Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

- ausonius éditions -

— Mémoires 28 —

stephanèphoros
de l’économie antique
à l’asie mineure
Hommages à Raymond Descat
textes réunis par
Koray Konuk

— Bordeaux 2012 —
Sommaire

Auteurs .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Préface par Patrice Brun .................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction par Koray Konuk............................................................................................................................ 11
Travaux de Raymond Descat............................................................................................................................... 13

L’Économie Antique

Jean Andreau, Les Latins Juniens et la hiérarchie sociale romaine............................................................................ 19

Zosia H. Archibald, “What Female Heart can Gold Despise?” Women and the Value of Precious Metals
in Ancient Macedonia and Neighbouring Regions..................................................................................... 25

Véronique Chankowski, Délos et les matériaux stratégiques. Une nouvelle lecture de la loi délienne
sur la vente du bois et du charbon (ID, 509).............................................................................................. 31

Michel Cottier, Retour à la source : A Fresh Overview of the Persian Customs Register TAD C.3.7........................ 53

François de Callataÿ, Le retour (quantifié) du “miracle grec”................................................................................. 63

Gérald Finkielsztejn, Réflexions additionnelles sur le marquage des instruments et récipients à l’époque
hellénistique.................................................................................................................................................. 77

Catherine Grandjean, Polybe et la nature de l’État achaïen 2.37.9-11.................................................................... 85

Claire Hasenohr, Athènes et le commerce délien : lieux d’échange et magistrats des marchés
à Délos pendant la seconde domination athénienne (167 – 88 a.C.)....................................................... 95

John H. Kroll, Two Inscribed Corinthian Bronze Weights........................................................................................ 111

Léopold Migeotte, Les dons du roi Eumène II à Milet et les emporika daneia de la cité.......................................... 117

Christophe Pébarthe, La chose et le mot. De la possibilité du marché en Grèce ancienne...................................... 125

Isabelle Pernin, La culture de la vigne en Attique, à l’époque classique, d’après les inscriptions............................ 139

Gary Reger, A New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia.................................................................................................. 145

Jean-Manuel Roubineau, La cité égoïste ? Cité athénienne et action sociale.............................................................. 165

Julien Zurbach, Hésiode oriental, ou : le discours sur l’économie avant le logos oikonomikos.............................. 179
L’Asie Mineure
Ignacio J. Adiego - Michalis Tiverios - Eleni Manakidou - Despoina Tsiafakis, Two Carian Inscriptions from
Karabournaki / Thessaloniki, Greece........................................................................................................... 195

Alain Bresson, Painted Portrait and Statues: Honors at Phrygian Apameia............................................................ 203

Pierre Briant, Les débats sur la royauté macédonienne dans l’Europe du xviiie siècle :
quelques jalons anglais................................................................................................................................ 221

Laurent Capdetrey, Le roi, le satrape et le koinon : la question du pouvoir en Carie à la fin du ive siècle............. 229

Laurence Cavalier - Jacques Des Courtils, Permanence d’un culte héroïque dans
la nécropole intra muros de Xanthos ?......................................................................................................... 247

Fabrice Delrieux, Séismes et reconnaissance civique dans l’ouest de l’Asie Mineure.


La représentation monétaire des empereurs romains restaurateurs de cités.............................................. 261

Kutalmiş Görkay, Zeugma in Light of New Research................................................................................................. 275

Winfried Held, Der Palast von Pergamon und seine Erweiterung unter Eumenes II............................................... 301

Kaan İren - Ayla Ünlü, Burning in Geometric Teos................................................................................................... 309

Askold Ivantchik - Alexander Falileyev, A Celtic Dedication from Olbia? A Reassesment..................................... 335

Koray Konuk, Quelques monnaies inédites ou mal attribuées de la péninsule d’Halicarnasse.............................. 341

Olivier Mariaud, Postérité mycénienne et influences égéennes dans les pratiques funéraires
de la région d’Halicarnasse à l’époque géométrique................................................................................... 355

Francis Prost, Un nouveau fragment du sarcophage de Payava.............................................................................. 369

Gaétan Thériault, Culte des évergètes (magistrats) romains et agônes en Asie Mineure......................................... 377

Principales abréviations................................................................................................................................................ 389

Index des sources.......................................................................................................................................................... 395

Index général................................................................................................................................................................. 407


A New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia
Gary Reger

L
ouis Robert made his first trip to Asia Minor in the fall of 1932. Financial support had come from the
American Society for Archaeological Research in Asia Minor, through the good offices of W. H. Buckler.
Robert did some epigraphical work elsewhere, but his chief goal was Karia, where he had determined to
make Milas – ancient Mylasa – his headquarters for systematic investigation of a limited area 1. Thus on September 27, 1932,
after a seven-hour trip by car from Aydın, Robert arrived at Milas for the first time, from the east, having come down the
Marsyas river to Lagina. He worked in and around Milas until October 22, rediscovering many of the inscriptions that had
been published by his predecessors and finding many new ones himself. Thus began a lifelong fascination with the region
of Mylasa 2 which became an axis of his, and soon his and Jeanne Robert’s, professional lives until the end. The Roberts
planned a big book on Mylasa (a book whose lineaments, structure, contents, and intended publisher changed repeatedly
over the years), but it never materialized. At his death Louis Robert left behind a mass of notes for this book, which, in
1995, Jeanne Robert entrusted to me. The inscription treated here is among the inedita in that material 3.
This inscription appeared on an adjoining side of the same block of stone as the text published in 1890 by Walther
Judeich and republished, with slightly different restorations, as IK Mylasa, 308. When Judeich saw the stone it was built
into the wall of a house in such a way that the lower part was invisible. Judeich’s text of this inscription contains ten lines;
IK Mylasa, 308 provides an additional line and improved readings on the basis of a copy and squeeze made by E. Hula
and preserved in Vienna. When Robert examined the stone, it had been removed from the wall to expose some additional
lines of IK Mylasa, 308 (which remain unpublished) and, on another face, the inventory published here 4. The block clearly
originally belonged to a building on a corner, and since neither inscription. Neither inscription on the block begins at the
beginning, at least one more building course must have appeared above; moreover, the block exhibited anathyrosis. The

1. Robert, 1935, 331. Like most of Robert’s Karian writings, he did not reprint this article in the Opera Minora Selecta. As always
with Mylasa, my deepest gratitude goes to Jeanne Robert, who entrusted me with material collected by her and her husband at Mylasa; Gl. W.
Bowersock, C. P. Jones, and L. Migeotte played a crucial role, and I thank them. I owe thanks to Alain Bresson, Robert Parker and Riet Van Bremen
for reading a penultimate version of this paper and catching a number of errors. Versions of this paper were given at a workshop in November
2003 on “New Discoveries in Greek Epigraphy” organized by James Sickinger at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens while I was
Elizabeth Whitehead Professor; at a conference which I could not attend at the last minute, where Dorothy Crawford kindly read the paper for
me; at a workshop at the University of Chicago, thanks to Alain Bresson; and finally at the Sara B. Aleshire Center for Greek Epigraphy at the
University of California, Berkeley, where I owe my invitation to Emily Mackil and Nikolaos Papazarkadas. Attentive audiences at all these events
contributed substantially to improvements in this paper, and I am only sorry I cannot name everyone who made a helpful comment. I am likewise
grateful to Koray Konuk for the invitation to contribute to Raymond Descat’s Festschrift. For many years Raymond’s work on Mylasa and Karia has
been an inspiration to me, and our occasional disagreements have always forced me to think more deeply. It has been an honor to work in the
same vineyard. This paper is the fourth prolegomenon to my book on Mylasa; the others are Reger 2004 and 2010, and Ashton and Reger 2006.
Work on this paper was begun while I held the Charles A. Dana Research Fellowship at Trinity College; I am grateful to my colleagues there for
their confidence in me.
2. For the general location, see Map 61 in Talbert ed. 2000. A more detailed map appears in Reger 2010, 47. The dates of Robert’s
activities at Milas are derived from his contemporary field notes.
3. Since Jeanne Robert gave me the notes from which this inscription is culled, the remaining Robertian Nachlass has been collected at
the Institut de France under the aegis of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres as the Fonds Louis Robert: see Bresson et al. 2007; Callataÿ
& Delrieux 2010, 23.
4. Judeich 1890, 277 n. 22: “In der Wand eines Hauses; der untere Teil des Steines steckt in der Mauer.” This explains also the absence
of the last two lines on the squeeze preserved in Vienna (see IK Mylasa, I, 123): no doubt it was not possible for Hula to get to the last part to
make the squeeze. I will publish the rest of this text elsewhere, though below I treat some elements that may be important for understanding
the inventory. Robert’s notes for his activities in Milas in 1932 do not indicate when, how, or at whose initiative the block was removed from the
house.

– Stephanèphoros. De l’économie antique à l’Asie Mineure, p. 145 à 163


146 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

block is complete at the top and on the left edge with respect to the inventory, but broken on the bottom and the right
edge. The publication of inscriptions on the sides of buildings, especially temples, was very common at Mylasa.

