces de rception
de la grande rsidence nord-est de lacropole lycienne
MARKSTEINER Thomas
441
Wehrdrfer im Bonda-Gebiet
II. Cilt / Volume II
MEADOWS Andrew
459
The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929
MITCHELL Stephen
471
.. I. Yzylda Likyann Kuzey Snr: .. 46da
Roma Likya Anlamas
MHLBAUER Lore
489
Ein lykisches Fuma?
NOLL Johannes
515
Knigliches Gefolge beim Fischorakel von Sura
TKEN S. Yldz
523
Myra-Demre Aziz Nikolaos Kilisesi Mimari
Deerlendirmeler
ZGEN lknur
537
Elmal Ovas ve Hacmusalar
ZGENEL Lale
557
Late antique domestic architecture in Lycia: an outline of
the archaeological and architectural evidence
PALAZ ERDEMR Hatice
573
Akdeniz evresinde Gelien Siyasi Olaylarda Likyann Yeri
ERDEMR Halil (.. 5. yy. ile .S. 1. yy. aras)
PARMAN Ebru
587
Olymposun Orta a Dokusu
UKAN OLCAY Yelda
PESCHLOW Urs
601
Befestigungen lykischer Stdte in sptantiker und
frhbyzantinischer Zeit
PIMOUGUET-PDARROS Isabella
625
Kelbessos sur le territoire de Termessos de Pisidie: Dfense
et Protection de la Frontire avec la Lycie
PIRSON Felix
639
Das vielfltige Bild des Krieges: Kampf und Gewalt in der
lykischen Reliefkunst des spten 5. und des 4. Jhs. v. Chr.
RAIMOND Eric
647
La continuit de la tradition religieuse louvite dans la Lycie
de lge du Bronze lpoque grco-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
SAVA Sava zkan
679
Anadolu (Hitit-Luvi) Hiyeroglifli Belgeler Inda:
attuadan Lukkaya
SCHULZ Klaus
711
Architekturtheorie: Der Lykische Knoten. Versuch einer
Deutung der steinernen Grabarchitektur
SEYER Martin
719
berlegungen zur Chronologie lykischer Felsgrber
aus klassischer Zeit
STANZL Gnther
735
Neue Forschungen zum Ptolemaion von Limyra
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia VI
TALLOEN Peter
747
Pious neighbours. Pisidian religious ties with Lycia.
The case of the rider deities
TAKIRAN Harun
761
Likya Blgesinin Paleolitik Dnemi
TEK Ahmet Tolga
769
Hellenistik ve Erken Roma mparatorluk Dnemlerinde
Likyada Baslan Otonom ehir Sikkeleri
TEKNALP Vahit Macit
789
Arykanda Kenti Bizans Dnemi Mimari Plastik ve Liturjik
Ta Eserleri
TEKOLU . Recai
801
On the use of Word Separation Marks in the Lycian
Inscriptions
THRIAULT Gatan
811
Le statut des femmes lyciennes lpoque romaine :
Quelques remarques sur les grandes-prtresses 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.
847
The Fortifications of Aperlae in Lycia
LEADBETTER Bill
VARKIVAN Burhan
861
The Monumental Tomb Typology of Trebenna
VISMARA Novella
869
Imagerie des monnaies et imagerie des arts plastiques en
Lycie : premiers lments pour une comparaison entre la
fin du VI
e
sicle et le dbut du IV
e
sicle a.J.C.
YACI Remzi
883
The Kizzuwatna-Lukka Route in the Eastern Mediterranean
Trade of the 2
nd
Millenium B.C.
YT Turgut
897
Hitit Kralnn Arinnada (Arna=Ksanthos) Bir Muhalifi
ZIMMERMANN Martin
907
Phellos in Zentrallykien und die Grundmuster lykischer
Siedlungsgeschichte
ZOROLU Levent
917
Dalk Kilikya ve Likyada l Gmme Gelenekleri ve
Mezar Mimarisi likileri zerinde 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 (!"#$)
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 defeated
2
.
We learn of Antiochus progress from Jeromes 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 Ephesus
3
.
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 resistance
4
. 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: CoracesiumAntiochus operibus oppugnabat, Zephyrio et Solis et Aphrodisiade et Coryco et superato Ane-
murioSelinunte 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).