Text
Mylasa. Inventory. Unpublished.
Ht: 30 cm. Th: 25+ cm (cf. IK Mylasa, 308). Letters: 1.1 cm.
Found by Louis Robert in 1932 in Milas in the “quarter of the cemetery”, see Robert 1934, 334: “un inventaire de vases sacrés”.
(This inscription is not mentioned by W. Blümel among the inedita listed in IK Mylasa.) Block of blue marble, complete in height and
on left. Anathyrosis on top, center cut down. Photographs: Figure 1 (stone), Figure 2 (squeeze).
διακοσίων ⁄πεντ⁄ή[κοντ]α · ἄλ[λων βασιλικῶν κοιλῶν]
<ζ>εῦγος ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν Ἀ[λεξανδρείων διακοσί ?]-
ων καὶ μιᾶς · ἄλλων βασιλικ[ῶν κοιλῶν ζεῦγος ὁλ]-
4 [κ]ῆς δραχμῶν Ἀλεξανδρεί[ων ἑκατὸν - c. 4-5 - κον]-
τα ἕξ · μαστίων διαξυστῶν ζ[εῦγος ὁλκῆς δρα]-
χμῶν Ἀλεξανδρείων ἑκατὸ[ν - - - - - - - - - - - - · ἄλ]-
λων μαστίων μικρῶν ζ[εῦγ]ος [ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν]
8 <Ἀ>λεξανδρείων ἑκατὸν ⁄τ[εσ]σ⁄α[ράκοντα c. 4-5 ]
ἡμισφαιρίων ζεῦγος ὁλ⁄κῆς δ[ραχμῶν Ἀλεξαν]-
δρείων ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι τεσσάρ[ων · - - - - - - - - ]
ζεῦγος ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν Ἀλεξα[νδρείων διακο ?]-
12 σίων · μαστῶν λειῶν ζεῦγος ὁλκ[ῆς δραχμῶν Ἀλε]-
ξανδρείων διακοσίων ἑβδομ[ήκοντα - - - - - - ὀβο]-
λῶν πέντε · βασιλικῶν κοιλῶν ζ[εύγος ὁλκῆς δρα]-
χ<μ>ῶν Ἀλεξανδρείων δι⁄ακοσίων [ - - - - - - - - - - - ]
16 τριωβόλου · ἀρυσᾶς μέγας ὁλκῆς ⁄δ[ραχμῶν Ἀλεξαν]-
[δ]ρείων ἐν<ε>νήκοντα · ἄλλος μικρὸ[ς ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν]
[ Ἀλεξανδρείων εἰ]κοσι · ἡθμὸς ὁλκ[ῆς - - - - - - - ]

||Fig. 1. Photograph of the block, inventory face (L. Robert).


||Fig. 2. Photograph of the squeeze (L. Robert).
Gary Reger – 147

Line 2. There is an empty space at the start of the line where the zeta should have been inscribed, but it never was.
Line 4. For the restoration of ἑκατόν followed by τριάκοντα, πεντήκοντα, ὀγδοήκοντα, or ἐνενήκοντα, see the commentary
below.
Line 3. The restoration βασιλικ[ῶν κοιλῶν ζεῦγος ὁλ]-[κ]ῆς (after line 14) fits the available space perfectly (16 letters in
a space calling for 15-16 letters). A nominative is required as the main item of the entry, as all objects (or pairs) are
so listed; compare ἄλλος μικρὸ[ς] at line 17.
Line 8. The lambda stands right up at the left edge of the text, but suspended on its left stroke are two small strokes
resembling a tilted “T.” These I take to represent, or be part of a representation of, an alpha added where there was
no space, the cutter having realized that he had forgotten it and there being no other place to insert it. The reading
following ἑκατόν is difficult. On the photograph of the squeeze, a rounded shape seems to precede the Σ, and I first
thought of [εἴκ]⁄οσ[ι]. But this could be followed only by τεσσάρων, which would leave quite a short line that could
not be filled out by a fraction, because they are all too long. However, the photograph of the stone shows clearly
that the rounded shape is not a letter but an artifact of damage at this spot and that a diagonal stroke sloping up
from left to right is clearly preserved at the edge of the stone. Further, the bottom of a vertical stroke which cannot
be the remains of an E can be seen just before the damage. The correct restoration is therefore ⁄τ[εσ]σ⁄α[ράκοντα]. On
the possible following word, see the commentary below.
Lines 13-14. For the suggestion ὀβό]λων πέντε I am very grateful to Nikolaos Papazarkadas.
Line 15. At start, ΧΝΩΝ on the squeeze.
Line 17. The third letter of ἐν<ε>νήκοντα on the squeeze is clearly omicron, but the rest of the reading is certain –
hence the correction. The restoration μικρὸ[ς ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν] provides exactly the number of missing letters (13)
and follows necessarily from the context: one large, and another small, ἀρυσᾶς. There is no room to repeat ἀρυσᾶς.

Line 18. I print here Robert’s transcription of this line. On the photograph of the squeeze I am able to read ⁄K⁄OΣ⁄Ι
of [εἴ]κοσι and ⁄OΣ⁄O⁄Λ⁄K of ἡθμὸς ὁλκ[ής]. There is room before the number for only 13-14 letters, which imposes the
restoration of Ἀλεξανδρείων here and of δραχμῶν in the preceding line.

Commentary and Discussion


The text contains in 18 lines part of the entries for 12 objects or sets of objects in pairs 5. Each entry begins with
the type of object, or, if the type is the same as the immediately preceding, with ἄλλων or, once, ἄλλος. The word for the
type is in the nominative or, if genitive (as in most cases), depends on a nominative ζεῦγος, “pair.” There follows ὁλκή,
“weight” in the genitive, Alexander drachmai in the genitive plural, and finally the number, written out, also in the genitive.
This rigidly repeated structure allows for considerable restoration of the text. For example, since the third entry (lines 3-5)
begins ἄλλων βασιλικ[ῶν κοιλῶν ζεῦγος], the second entry must also have recorded a pair of basilikoi koiloi, and they may
be restored. (For the restoration after βασιλικ[ῶν], see the lemma.) Since, however, the second entry (lines 1-3) also begins
ἄλ[λων], the entry before must also have recorded a pair of basilikoi koiloi; the entry ending in the first preserved line must
have read: βασιλικῶν | κοιλῶν ζεῦγος ὁλκῆς δραχμῶν Ἀλεξανδρείων. These restorations are further confirmed in lines 13-14,
where βασιλικῶν κοιλῶν ζ[εῦγος] would float without referent unless basilikoi koiloi had been mentioned earlier.
The twelve entries include: (1) the end of an entry, most of which is missing, of a pair of basilikoi koiloi weighing
250 dr. (line 1); (2) a pair of other basilikoi koiloi weighing an amount ending in a drachma but probably to be restored
as 201 dr (lines 1-3); (3) a third pair of other basilikoi koiloi weighing perhaps 136, 156, 186, or 196 drachmai (lines 3-5);
(4) a pair of mastia diaxusta weighing probably between 150 and 190 drachmai (lines 5-6); (5) a pair of small mastia not
specified as diaxusta, weighing probably 143, 145, or 147-149 drachmai (lines 6-8); (6) a pair of hemisphairia weighing
124 drachmai (or possibly slightly more; lines 9-10); (7) a pair of some objects whose names are lost (but they cannot be

5. “Pairs” are common in sacred inventories. Seleukos and Antiochos dedicated to Apollo Didymos a pair of vessels with a protome of
a deer (I.Didyma, 424, 37-41). For other pairs in these texts, see for instance I. Didyma, 426, 1, and below for further discussion.
148 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

hemisphairia because ἄλλων ἡμισφαιρίων is too long to fit the available space, which requires no more than 12 letters) whose
weight is largely lost but was most likely 200 dr (lines 10-12); (8) a pair of mastoi leioi weighing probably 275 or 279 (but in
any case between 271 and 279) drachmai and five oboloi (lines 12-14); (9) another pair of basilikoi koiloi weighing probably
232 to 296 dr and 3 oboloi (lines 13-16); (10) an arusas megas weighing 90 drachmai (lines 16-17); (11) another small arusas
weighing 20 drachmai (lines 17-18); and (12) an hethmos which ends the inscription (line 18) but clearly not the text.
In some cases, when additional objects of the same kind are listed, they are ordered in descending order of weight.
This is clearest in the case of the two arusteres, where the large one weighing 90 dr precedes the small weighing 20.
Although the weights are not fully preserved, the (regular) mastia again precede the small mastia. The rule may likewise
hold, if only in part, for the basilikoi koiloi. The first pair weighed 250 drachmai. Of the next pair, no more is preserved
of the weight than –ων καὶ μιᾶς. In theory, several numbers in the hundreds could be restored before the –ων, but since
all objects with preserved weights weigh less than 300 dr, it seems inevitable to restore διακοσί]ων. This would give a list
of two pairs of basilikoi koiloi listed in descending order of weight. (Note however that when more basilikoi koiloi appear
at lines 14-16, separated from their fellows by different types of objects, they break the rule if we reckon the third pair at
lines 3-5 as weighing less than 200 dr.) These considerations, along with the number of letters missing on the right (which
can be determined with considerable precision) 6, may permit at least a tentative restoration of a few weights. The number
of letters missing on the right is set by the length of the certainly restored lines, which are: 39 letters in line 1, 38 letters in
line 16, 37 letters in lines 3 and 14, 36 letters in line 12, 35 letters in line 9, and 34 letters in lines 5 and 7. The variability
is, however, less than appears if the iotas are discounted; without the iotas, line length is consistently 32 (lines 3, 5, 7, and
9) or 34 (lines 1, 12, and 14) letters, excepting only line 16, at 37 letters.
In line 2, the presence at the beginning of line 3 of ων καὶ μιᾶς sets an important constraint: the preceding number
cannot be less than 200. The availability of only about 6-7 letters restricts the choices to διακοσίων, ἑξακοσίων, ἐνακοσίων,
and δισχιλίων. No object recorded weighs anything near 2000 dr, and if it is correct to suppose that objects of the same
type are listed in descending order of weight and that no object exceeds 300 dr, then διακοσίων is the only possibility.
This restoration produces a line of 37 letters with and 34 without the iotas. (Obviously, if the rule is rejected, the other
possibilities remain open.) In line 4, the τα at the end of line 5 guarantees that a number between 30 and 90 stood in the
lacuna. There is space for 10-11 additional letters. Now, if it is right (again) to suppose that the pair of basilikoi koiloi here
weighs less than the preceding, we may restore either a multiple of ten between 30 and 90, inclusive, or ἑκατόν (6 letters)
followed by such a multiple. The first possibility is excluded because there are no such numbers long enough to fill the
space. Thus the restoration is probably ἑκατόν followed by τριάκοντα, πεντήκοντα, ὀγδοήκοντα, or ἐνενήκοντα: that is to
say, 136, 156, 186, or 196. These restorations produce a line, with and without iotas, of 35/33, 36/36, 36/36, 37/36 letters.
On this basis the most likely restoration will be τριάκοντα, which produces a line absolutely consistent in length with the
others. If, however, we reject the assumption that the weight here must be less than in line 2, διακοσίων, in combination
with ἑξήκοντα or τριάκοντα would just fit, producing a line of 37/34 or 38/34 letters.
In line 6, where there is space remaining for about 10 letters, the total number should not be less than 150 dr if
the rule about greater to lesser weights is correct. The maximum that could be restored is 190 dr. There are too many
possibilities between these extremes to limit further the available choices. But this entry is a good test of the rule about
order of weights, for τριάκοντα would fit the space available fine (ἕνδεκα or δώδεκα are however both too short). But if
we restore 30 we end up with a pair of mastia that weighs less than the immediately succeeding pair which is described
explicitly as “small.” So we must reject 30. This result seems to me a strong argument in favor of the rule.
In line 8, the presence of ⁄τ[εσ]σ⁄α[ράκοντα] calls for a number to follow between one and nine; with space for about
4-5 additional letters, the possibilities include τρίων, πέντε, ἑπτά, ὀκτώ, and ἐννέα; καὶ μιᾶς (cf. line 3) seems a bit too long.
It is hard to judge about line 11 since we do not know what object is inventoried, but the availability of about 5-6 letters
would allow in principle the restoration of 200, 300, 600, 800, or 900. However, the fact that the highest attested weight for
any object in this inventory is no more than 279 dr suggests again that διακοσίων is probably correct, although I would not
absolutely exclude 300. In line 13, there is room on the right for about 5-6 letters. Of the numbers between one and nine,

6. From line 12 on, there are 12 letters missing on the right. Line 1: about 16-17. Line 2: about 16-17. Line 3: about 15-16. Line 4: about
15-16. Line 5: 15. Line 6: 14-15. Line 7: 14-15. Line 8: 14-15. Line 9: 13-14. Line 10: 13. Line 11: 12-13.
Gary Reger – 149

πέντε and ἐννέα offer the best fit, although ἑπτά, ὀκτώ, and perhaps even καὶ μιᾶς (as in line 3) might also fit. In line 15, the
lowest possibility is probably 232 and the greatest 296 dr. I grant that there is a degree of uncertainty to these restorations,
as some lines may have been short, others long, as happens on inscriptions on buildings; but given that the five, and
possibly six, lines restored with certainty vary only between 34 and 37 letters, the suggested restorations of weights do not
seem unreasonable.

Weights of the objects


Each object or pair of objects is provided with a weight in “Alexander drachmai,” δραχμῶν Ἀλεξανδρειῶν. As money,
“Alexander drachmas” were coins bearing the image of Alexander the Great but issued after his death by many different
agencies, both kings and poleis, well into the second century BC. They were struck on the Attic standard of about 4.3 gr/dr.
The coins themselves have been well studied by Martin Price 7, their social and economic importance by Denis Knoepfler 8.
Mylasa struck Alexanders in four main issues, identified and dated by Margaret Thompson, Martin Price, and Georges Le
Rider. The first was an issue of tetradrachmas and drachmas, dated on stylistic and historical arguments to c. 316 or 310 to
300 BC. A second issue, also struck in both denominations, is dated in the period between 300 and 280. The third issue,
about whose association with Mylasa Price expressed some wavering doubts (but probably it does belong to Mylasa if
the others do), falls in the decades between 280 and 250, and again displays both denominations. Thompson starts the
last issue about 210-190, with the last varieties slightly later, in 188-170; Henri Seyrig preferred to start this issue about 225
on the basis of comparisons with Miletos, Priene, and Sardis. The coins of all these issues were struck at or very close to
the full standard. Thus from the late fourth century to the first two or three decades of the second, Mylasa struck its own
Alexander coins of good weight 9. Issuance of Alexander coinage by Mylasa demonstrates that the Mylaseans were using
the Athenian standard used for Alexanders. It therefore makes sense that the Mylaseans would have used this standard to
weigh dedications in silver (as these objects all certainly were; see below) 10. Indeed, many poleis used Alexander drachmai
as a standard for the weights of objects in inventories, including Delos, Miletos at Didyma, and Kos.
Inscriptions and inventories from other poleis provide some information about the process of recording, preservation,
and significance of weighing dedicated objects. At Athens, a special commission or other body occasionally undertook,
at the instruction of the state, an examination, exetasmos, of all objects belonging to the god(s). This process involved
removing all the objects from storage to examine and, sometimes, weigh them 11. An inscription dating to 364/363 BC from
Delos shows in some detail the procedures followed in weighing sacred dedications (ID, 104, 36-45) 12. One of the Didyma
inventories (I. Didyma, 463) has entries that suggest actual weighing, for the administrators have added the word ἄγω 13.
However, it is unlikely that when such objects were weighed, they were weighed against coins. Even coins of the finest
quality vary from piece to piece in weight, and if they have circulated at all lose weight from wear. Such variations may
not have been much, and the effect of wear can be exaggerated, but nevertheless objects weighing dozens, or a hundred,

7. Price 1991; for a conspectus of reaction to Price, see Gerin 1999, 353-367. For the change in western Asia Minor from Alexanders to
autonomous issues, see Le Rider 2001.
8. Knoepfler 1997.
9. Thompson 1981; Price 1991, 274-276; Le Rider 1990 with 1996; Seyrig 1963, 38; Akarca 1959, 12-15, 55-56; Houghton and Lorber 2002,
196-197, n° 551-553, for coins of Antiochos II possibly minted at Mylasa. Circulating at Mylasa during these years were surely also Alexanders
issued by other authorities, particularly after Mylasa fell under Seleukid domination.
10. It should not be supposed that objects were weighed against actual coins as opposed to standard weights. This notion has been
floated by M.-Chr. Marcellesi (most recently in Marcellesi 2004, 5-26), but rejected, with reason, already by Bresson 2000, 211-243. I am indebted
to discussion with Richard Ashton, Alain Bresson, Elizabeth Kosmetatou, and Joshua Sosin on this matter.
11. Examples of an exetasmos include IG, II2, 120, IG, II2, 1438 + 1440 + Schweigert 1938, 281-289, n° 15, and IG, XII, 8, 51, on Imbros
but undertaken by Athenian klerouchoi; see Aleshire 1989, 105, 241-242.
12. See also ID, 1432, Ab, II, 25-28 = 1441, A, II, 70-73; Homolle 1891, 117; Tréheux 1965, 56-67; Pollux, 4, 171-172; IG, XI, 2, 287, B,
142-143; Linders 1972, 52-53, 57, n. 53.
13. Another Didyma inventory reports a Rhodian dedication as weighing 372 (TOB) and a Ptolemaic dedication of four objects as
weighing 328 (TKH) (I. Didyma, 475.32-35)
150 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

drachmai would be subject to noticeable variation from weighing to weighing – especially troublesome when some were
weighed to as little as the triobolos 14. Weighing would no doubt have been done against official standards 15.
In many cases, however, weights recorded in inventories derived from inscriptions or tags on the objects themselves.
An entry in an inventory from the Asklepieion in Athens notes that an object was shy a drachma of its supposed weight
when actually weighed 16. The inscription from Delos mentioned above reports a “weight inscribed on the tag,” ἐπὶ τῶι πίνακι
(ID, 104, 36) 17. A later Delian inscription reports that the weight of the object accorded with its inscription, οὗ ὁλκὴ κατὰ
τὴν ἐπιγραφήν (ID, 1441, A, II, 23). The earlier Delian inscription also records a “gold incense-burner, complete, bronze
underneath, the weight of the gold has been inscribed on the incense-burner as 822, but both together weighed 3700” and
a bit more (ID, 104, 39-42). This raises the question: who put the inscriptions on the objects ?
While it may be that in some cases the temple administrators inscribed the weights, it seems to me likely that in many
cases, especially of valuable offerings, the weight inscriptions were provided by the dedicators themselves. The incense-
burner just mentioned is a prime example, for there was no way to weigh the gold separately once it had been added to
the bronze base – the very problem the administrators obliged to check its weight could not solve. The weight of the gold
must have been determined before the burner was made, and inscribed after manufacture. In all probability, this weight
derived from the gold provided to the smith by the person who had commissioned the burner. As Michael Vickers and David
Gill have observed, “It was in fact the norm for plate to be made up in round figures in terms of one coinage or another” 18.
Such a practice would seem to be reflected in the weights given in the temple inventories from Didyma near Miletos.
There is no single standard for all objects. The weights of gold objects are given in χρυσοί, gold coins, but of silver objects
in drachmai, often Alexanders. But the weights of some objects are given in a different standard, sometimes Rhodian
drachmai, sometimes local Milesian drachmai (which were struck to a different standard than the Alexanders). Sometimes
conversions to different standards are recorded, other times they are not. In one case no weight was given for a kylikion of
Teian workmanship because, the treasurers explain, “the weight is not inscribed”, τὴν ὁλκὴν ἀνεπίγραφον (I. Didyma, 433,
18-20) 19. A number of precious metal objects survive from the Hellenistic period with weight inscriptions. For example, a
gold phiale of late fourth century date has an inscription giving its weight in Attic drachmai and Persian darics 20. A silver
bowl in the Toledo Museum of Art is inscribed ΔΡΑΧ ΝΑ, 51 drachmai; it weighs 225.3 g, quite close to the Attic standard
(at 4.3 g/dr, 51 dr yield 219.3 g) 21.
It is altogether likely, then, that typically the weights of dedications in inventories derived from inscriptions or
tags placed on the objects at manufacture by the dedicator, or on his behalf. And indeed there is one piece of strikingly
confirmatory evidence for such a procedure that happens to come from Mylasa itself. The Mylasean tribe of Hyarbesytai
passed a decree requiring persons honored by the tribe to dedicate a silver cup (ποτήριον ἀργυροῦν) or phiale to the Zeus
of the tribe. The object must weigh 100 Alexander drachmai, be inscribed with the name of the person honored, the fact
that the object has been dedicated to Zeus, and the weight (ἐπιγραφὴν πο[ιησαμέ]ν[ου] τοῦ κατασκευαζομένου τοῦ τε ὀνόματος
τοῦ τετ[ιμ]ημένου καὶ ὅτι [τ]ιμηθεὶς ἀνέθηκεν Διὶ Ὑαρβεσυτῶν κα[ὶ] τῆς ὁλκῆς, IK Mylasa, 301, 11-13) 22. There is, of course, no