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 460
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 enemys 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 470s and 460s, 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-
rison
9
, and that much later, Ptolemy Euergetes would recall the citys relations with his grandfa-
ther
10
. 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 Patara
11
, 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
/+o, 6c c /uklo, +c ko ouXlo, qct, c, +j, opoXlou kpo+(oo, o_pcov ko+oo+joot +o, oXclot, +o vou-
+tkov. On Alexanders 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: c 6c +ou+cv (1o/oq) +oXcoo, o +j, /lyu+ou [ootXcucv u0ocvo, +ou, l6lou, o+po+g-
you, oo[c[Xgkcvot +o, cv KtXtklq oXct,, Xcuoo, c+o 6uvocc, c Ooo(Xt6o +ou+gv cv ccoXtopkgocv, cl, 6c
+gv /uklov opokoto0c, ov0ov poupoucvgv `/v+tyovou ko+o kpo+o, cXcv. cl+o +q Kouv pooXcuoo,
+gv cv oXtv opcXo[c.
10
Bousquet 1986, ll. 23-24 (= SEG 36.1218).
11
Diod Sic. 20. 93. 3: lcvc6go, 6c +ptcv ogyoucvo, +ptgtoXtcv Xcuoo, +j, /uklo, c +o o+opo ko ko+oXo[cv
opouoov vouv +ou Xgpco+o, c yj, v+o, cvcuptoc +o okoo,, oXXo 6c Xoo +cv kot(ov+cv +gv oyopov
c +o o+po+oc6ov o_clpto Xo[cv coco+ctXcv cl, +gv Po6ov. But note the scepticism of Wrrle 1977 .
The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 461
Ptolemaic province during the period when Cyprus was lost to Ptolemy Soter
12
. 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 sil nest pas impossible que les bases gyptiennes de Lycie,
de Pamphylie et de Cilicie occidentale aient t conquises ds les environs de 295 sur Dmtrios Poliorcte, il
se peut aussi quelles ne laient t qu 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
Wrrle 1977, 44 (SEG 27.929); Robert - Robert, Bulletin, 1978, 460.
3ootX{cuov+o, {+oXcolou t+ou{, tk+ou ko +ptok{oo+ou{
gvo, Zuo+pou t6oc /tupccv +jt oXct ko +o,
{cptolkot,, cct6g `/uv+o, E0cvo, ko 2cotycvg,{
q Z{cupou Kouvtot ko+oo+o0cv+c, o +ou [ootXcc,{
{+oXcolou olkovoot +j, _cpo, koXo koyo0o ko{
6lkotot ycyovoot c, +c +gv oXtv +gv /tupccv ko{
+ou, cptolkou, ko c, +ou, XXou, /uklou,, +u_gt{
8 +{jt oyo0jt, cotvcoot `/uv+ov E0cvo, ko 2cotycvg{
Zcupou Kouvlou, opc+j, tvcko ko cvolo, +j, cl,{
o{+ou,, clvot 6c o+ou, ko ccp{yc+o, ko pocvou,{
+{j, /tupccv oXcc,, 6c6oo0ot 6c ko oXt+clov
1z o{+o, ko tyk+gotv ko o+cXctov ov+cv cv g oXt,{
ku{plo co+lv, clvot 6c ko coXouv ko tkXouv o+o,
c{ oXcct ko cv clp(vgt oouXc ko ooov6cl, c+c{-
vot 6{c ko +c{v lcpcv o+o, ko0ocp ko /tupcuot.
Translation: In the 36
th
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.
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 462
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 functionaries
14
. But what is the date of this text? The key
apparently lies on the stone itself: 3ootX{cuov+o, {+oXcolou t+ou{, tk+ou ko +ptok{oo+ou{ |
gvo, Zuo+pou (1-2). As Wrrle noted there are only two Ptolemies who seem to have had regnal
years as high as 36, Soter and Philadelphus, and zwischen diesen fllt die Entscheidung mit groer
Sicherheit fr Ptolemaios I (p. 44). The date he proposed for the stone was thus year 36 of Ptolemy
Soter, or 288/7 BC
15
. This dating has, to the best of my knowledge, never been questioned, and
now appears in the standard reconstructions of the history of this period
16
.
Yet this early date for the establishment of an administered Ptolemaic province of Lycia, as
we have noted above and as Wrrle 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 (Wrrles 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
Ptolemys conquests in 309 is Xanthos
18
. It is possible, as Wrrle 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 Soters campaign of 309, but it did not
remain continuously in Ptolemaic hands thereafter
19
. 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
Wrrle 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
Wrrle 1977, 45-6.
16
See, for example, Borchhardt 1993, 79; Keen 1998, 178; Hlbl 2001, 23; Behrwald 2000, 60-61; Gygax 2001, 21. This dating must
also, I suppose, underlie Sartres statement that Ptolme continuait agir en Lycie (Limyra, v. 309) (Sartre 2003, 30).
17
Wrrle 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
Monophthalmus
20
. 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 290s BC
22
.