14. On the problem of wear, see the remarks of Price 1991, 41-42. Most specimens Price studied of the Alexander tetradrachmai fell
within 2% of a standard of 17.25-17.30 g. An object weighing 100 Alexander dr, weighed against actual coins varying by only 2% from the standard,
could deviate by as much as 2 dr in either direction, or four times the precision of weight recorded in the inventory. See IK Ilion, 151, 17, for an
object weighed down to trioboloi.
15. Lang & Crosby 1964, 1-22. Thus Descat & Pernin 2008, 211-212, are mistaken to include the Alexander drachmai of IK Mylasa, 301
among coins; certainly a weight standard is meant, as here, and also for the phiale in Blümel 1989, 9, n° 897 (Migeotte 1992, 236-240, n° 75).
16. Aleshire 1989, 177-248, Inventory IV, line 118 (cf. likewise 121): [ - - - ]τιον ὃ ἀνέθηκεν Κτησικλῆς: Ἁγνουσ: σταθ: ΠΔΔΙΙΙΙ: ἤγηγε: ἀπήγηγε
Ι.
17. For labels attached to votives: IG, XI, 2, 208, 12-13, interpreted by Aleshire 1989, 106 n. 6 as a temporary wooden label; Dunst 1972,
106-110; Albert 1972, 1-42; Homolle 1887, 13; Tréheux 1952, 579, n. 1.
18. Vickers & Gill 1994, 40.
19. On the other hand, if Rehm is right to suggest that the thymiatron dedicated in 277/276 was made of bronze, that would explain why
it was “unweighed”, ἄστ[α]τον: I. Didyma, 426, 12.
20. Strong 1966, 97. Strong remarks: “this information [i.e., the weights on objects] simplified the work of the stewards responsible for
drawing up temple inventories” (20).
21. Oliver 1977, 78-79, n° 43.
22. The Mylaseans gave a phiale to Apollo at Didyma weighed in Alexander drachmai: I. Didyma, 475, 10-11, dated by the stephanephoros
Aristanor, c. 100 BC. IK Mylasa, 301 and 110 were passed on the same day. Both are dated in the corpus to the end of the second century BC,
presumably because the stephanephoros under whom both were passed appears also in a number of land-transfer texts (“baux”), which have been
Gary Reger – 151

way to know whether these procedures were particular to this tribe, or generally practiced; nor could they be imposed on
voluntary dedications, which would have been accepted regardless of whether the objects were inscribed with their weights
or not. The variability observed at Didyma is likely to be the better guide.
Using a rough Attic standard of 4.3 g/dr, we can convert the figures given in the inscription into estimates of the
actual weight in grams of the objects. Owing to the uncertainties in restoration of numbers, discussed above, there is some
leeway, but in general we can get a rough sense of how big these objects were. The weights are sufficient to guarantee
that all these vessels were in silver. The smooth mastoi weighed about 581 g each, while the mastia weighed about 215
+ and 300 + g each. Some surviving silver mastoi that are essentially complete weigh 495 g, 230 g, 224 g, and 131 g; our
smooth mastoi are bigger than the biggest, but certainly not radically so, and the mastia fit perfectly comfortably in the
range. The two ladles weighed 387 g and 81 g. The silver ladle published by M. Crosby (fig. 5) weighs 174.18 g, more or
less in the middle of the weighs of those in the inventory 23. Since the mastoi, mastia, and ladles were without doubt silver,
there can be no uncertainty about the other objects, even though they cannot be compared with surviving examples. The
four pairs of basilikoi koiloi , inventoried at 250 dr, 201 dr (?), 100 + dr (?), and 200 + dr, would have weighed, as individual
objects, 537.5 g for the heaviest and as little as 215 g for the lightest. The two hemisphairia weighed each about 266 g.
These weights guarantee that these vessels too were silver.

The Objects
The commonest objects in the preserved part of the inventory also pose the greatest interpretative challenges: the
eight pairs of βασιλικοὶ κοῖλοι 24. These are the only adjectives in the inventory not married to a noun, except for ἄλλος μικρός
at line 17. To what can they refer ? First, it is possible that, as in the case of the ladle at line 17, a substantive which appeared
in the missing previous text of the inscription should be understood as governing the adjectives 25. One might think for
example of φιάλαι, an obvious shape in the context of drinking cups and admirably described by “hollow”. Indeed, a phiale
inventoried on Delos is described as ἄλλην κοῖλην, distinguishing it from two other examples listed immediately beforehand;
in this inventory the noun is not repeated, but understood from the first object 26. Another possibility is πίνακες, “platters,” as
in the κοῖλοι πίνακες Pollux mentions in his list of equipment for the table, σκεύη δὲ τραπεζῶν (10, 82) 27. The entries that give
the best support to this view – that basilikoi koiloi are two adjectives with a previously stated noun understood – fall in lines
12-16. Lines 12-13 record a pair of smooth mastoi and their weight (which is partly lost). Lines 14-16 record another pair of
basilikoi koiloi, followed again by the weight. We would be meant to understand that both sets of objects were mastoi, the
first set “smooth” and the second “basilikoi koiloi.” The noun would not be repeated because the type of object would be
the same; only its characteristics as captured by the adjectives would differ. But there are two considerations that militate
against this view. At lines 5-7, where a pair of diaxysta mastia is followed by a pair of small mastia, the noun is repeated
even though the type of object is the same in both entries. Moreover, in every case where another object of the same type
is inventoried immediately following, the text has allos. Its absence from this entry (lines 14-16) strongly militates against
the notion that basilikoi koiloi should be understood here to be governed by mastoi.
It is possible that the governing noun for basilikoi koiloi in lines 14-16 was meant to be taken from much further up
in the inscription, before the preserved beginning. In that case the basilikoi koiloi at this entry would be unrelated to the
immediately preceding mastoi, and perhaps we could explain the absence of allos by the fact that we must look well beyond
the immediately preceding entry for the noun. But then the lack of a noun seems strange, for it would be natural to take

dated to the later second century. On the basis of the coins mentioned in the land leases Richard Ashton and I placed this stephanephoros, and
so IK Mylasa, 110, around 188-185 BC (Ashton & Reger 2006). Now Descat & Pernin 2008, 212, argue that IK Mylasa, 301 (and so by implication,
110 too) cannot go later than 170, although they do not think it can go quite as early as we. But the close accord in dating arrived at by them and
us using completely independent methods is extremely robust and quite gratifying. For a similar requirement at Bargylia, see IK Iasos, 612, 11-12,
discussed further below.
23. See n. 43 and 63 for the references.
24. I use the masculine for convenience.
25. I owe this idea to a suggestion made in conversation by Nigel Kennell. There are plenty of examples in inventories: at IG, II2 1424,
a, 158, χαλκία κοῖλα depend on an ὁλκεία understood from a couple of lines above.
26. ID, 1432, Ba, I, 25-26. The Delian inventories are studied in exhaustive detail by Hamilton 2000; full references to all the objects
mentioned below can be found in his indices.
27. See also for example the πίναξ ἀργυροῦς stored in the Hekatompedon in Athens: Harris 1995, 178-179, n° 353-359.
152 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

the immediately preceding noun rather than one far up in the inscription as governing. And under this view the absence
of allos too is hard to explain. Finally, a more general point. All the objects in this inventory were used for drinking, and
except for the strainer and ladles, all are cups. Koilos would not seem to add anything to the description of a cup, which
must be hollow to be a cup. These reflections suggest we should also consider the possibility that one or the other of these
adjectives is being used as a substantive: to designate a particular type of cup.
Consider first basilikos. This adjective is used with a wide range of nouns and also as a substantive referring to the
royal fisc 28. In this inventory, however, “royal” clearly describes or designates some object associated with drinking. In his
lengthy list of vessels used for drinking, Pollux remarks that some types of vessels take their names from those who made
them, “but the Antigonis and Seleukis and Rhodias or Rhodiakon from those who used them,” ἀντιγονίδα δὲ καὶ σελευκίδα
καὶ ῥοδιάδα ἢ ῥοδιακὸν ἀπὸ τῶν χρησαμένων (6.96). An inventory from Amphiaraion in Oropos mentions a “Ptolemaic phiale”
dedicated by king Ptolemaios and weighing 100 dr. And most notably, an inscription from Olympia – dated to the second
or third century CE – honors an unknown honorand who “was first of the Eleans to serve as gymnasiarchos with cups and
royal ladle,” γυμνασιαρχή[αν]τα ὁλκείοις καὶ κυάθïω βασιλικ[ïῷ] πρῶτον Ήλειῶν 29. “Royal” inevitably brings to mind the Seleukid
imperial cult, attested for Mylasa by inscriptions mentioning a “priest of the kings,” ἱερεὺς τῶν βασιλέων. Cults of “the kings”
known from other Karian cities in the late third and very early second centuries honor Antiochos III and his son 30. On the
other hand, Mylasa also had a “priest and king of the koinon of the Karians,” ἱερεὺς καὶ βασιλεὺς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῶν Καρῶν 31. If
the vessels inventoried here were associated with either cult, that might explain why they were called “royal”. However,
both these possibilities seem to me to be undermined by the absence of the epithet “royal” from the other objects in the
list. I prefer, then, to suppose that “royal” refers to something about the type of vessel, rather than the context within which
it was used.
Let us turn now to koilos. As we have seen, “hollow” can be used to differentiate one type of phiale from others or
certain “bronze hollow” cups from other cups (holkeia). An Athenian inventory also reports a ὑάλιον ἀργυριὸγ κοῖλον 32, and
another Athenian inventory lists καδίσκοι καὶ καθ[ε]τῆρες [ΠΙ] χαλκία κοῖλα ΙΙΙ. The neuter adjectives cannot be connected
with the preceding masculines, so that koila would seem here to be a word for “cup”. The context in which these vessels
are mentioned is a list of objects used for drinking: in addition to the kadiskoi and katheteres, three kraters, three ladles
called ἡθμοί and one κύαθος μέγας and a κύαθος μικρός 33. But occasionally koilon can be used as a substantive, as when
Apollodoros says the ancients called everything hollow (koilon) a “cup” (kotyle), “like the hollow of the hands,” ὡς τὸ τῶν
χειρῶν κοῖλον (Athen. 11.497a).

However, koilos also has a technical meaning. Describing the preliminaries to Artaxerxes Ochos’ expedition against
Egypt in 344 BC, Theopompos reports the rich gifts sent by the cities and nations of Asia to have included “κο[ῖλον] ἄργυρος
and worked gold and cups and kraters” 34. The same usage appears in [Aristotle] Oikonomikos, 2.24 (1350b23), a ruse by
Didales the Persian to deceive his troops, who were grumbling about pay; he had some donkeys loaded with κοῖλος
ἄργυρος and paraded before the troops, who took the loads for “silver”, ἄργυρος. In one of Lucian’s tales a rooster once
king admits that the riches of the land he once ruled included χρυσὸς ὁ κοῖλος πάμπολυς (Gall., 24). A fragment of Sophokles
preserved in Athenaios lists as prizes for an athletic contest κοῖλα χρυσόκολλα καὶ πανάργυρα ἐκπώματ’, εἰς ἀριθμὸν ἐξήκοντα
δίς 35. A. C. Pearson writes that koilos “is a technical term of art, where convex figures produced by the chasing of the baser
metal [i.e., bronze] are overlaid with gold (or silver); and helps here to distinguish the cups with gold ornamentation from

28. For instance, SEG, 49, 855, A, 28, of the late third or early second century BC, from Makedon.
29. Petrakos 1997, n° 325, 59-60: βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου φιάλη πτολεμαικοῦ ἄγουσα IvO, 468, 5-7. The word brings also to mind the kosmos
basilikos, royal costume, referring to clothing appropriate to Alexander and other kings; see, for instance, Prestianni Giallombardo 1990.
30. For the priest of the kings at Mylasa, see IK Mylasa, 894, citing Robert and Robert 1983, 167, Robert 1955, 225 n. 3; see also now
Blümel 1995, 51-52 n° 16, line 11, which is a small fragment of the “grand bail” of Olymos Robert often mentioned (see, for instance, and in
reference to this line of the text, Robert and Robert 1983, 167) and which I will publish elsewhere; for the ruler cult, Ma 2002, 219-226.
31. IK Mylasa, 828, 12 with comm.; see also IK Mylasa, 10, 1 with comm. Laumonier, 1958, 42-43; Hornblower 1982, 55. I am grateful to
Michael Metcalfe for reminding me of this possibility. On the god Βασιλεὺς ὁ θεός, the chief god of Kaunos, see now Marek 2000 and Marek 2006,
n° 35, C, 16 and E, 4; n° 139, III, c, 4; 142, 7.
32. IG, II2, 1377, 21; 1395, 21-22, etc.
33. IG, II2, 1425, 360-366.
34. FGrHist, 115, F, 263 (from Long., On the Sublime, 43.2). Translated as “silver plate” by Flower 1994, 192; as “silver vessels” by Russell
and Winterbottom 1972, 500, followed by Shrimpton 1991, 23, 103. If the interpretation offered in the text is correct, these translations are
imprecise.
35. Pearson 1917, 2, 48-49, frg. 378.
Gary Reger – 153

those that are of solid silver…” 36. Pearson seems right to me given the clear contrast drawn in all these passages; the use
of koilos by Pollux quoted above should also fall into this category (that is to say, it does not simply mean “hollow”).
None of these arguments is decisive for understanding the basilikoi koiloi. It may still be that these should be taken
as simple adjectives, dependent on a previous, and unknown, noun. (It seems very unlikely to me that the basilikoi koiloi
of lines 14-16 were mastoi, for the reasons given above.) Koilos could then still mean “chased,” as in “royal chased (cups ?)”.
But the case for taking one or the other as a substantive, designating a type of cup (whether “royal”, like the Antigonis, and
so on, or “hollow”) has its force as well. In any case, it is clear that these vessels are almost certainly cups forming part of
a set or sets of drinking equipment – as we will discuss further below.
The pair of ἡμισφαίρια weighs 124 dr (lines 9-10). In mathematical, scientific, and geographical literature this word
denotes half of a sphere of the sky or earth (the whole conceived as a sphere cut in half by the surface of the earth), but
obviously here we are dealing rather with yet another type of cup, which must have been in the shape of a hemisphere
and so in appearance certainly very close to a mastos 37. As it happens, almost exactly the same term is used in a recently
published inscription from Kos which seems to date from the late third century. It records (apparently) the dedication by
each of four men serving as priests of a ἡμίσφαιρον whose weight is recorded in Alexander drachmai; all three preserved
weights are 100 (lines 5, 6, and 7); the consistency of the text permits the following restoration 38:
Τοίδε τῶν ἱερατευό[ντων ἀνέθηκαν]
τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι ποτὶ [ - - - - - Δα]-
μέα ἡμίσφαιρον ἄγο[ν Ἀλε. Η ·]
4 Ἀρισταίχμου ἡμίσφα[ιρον ἄγον]
Ἀλε. Η · Καλλιδάμας [ἡμίσφαιρον]
ἄγον Ἀλε. Η · Δαμοσθ[ένου]
8 ἡμίσφαιρον ἄγον Ἀλε. Η

It would seem virtually certain that we are dealing here with exactly the same kind of object as in the inscription from
Mylasa. The weight, consistently 100 Alexander dr 39, has many parallels in obligatory dedications by officials; probably we
are looking at a requirement for outgoing priests (clearly annual priests, not the lifetime priesthoods sold by the Koans as
attested by many inscriptions from the island) 40 to dedicate a specific type of object, a hemisphairon. The Koan examples
were rather larger than the Mylasean (100 dr vs. 62 each), but we can now say with some confidence, on the basis of the
Mylasean text, that this must have been a drinking vessel. Perhaps the difference in spelling (absence or presence of the
iota at the end of the word) is not a simple spelling variant but indicates different sub-categories of the same type, as in
mastos/mastion ?
Lines 12-13 record a pair of smooth (leioi) mastoi weighing probably 275 or 279, but in any case between 271 and 279
drachmai (lines 12-13) 41. Pollux lists the μαστός among the cups for drinking, and according to Athenaios (11, 487b, quoting
Pamphilos quoting Apollodoros of Kyrene) the Paphians call a cup (ποτήριον) a μαστός. That the name gives the shape is
confirmed by a story about Helen. According to a tradition repeated by Pliny the Elder, she dedicated a cup, calix, made
of electrum to Athena at Lindos on Rhodos, which had the “measure of her own breast” (mammae suae mensura, Nat.,
33.81). These references and others (some of which are treated below) justify the identification of a cup, of unmistakable
appearance, in both ceramic and silver, with the mastos. In its purest form, this shape had neither handles nor a flattened
surface on which it could be stood, but represented perfectly an idealized woman’s breast, with a button for the nipple at
the bottom that would nestle between the fingers when held (fig. 3). In ceramic the mastos is said to appear in the second
quarter of the sixth century in Corinth and soon after in Athens, and the majority of Athenian examples are said to belong

36. Pearson 1917, 2, 49.


37. Revising IG, XII, 3, 33, II, 15 from Hiller’s squeeze, Peek 1969, 14, n° 13, restored ἡμίσ[φα]ιρα and commented “’Halbkugel’, scheint
mir ein für bestimmte Art von Schalen durchaus passender Ausdruck”. But the context is strange for the mention of an object, for otherwise the
list contains only names.
38. Iscrizioni di Cos, ED, 42. This inscription is said by Segre to be the beginning of the text published by Herzog 1899, 224-226, n° 220.
39. For Koan Alexander issues: Price 1991, 63, 77-78, 234, 240-241, 292, 315-316.
40. See now Wiemer 2003 (superseding Parker & Obbink 2000, 415-449).
41. Smooth phialai are recorded in an inventory of sacred objects from Rhodes: Maiuri 1921-1922, 463-464, n° 3, lines 11, 12, 26, 27 (SEG,
4, 187); a nice example: Batalle 2002, 20, fig. 4.
154 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

||Fig. 3. Mastos in ceramic with “nipple” (after ||Fig. 4. Silver mastoi (after Baratte 2004, 45, fig. 26).
Dohan 1934, plate 34, C).