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, Wrrle responds Diese weit verbreitete Hypothese steht freilich nicht gerade auf sehr starken Fen
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-
nids
23
. 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 fathers 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 Egypt
25
. 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 3ootXcuov+o, `/v+tyovou t+{ct cv+ckot6cko+{ct{ 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 Wrrle 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
Wrrle 1977, 52-53.
24
Diod Sic 20.46.6 - 47.1: ouv+oc, ov+o poo, ko+o +o, cv+oXo, +ou o+po, ko koto0c, c Koplo, opckoXct
+ou, Po6lou, po, +ov ko+o +oXcolou oXcov. . . . (and then) opoXcuoo, cl, KtXtklov kokc0cv vou, ko
o+po+tc+o, pooXo[ocvo, 6tcXcuocv cl, +gv Kupov. . .. 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.
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 464
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 Cyprus
26
. Lysimachus,
we know, was to take Caria
27
. 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 290s? 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 death
28
. 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 Soters conquest of Lycia on
Wrrles dating of the Limyra text.
But is this date correct? Wrrle 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, 3ootX{cuov+o, {+oXcolou corresponds to the
usual practice in naming Soter, but not Philadelphus who is generally given
the fuller title [ootXcuov+o, +oXcolou +ou +oXcolou or +ou +oXcolou
2c+jpo,. Yet as Wrrle himself admits
29
, 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 elsewhere
30
. Moreover, there is in all probability a text from Caria dated
simply [ootXcuov+o, +oXcolou which cannot belong to the reign of Soter:
FAmyzon 6
31
3ootXcuov{+o, +oXc{olou t+ou, ca 2-3{
c vcc{otou KXc{ov{6pou +ou Ztovu{-
olou t6o{cv `/u(ovcuot -- -- -- {
Robert comments, le simple nom du roi Ptolme, sans filiation, ne peut gure dsigner que
Ptolme Ster. Sous son rgne dj, Amyzon tait 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 Wrrle 1978
(SEG 28. 1224).
29
He denies the relevance of this, however: Dass die Filiation bei Nennung des Ptolemaios II. in anderen Zusammenhngen 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
'E+ou, oy6oou gvo, Foptolou. . . (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
Roberts text appears to be misprinted. In line 1 either [e] or e` should presumably be read for [e`]; in line 2 vcc{otou
op vcc{otou op vcc{oto.
The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 465
alors, dans lAsie Mineure mridionale de lOuest, un parallle au dcret de Limyra rcemment
publi. . . .
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 Soters possession during his reign. In 312 Monophthalmos had launched a
thorough land assault on Caria and brought it firmly into his grasp
33
. Antigonid control was con-
solidated at least in parts by a programme of military settlement
34
. 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 disputed
36
. 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 Caria
37
. 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 Pleistarchos
38
. 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 Bargylia
40
. 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
. Roberts 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 +c+o l ycvo{, cy Koplot (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 Cassanders 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. Pleistrxheia (for recent discussion of the fortifications of Herakleia, probably not to be attrib-
uted to Pleistarchos, see Hlden 2000; Sinuri: Robert ad Sinuri no. 44, a document dated by Pleiastarchos 7
th
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.
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 466
there lasted perhaps down to 290
42
. 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. 290-287
43
. More recently, Descat has sought to
re-evaluate Eupolemos position as a general rather than dynast in Caria, and move it up into the
4
th
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 Billows
44
. 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 290s 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 Lysimachus
45
. 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 Soter
46
. 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 . . . Familienverhltnisse der Geehrten einen so frhen Ansatz des Dokuments er-
forden
47
.
Wrrle draws attention to a letter of March 257 from the Zenon archive:
`/uv+o, Z(vcvt _olpctv. Zcupo, o +gv cto+oX(v oot oo6t6ou,{
co+tv ulo, 2cotycvou, +ou Kouvlou. . . . (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 child
48
. The chances are that he was a relatively young man at this date,
perhaps in his late 20s or early 30s. 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 30s or 40s. If we accept the regnal date of 288/7 proposed by Wrrle for the
decree
49
, 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 son
50
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 40s by 257. On Wrrles 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 290s 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
Wrrle 1977, 44.
48
The fragments of this letter (previously known as PSI 4.340 and PJand. 6.92
a+b
) have now been assembled as P. L. Bat 20.51.
49
Wrrle 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 Wrrle 1977, 64
The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929 467
the letter, of Zenon too
51
. That is to say, that Amyntas is introducing to Zenon the forty year-old
son of one his (Zenons) 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 30s or 40s 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 of
53
:
Telmessos: Wrrle 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 278
54
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 Wrrle 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. Wrrle 1991,
229.
54
See above n. 30.