to this period 42. Be that as it may for ceramics – and I have not tried to trace the shape further down in time – examples
of mastos cups in silver (often called bowls in earlier literature) of Hellenistic date are known in museum collections (see
fig. 4) 43.
Mastoi are also attested in temple inventories. On Delos, a mastos dedicated to Asklepios (apparently, since the
priest of Asklepios is mentioned in the lemma) appears in 215 BC under the archon Tlesimenes and continues till 169 BC 44.
Twelve mastoi were stored in the Apollo C Temple, attested first in around 185 BC 45. Another mastos is recorded from
the Sarapieion dedicated by three people and weighing 71 dr 1 ob 46. (A few other Delian examples are discussed below.)
But the real bounty of mastoi comes from the sanctuary of Amphiaros in Oropos. Two inventories of about the
mid-second century, the first of which is complete, include a long series of mastoi: by my count (which may err) 159 vases
in the complete inscription; four of these are repeated in the second 47. All objects in these inventories are identified, either
as “sacred” (hieros) or by a personal name, and provided with a weight 48. Usually the weight is indicated in acrophonic
letters, but in a few cases it is written out in the form “fifty drachmai”, “eighty drachmai”, or “one hundred drachmai” 49. Many
(but not all) of the other vessels inventoried were used for drinking, for example, phialai, krateres, psykteres, hedypotides,
kyathoi, and skaphia. But the mastoi stand out by their quantity and for a certain striking consistency of weight for a very
large minority. Of the 159 I count, fully 56 weighed exactly 100 dr. A further 19 weighed between 97.5 and 110 dr; the
next lighter weighing mastos weighed 86.5 dr and the next heavier 133.5 dr. This clustering requires some explanation,
which may perhaps be sought in the six entries in the inventory in which the person dedicating a mastos is identified as the
epimeletes. In each case, the mastos dedicated weighed 100 dr 50. The epimeletes was the official in charge of the sanctuaries,
as we know from a series of statue bases honoring several 51. It therefore seems likely that the epimeletes was required to

42. Dohan 1934, 530-531; she knew 14 examples of the shape. She is followed in the dating scheme by Kanowski 1984, 105, and Kaeser
1990, 266, who associates the shape with the presence of hetairai at symposia. K. Lynch in Lawall et al. 2002, 419-422, publishes three fragmentary
ceramic mastoi from Athens. She says there are about twenty known examples (419 n. 15). See also Greifenhagen 1977.
43. For example, Strong 1966, 97 for a mastos from Lokris in the National Museum in Athens, cf. Watzinger 1901, 90; Walter 1921, 5 n° 13,
Plate III, “a plain hemispherical form, like a μαστός,” from excavations in Cyprus and dated to the fourth century BC; Oliver 1977, 76 n° 41, a cup
in the Staatliches Museum in Berlin, weighing 495 gr and dated 150-100 BC, is not called a mastos but certainly looks like one to me; Daremberg
& Saglio 1904, 1625, fig. 4856, with handles, in the Louvre; Batalle 2002, 44, n° 30 (fig. 26a), weighing 131 g, 44, n° 31, weight not given (fig. 26b),
and 44, n° 32, weighing 230 g (fig. 26c), all of which Batalle identifies explicitly as mastoi. The coin hoard of Quinana Rendonda found in 1863
in Spain was contained in a mastos weighing about 224 g; Rodríguez Casanova 2008, 237-239. I have not done an exhaustive review of exhibition
and museum catalogues.
44. ID, 380, 76, 385, Aa-e, 78, 396, B, 15, 439, a, 42, 442, B, 44, 455, B, 10 (restored), 461, Ba, 51, ID, 421, 70 may be the same mastos.
45. ID, 442, B, 93, 443, Bb, 20, restored in 427, 14 (with a ?) and 439, a, 83 (Hamilton 2000, 146 n° 228).
46. IG, XI, 4, 1307, 21-22; the word is spelled μασστός.
47. Petrakos 1997, 238-245, n° 325 (IG, VII, 3498) and 245-248, n° 326, 20-21.
48. For the system used for the weights, see Keil 1890, 608-610.
49. Petrakos 1997, n° 325.26; 45, 48, 57-58, 70; 66.
50. Petrakos 1997, n° 325, 27, 33, 41 (two), and 63.
51. Petrakos 1997, 395-398, n° 502-509.
Gary Reger – 155

dedicate a mastos weighing 100 dr at the end of his term of office. Such laws are common; to mention but three examples,
the stephanephoros of Bargylia in Karia was required to dedicate a phiale worth 100 Alexander drachmai probably at the
end of his office, Priene had an analogous law for the same official, and, as mentioned above, in Mylasa itself the tribe of
Hyarbesytai required persons honored by it to dedicate, within six months of the award of the honor, a silver cup or phiale
weighing 100 Alexander dr – or three such vessels, if the honorand belonged to another tribe 52. A similar requirement seems
to have been imposed on the syllogeus of the Amphiaraion, who was in charge of the treasury and doled out payments to
contractors. The three mastoi recorded as dedicated by occupants of this office all weigh, within one obol, 66 dr 4 ob 53.
Two previous entries in the Mylasean inventory, at lines 5-6 and 6-8, record (respectively) a pair of diaxusta mastia
and a pair of small mastia. The first pair must weigh between 150 and 190 dr; the second pair weighs 143, 145, or 147-149
dr. Unattested in literature, μαστία are known from inventories. From Delos we have two examples, one a dedication of
one Ariston and stored in the Sarapieion, the other a dedication of one Sokritos and stored in the cella of Apollo’s temple 54.
Another variant, μαστάριον, also appears on Delos; this vessel weighs a mere 41 dr 55. Seven examples are reported from
the Amphiaraion 56. These generally confirm the smaller size of the mastion as compared to the mastos: three, at 28.5, 36.5,
and 38 dr, weigh less than the smallest reported mastos (at 40 dr). Two of the mastia, however, weigh the same as the
lightest mastos (40 dr), and two others, at 40.5 and 45 dr., are heavier (the latter approaching the weight of the next smallest
mastos, at 48 dr 5 ob). Moreover, most of the mastoi from the Amphiaraion are substantially heavier than the lightest one.
Mαστίον is a diminutive of μαστός, and some of the evidence just reviewed suggests that the term indeed picked
out a smaller version of the standard mastos. However, as Clarisse Prêtre has shown in a study of grammatical diminutives
in the Delian inventories, the diminutive may mark not a smaller version of the same vessel type but rather a variation in
shape 57. As we have seen, in its pure shape the mastos cannot stand on its own; it must be held, turned upside down on
the table, or be provided with a stand. There is, however, a category of cups called by Kanowski “mastoid” which are of
similar shape but flattened on the bottom so they can stand 58.
The mastia from Mylasa are described as either “diaxusta” or “small”. It is not clear whether the small pair should also
be understood to be diaxusta. The adjective διαξυστός appears to be attested only once elsewhere. A statue of Potamon of
Lesbos, ambassador to the Romans in the age of Caesar and Augustus, was stipulated to be set up on “a diaxustos base,” ἐπὶ
στυλίδος διαξυστω 59. The adjective should mean “fluted.” Diodoros of Sicily describes the famous temple of Olympian Zeus
at Akragas in Sicily as having column flutes, διαξύσματα, large enough to accommodate a human body 60. Fluted drinking
cups are extremely common in the Hellenistic period 61. The contrast with the smooth mastoi supports this interpretation.
The new text records two ladles, ἀρυστῆρες 62, a larger one weighing 90 and a smaller 20 dr. Ladles are common in
treasures of Greek and Roman silverware; for instance, a fine example in private possession when published, weighing
174.18 g and dated to the second half of the fourth or early third century BC (fig. 5); a plainer example from a girl’s grave
from near Gümüşçay, Turkey, and dated to the mid-fifth century BC; and another plain example from a Central Asian hoard