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 468
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-
dion
55
. Wrrles 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
Soter
56
. 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.
Soters policy was not, in general, to take on such administration. Garrisons were one thing,
where necessary, but Soters 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 Wrrles dating, proves an
awkward outlier
57
.
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
36
th
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 Wrrle
1977, 47 n. 22.
56
Studies have tended to concentrate rather on his religious policies, eg. Jouguet 1930. Yet, at the same time, On sest deman-
d, en effet, si cest un pur effet du hasard que si peu de textes aient ts conservs du rgne de Ptolme I Soter. Ne faut-il pas lexpliquer par
labsence cette poque des formes dorganisation que lon connat sous le gouvernement de Ptolme II Philadelphe? (Peremans 1936,
160).
57
Cf. the evidence assembled by Wrrle (1977, 57-62) for the workings of oikonomoi - none earlier than Philadelphus.
58
See most recently Adak - ahin 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 ahin 2004 M. Adak - S. ahin, 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 Geschichte
2
(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. Archologische Forschungen an den verborgenen
Wassern von Limyra (1993).
Bousquet 1986 J. Bousquet, Lettre de Ptolme Euergte Xanthos de Lycie, REG 99, 1986, 22-32.
Briant 1985 P. Briant, Dons de terres et de villes: lAsie Mineure dans le contexte Achmenide, REA 87,
1985, 53-71.
Buraselis 1982 K. Buraselis, Das hellenistische Makedonien und die gis, Mnchener Beitrge 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 rle militaire des monnaies au monogramme OX dans la Carie de Pleistarchos,
RN 155, 2000, 35-46.
Descat 1998 R. Descat, La carrire dEupolemos, stratge Macdonien 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 Citt. 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 trait entre Iasos et Ptolme Ier (IK 28, 1 2-3) et les relations entre les cits
grecques dAsie Mineure et les souvreains hellnistiques, EA 37, 2004, 69-87.
Gregory 1995 A. P. Gregory, A Macedonian AYNAZTHZ. Evidence for the Life and Career of Pleistarchos
Antipatrou, Historia 44, 1995, 11-28.
Grzybek 1990 E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macdonien au calendrier ptolmaque. Problmes de chronologie
hellnistique, Schweizerische Beitrge 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 Volksbeschlsse der hellenistischen Zeit, MDAI (A) 72, 1957, 152-274.
Hlbl 2001 G. Hlbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001).
Hlden 2000 O. Hlden, Pleistarchos und die Befestigungsanlagen von Herakleia am Latmos, Klio 82, 2000,
382-408.
Jones 1971 A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces
2
(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).
III. Likya Sempozyumu / The III
rd
Symposium on Lycia 470
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 ber 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.), Lexception gyptienne. Pro-
duction et Echanges Montaires en Egypte Hellnistique et Romaine (2005) 189-204.
Peremans 1936 W. Peremans, gyptiens et trangers en gypte au III
e
sicle avant J.-C., Chron. dg. 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: Mlanges Isidore Lvy, Annuaire de
lInstitut de philologie et dhistoire orientales et slaves XIII (1953) 553-572.
Robert - Robert 1983 J. Robert - L. Robert, Fouilles dAmyzon en Carie (1983).
Robert 1945 L. Robert, Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri prs de Mylasa I: Les Inscriptions Grecques (1945).
Robert 1966 L. Robert, Documents de lAsie Mineure Mridionale (1966).
Roos 1975 P. Roos, Alte und neue Inschriftenfunde aus Zentralkarien, MDAI (I) 25, 1975, 335-341.
Samuel 1962 A. E. Samuel, Ptolemaic Chronology, Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken
Rechsgeschichte 43 (1962).
Sartre 2003 M. Sartre, LAnatolie hellnistique de lEge au Caucase (2003).
Seibert 1969 J. Seibert, Untersuchungen zur geschichte Ptolemaios I., Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusfor-
schung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 73. (1969).
Stark 1958 F. Stark, Alexanders 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 Dmtrios (1968).
Will 1979 E. Will, Historie politique du monde hellnistique (1979).
Wrrle 1977 M. Wrrle, Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens I, Chiron 7, 1977, 43-66.
Wrrle 1978 M. Wrrle, Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens II, Chiron 8, 1978, 201-246.
Wrrle 1980 M. Wrrle, Telmessos in hellenistischer Zeit, in: Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie Antique (1980)
63-72.
Wrrle 1988 M. Wrrle, Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia, Chi-
ron 18, 1988, 421-476.
Wrrle 1991 M. Wrrle, Epigraphische Forschungen zur Geschichte Lykiens IV, Chiron 21, 1991, 203-239.