52. IK Iasos und Bargylia, 612, 10-13: ψήφισμά τε εἰσενέγκας μετὰ τῶν συναρχόντων ἐπέταξεν τοῖς στεφανηφόροις ἀνατιθέναι τῶι ᾿Απόλλωνι καὶ
τῶι δήμωι φι[ά]λην ἀργυρᾶν ἀπὸ δραχμῶν ᾿Αλεξανδρείων ἑκατόν, τειμᾶσθαι μὲν τὸ θεῖον βουλόμενος, τ[ῶι δ]ὲ δήμωι σπεύδων συναγωγὴν χρημάτων [γί]νεσθαι.
Robert 1936, 463; I. Priene, 113, 91-94; IK Mylasa, 301. For other examples of this kind of requirement, see already Wilhelm 1909, 187-189.
53. Petrakos 1997, 231-238 n° 324.33-36; n° 325.63, 64, and 72
54. IG, XI, 4, 1308, 2-3. ID, 1413, a, 13-14, 1432, Ab, II, 74-75; it seems to have disappeared by 146 or 145 BC, as it does not appear
where it would be expected at ID, 1441, A, II, 104 or 1450, A, 180. Sokritos made his dedication ἀπὸ τῶν γερῶν, which has not been adequately
explained (see LSJ, Suppl., s.v. γερός). See also IG, XII, 7, 53, 7.
55. IG, XI, 4, 1307, 21-22 and 1308, 2-4 with SEG, 3, 665 (not in Hamilton 2000).
56. Petrakos 1997, n° 325.
57. Prêtre 1997.
58. Kanowski 1984, 105, illustrated at 104, n° 3-4. See the vessels in Batalle 2002, 36, fig. 17b-c.
59. Charitonidis 1968, 6-7, n° 6, B, 10. The phrase is quoted at Bull. épig, 1970, 422, but without mention of this unpublished text. On
Potamon, see Labarre 1996, 109-114.
60. Diod. 13.82.3: συνῳκοδομοῦντο γὰρ τοῖς τοίχοις οἱ κίονες, ἔξωθεν μὲν στρογγύλοι, τὸ δ’ ἐντὸς τοῦ νεὼ ἔχοντες τετράγωνον · καὶ τοῦ μὲν ἐκτὸς
μέρους ἐστὶν αὐτῶν ἡ περιφέρεια ποδῶν εἴκοσι, καθ’ ἣν εἰς τὰ διαξύσματα δύναται ἀνθρώπινον ἐναρμόζεσθαι σῶμα, τὸ δ’ ἐντὸς ποδῶν δώδεκα.
61. See, for example, the fluted cups found in graves in Makedon and dated to between 350 and the early third century: Zimmermann
1998, BM 1, 8, 9, 14, and 17, and the fluted phiale from the Parthian treasury: Baratte 2002, 33, with figs. 13-14.
62. The other common Greek word for ladle is κύαθος; the ladle published by Crosby 1943 is so labeled. On the word as “ladle” only in
Aristophanes and Aristotle, see Bliquez & Rogers 1998. It appears repeatedly in inscribed inventories (several examples are mentioned above),
and, of course, also designated a liquid measure: a “ladleful”.
156 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

of vessels dated to the first century BC or first century CE (fig. 6). Many other examples in silver and bronze are known from
all over the Mediterranean world and ranging in date throughout antiquity 63. Like the kyathos, the aruster was sometimes
used as a measure for wine (Herod. 2.168.2). As other objects in the new inventory, ladles are recorded in inscriptions, and
again the Delian inventories provide the lion’s share of instances. An entry for ἀρυστῆρας μεγάλους ΠΙΙ, μικρούς ΔΔΠΙΙΙ begins
in 278 BC and continues thereafter for many years. Another missing its handle weighed 43 dr.; another, evidently intact
and explicitly of silver, is recorded at 23 dr. Fully 14 ἀρυστῆρες are reported in an inscription of 364 BC. Eight kyathoi and
14 arusteres are listed together, and other entries refer to large and small kyathoi, again listed together 64. On the Athenian
standard against which these two Mylasean ladles were weighed, they would have weighed about 380 g and 85 g. Compared
to preserved examples cited above, these would have been quite large, and perhaps well decorated, ladles. It is possible
that the existence of two sizes of ladle reflects two different uses, as for strainers (see below).
A single strainer, ἠθμός, whose weight is missing, brings the inscription to an end. In general, there seem to have
been two types of strainer in use. Athenaios (11.480b) speaks of a type held over the cup, to strain the wine being poured
to drink, while Pollux, 10.108 refers to a type laid over the top of the krater to strain the wine when decanted from an
amphora or other storage container 65. Perhaps this differentiation – if we should suppose that the type Pollux mentions
ought to be larger than the type in Athenaios – is reflected in a new Athenian treasure inventory, which records for Athena
and the Other Gods “strainers, 2 small, another bigger”, [ἠ]θμοὶ: ΙΙ: μικροί, ἕτερος μείζων. “Because of the general delicacy

||Fig. 5. Ladle (after ||Fig. 6. Ladle and three strainers (after Baratte 2004, 37, fig. 18).
Crosby 1943, 210,
fig. 1).

63. Crosby 1943, 209-214, weight at 209 n. 5, date at 214; Sevinç & Rose 1999, 496 with fig. 7 there, weight not given; Baratte 2002, 37,
weight not given, 48 for date; generally, Strong 1966, 92. The J. Paul Getty Museum collection includes a ladle whose handle attaches horizontally
rather than vertically with respect to the bowl and so may be rather a stirrer than a ladle proper: Oliver 1980, 164, with 163, fig. 17; weight not
given. See also Gulletta 1992, 281-282, and the kyathos in P. Coll. Youtie 1, 7, r, 8, of 224 BC.
64. IG, XI, 2, 161, C, 63-65; 164, B, 25-26; 175, B, e, 5; 199, B, 83-84; 221, 13. ID, 104,58. ID, 103, 133. ID, 103, 73. IG, XI, 2, 175, B, e, 4;
211, 12. This list is not exhaustive.
65. Zahn 1899, 343, n. 1; Amyx 1958, 261-264.
Gary Reger – 157

and lightness” of the silver strainer Margaret Crosby published, she suggested “it was probably made for use over a cup or
cylix (...) rather than for a crater” (fig. 7) 66. Pollux’s type occurs in an inventory from Sigeon in the Troad, which records the
dedication of a krater, its base, and a strainer in the prytaneion: κρητῆρα δὲ: καὶ ὑποκρητήριον: καὶ ἡ(θ)μὸν: ἐς πρυτανήιον 67. It
is very tempting to suppose that the large and small ladles, recorded both here and in other inventories noted above, bear
to each other an analogous relationship to the two types of strainers. In any case, ladles and strainers appear together 68.
As usual, epigraphic attestations find their bounty in the inventories on Delos, including a huge example weighing
185 dr and a much more modest one of merely 13 dr. There is also one explicitly made of bronze, and another apparently
dedicated with a krater but broken off. They are attested likewise in Athenian inventories, including one associated with
a Lakonian krater 69. A strainer occurs in a list of objects on board a ship on the Nile in 224 BC; it is closely paired with a
ladle (here κύαθος) 70. Weights are available for six silver strainers known to me: (1) one from Tomb II at Vergina weighing
171.45 g and inscribed at 41 dr; (2) another from Tomb B at Derveni weighing 162.6 g; (3) a third from Thessaly or, perhaps
more likely Amphipolis, weighing 190.5 g; and (4) one without provenance, now at the J. Paul Getty Museum, weighing
156 g; and (5) and (6), two from a Central Asian hoard of vessels dated to the first century BC or first century CE, weighing
66 g and 44 g 71.
There was a practical reason to strain wine before drinking it – amphoras and other storage containers might conceal
seeds, skins, and other contaminants 72. Plutarch records a dispute at a dinner party over whether one should drink wine
strained or unstrained. The guest who argues against straining claims it robs wine of its strength and edge; his opponent
asserts in contrast that straining not only renders wine gentler and less likely to induce intoxication, but also removes
contaminants. The opponent to straining seems to be thinking rather of wine strained before storage than immediate
consumption, while his antagonist may have in mind rather (or additionally) straining just before consumption 73.

||Fig. 7. Strainer (after Crosby 1943, 212, fig. 4).

66. Makres 2010, 60, line 4, and briefly 63; IG, II2, 1424, a, 153, 264; 1425, B, 403; Crosby 1943, 216.
67. GIMB, IV, 2, 1002, A, 5-9; Guarducci 1941-1943, with BE 1944, 157.
68. IG, II2, 1425, 360 and 365-366.
69. ID, 421, 56; 422, 8; etc. IG, XI, 2, 154, A, 71. IG, XI, 161, C, 71-73. IG, II2, 1424, a, I, 153, etc. IG, II2, 1694, 5-6.
70. P. Coll. Youtie, 1, 7, 10. Some other instances in the papyri: P. Hamb., 4, 248, 5 (145 CE); P. Kell., 1, 50, 5 (fourth century CE); P. Stras.,
8, 767, 3.
71. (1): Themelis & Touratsoglou 1997, 172 and 216; Drougou & Saatsoglou-Paliadeli 2000, 51 fig. 66; I do not enter here into the
controversy over the date and attribution of Tomb II at Vergina (cf. Gill 2008); I am grateful to Elizabeth Kosmetatou for drawing my attention to
this example. (2): Drogou & Saatsoglo-Paliadeli 2000, 51, fig. 66. (3): Oliver 1977, 44-45 n° 14. (4): Rosasco 1989, n° 14. (5) and (6): Baratte 2002,
38 n. 89-90. Cf. Gill 2008, 341-342.
72. Tchernia, Pomey, Hesnard, and Couvert 1978, 13. See Theoph., CP, 2, 18, 4.
73. Mor., 692B-693E; strained wine, we are told, “does not keep but goes off and deteriorates”, τὸ μὴ διαμένειν ἀλλ’ ἐξίστασθαι καὶ
μαραίνεσθαι (692D). Plutarch’s defender of straining, Aristion, likewise compares adding coloring and odorants to wine for the symposium to
tarting up respectable women with earrings and bracelets and seductive girdles. See Brun 2003, 118-119, with further references.
158 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

The word “pair”, ζεῦγος, appears eight times in the inscription recording basilikoi koiloi (four pairs), mastia (three
pairs) hemisphairia (one pair), and one unidentified object. “Pairs” occur often in inscriptions and papyri, typically describing
objects that come naturally in twos, like greaves, προκνημίδες (IG, II2, 1443, III, 218); earrings, διοποί (IG, II2, 1388, B, 76),
shoes, ὑποδήματα (IG, II2, 1533, 30-31: women’s, in this case), and roof tiles (ID, 290, 161), among other things; animals
used in pairs for traction or sacrifice (cows: BGU, 6, 1224, 38, of 101 BC; two pairs of bulls at P. Lille, 1, 8, 8, of 246-205
BC), and even gladiators, μονόμαχοι (IG, VII, 106, 7-8). The famous inventory of real and legendary dedications to Athena
Lindia published in 99 BC after exhaustive researches by Tharsagoras and Timachidas includes this entry: “Helen, a pair
of bracelets (pselia), on which had been inscribed, ‘Helen to Athena’, as says Gorgon in the first book of his On Rhodos”
(̔Ελένα ψελίων ζεῦγος, ἐφ’ ὧν ἐπεγέγραπτο · ̔Ελένα ̓Αθάναι, ὡς φατι Γόργων ἐν ταῖ α’ τᾶν περὶ ̔Ρόδου) 74.
Vessels and objects in the inventory are also attested in pairs, as in an Attic inscription that records a “pair of silver
cups”, ζεῦγος σκύφων ἀρ[γυρῶν], part of a dedication of silver objects to Zeus Boulaios, Athena Boulaia, and Hestia in the
Bouleteurion. In a letter dated to the second or third century CE, a woman tells her mother she has sent three pairs (ζεύγη)
of phialai, one for the mother, one for a certain Petesouchos, and the third for the sister’s in-laws, and a list of objects dated
to the third century CE includes a “pair of ladles”, ζεῦγος κυάθ(ων) 75. On a most literal level, the shape of the mastos and
its very name might suggest that, like the breasts they represent, they should come in pairs 76. The most striking parallel for
drinking objects in pairs, however, comes from the inscription from Didyma recording the dedication by king Seleukos in
288 BC of various objects to Apollo. It records “one pair of double deer-headed rhytons inscribed ‘of Apollo’, weight 380 dr
3 ob,” παλιμπότων καὶ ἐλάφων προτομῶν ἐπιγεγραμμένων ̓Απόλλωνος ζεῦγος ἕν, ὁλκὴ δραχμαὶ τριακόσιαι δεκαοκτώ, τρεῖς ὀβολοί 77.
Another inventory from Didyma likewise recounts a zeugos of some objects whose name is not preserved, but the context
again is drinking vessels; the entry for the pair is followed immediately by prochoi and phialai 78.
There is very good reason in inventories to make it explicit when two matched objects form a set as a pair. It was
typical practice, in such cases, to record the weight of both objects on only one of the two. Thus an inventory recording
a pair of vessels weighing such-and-such served as an alert to temple officials that the weight recorded on one of the two
referred to it and its mate, not to the inscribed object alone, and as a reminder that with the inscribed vessel should go an
uninscribed mate 79.

Date
The text has no internal indicators of date, leaving as the only resort the forms of the letters. Until recently there
had been little progress in understanding the development of lettering at Mylasa beyond the place where Louis Robert had
arrived fifty years ago. But now Raymond Descat and Isabelle Pernin have undertaken a fresh look at the lettering of the
Mylasean land-lease inscriptions (“baux”). They identify two broad styles of lettering, which they call the “old” and “new”
styles (“écriture ancienne” and “écriture récente”). The chief criterion they deploy is the character of the cross-bar of the
alpha: the older style exhibits a straight cross-bar moving toward a bowed cross-bar, while the new style is marked by a
broken cross-bar. They conclude that the old style ran from about 205 to about 185 BC and the new style from about 185
to about 145 BC 80.
Where does the lettering of the new inventory fit in this schema ? Alphas display bowed or broken crossbars. The
one well-preserved pi has a short right vertical; the crossbar extends well beyond the junction with the vertical. The right
leg of the nu does not reach the line. Mus are splayed; the middle bars are shallow and sometimes curve. Sigmas are either
straight or very slightly splayed. The middle bar of the epsilon does not extend as far as the upper and lower bars. Zeta

74. Lindos, II, 2, B, 70-72 with Higbie 2003, 89, 262-263 for the researchers. Kosmetatou 2004a, 152-153, on the “eastern” character of
pselia.
75. Geagen 1971, 96-100, n° 1, line 13; cf. IG, II2, 2775, 10. P. Fay., 127, 9, see Bagnall & Cribiore 2006, n° 210. P. Oslo, 2, 46, 5. There
are many instances of pairs in the papyri.
76. I owe the verbalization of this too obvious point to Jonathan Hall.
77. I. Didyma, 424, 28-31 (Welles, RC, 5, with p. 350-351 on παλίμποτον). The use of zeugos at IK Iasos and Bargylia, 616, 23 is difficult
to understand given the lacunose state of the inscription. In Robert 1940, 182-183, n° 179, lines 5-7 the retarius Stephanos dedicates, among other
things, ἐπενδυτοπαλλίων ζεῦγος to Nemesis at Halikarnassos.
78. I. Didyma, 426, 1.
79. Strong 1966, 20, citing Petr., Sat., 31.
80. Descat & Pernin 2008, 206-216.
Gary Reger – 159

takes the form of an H on its side. Xi consists of three horizontal bars without a vertical bar. (The only theta cannot be read
on the photograph.) Apices are absent or modest. In general, this lettering seems to find its place in Descat and Pernin’s
subgroup 1.2, which includes IK Mylasa, 223, a text also showing a mix of bowed and broken barred alphas. The date
should fall around the transition point between the old and new styles – say the 180s or 170s BC.
It must be admitted that there are many uncertainties here. While it is indisputable, I think, that Descat and Pernin’s
schema has indeed identified two major stylistic groups in the Mylasean land-lease inscriptions, the details remain fuzzy.
When other letter-forms are taken into account, the groups become less well-defined. Even the signature alpha presents
certain difficulties, notably precisely in IK Mylasa, 223 with its mix of bowed and broken cross-bars – is this the work of a
progressive shop incorporating broken bars when bowed was still the dominant style or a conservative shop when broken
bars had won the fashion race ? Stephen Tracy’s ground-breaking studies of Athenian inscriptions have demonstrated the
problems with relying too much on letter forms, and especially the forms of single letters, to establish a dating schema 81.
Masons and workshops may be very conservative or very innovative, and inscriptions whose lettering looks similar may
prove in fact to be years, even decades, apart – and vice versa. This however is not the place to enter into this question in
detail, since such a discussion would not lead to a more precise date for our inventory. It is sufficient for now to put the
inscription in the first quarter of the second century 82.

The Cult and the Nature of the Inventory 83


It has been repeatedly obvious that all the objects recorded in this inscription relate to drinking wine. Indeed, it
is tempting to see them not as objects randomly listed together – like a series of unrelated dedications – but instead as a
set, or group of sets: objects meant to be used together for a (or several) particular purpose(s). The fact that the objects in
the inventory are all expensive silver vessels and that the inscription of the document on a stone from a building strongly
suggests a public context points toward a cult: whether of a Mylasean divinity or some other ritual context. Nothing in the
inscription itself helps in identifying the cult, despite the possibilities mentioned occasionally. Instead, we need to turn now
to the other inscription on the same block, IK Mylasa, 308.
This inscription was originally published in 1890 84 and again by Blümel with improvements based on a squeeze made
by Hula and preserved in Vienna. In the late nineteenth century the stone bearing this text was built into a building. When
Robert saw the stone some forty years later, it had been removed from the wall, and six additional lines were visible at the
bottom on the text. These lines, which have never been published, provide a few more clues to the nature of this inscription.
The purport of this text has remained rather enigmatic. Alfred Laumonier considered it to be part of a land-lease
inscription (“bail”), presumably because of the mention of land at line 2. Blümel labeled it a “sacrificial calendar” (with
a ?) 85. The text mentions sacrificing, sacrificial animals, a neokoros, and treasurers (tamiai); its sacral nature is therefore
beyond doubt. But the additional lines seen by Robert add a twist. The very last of these lines (17), reads ΟΣ Διοκλείους τοῦ
Πο[. This immediately invites the restoration Πο[λυκείτου, as Diokles son of Polykeitos is known from four other Mylasean
inscriptions as the adoptive father of Theomnestos son of Leon and priest of Zeus Stratios and Hera 86. This might suggest
that the sanctuary here could have something to do with the cult of Zeus Stratios and Hera, which would be very satisfying
in the sense that a double cult would be an appropriate setting for drinking ceremonies requiring pairs of vessels – one for

81. “Even the best guess, and that is all it is when we date by style, may be off by a century or more,” Tracy 1990, 238. And see Descat
1997, showing that SIG3, 1020, B, dated to the late second or early first century on the basis of lettering (cf. Migeotte 1992, 251-253, n° 79), actually
belongs to the late third or early second century BC.
82. It is worth mentioning a handful of other inscriptions whose lettering may (or may not) help establish patterns. An inscription from
Kolophon bearing a Mylasean decree presents straight-bar alphas, but as it was perhaps not carved at Mylasa its value as a comparandum is
limited; see Gauthier 1999, 17-36, with a description of the lettering at 19 and Gauthier’s two suggestions for a date (before c. 245, which he
prefers, and after 219) at 30-36. Unfortunately the photographs of the squeeze (34-35, fig. 3-4) are very hard to read. A better comparandum may
be sought in the decrees of Olymos recently published as Blümel 2000, 97-100, but found originally by L. Robert (1935, 158-159), who considered
the lettering to be clearly third century. These texts are in general very similar to that of the inventory in almost all details except that they display
alphas with straight or, more commonly, bowed bars, but no broken ones.
83. I set aside here controversy about the purpose of inventories, for which see Linders 1988; Hamilton 2000, 1-5; the Mylasean inventory
in form looks most like the Didyma ones, which Dignas 2002 argues should be called rather “offering lists”.
84. Judeich 1890, 276, n° 22.
85. Laumonier 1958, 117, n. 4; IK Mylasa, p. 122.
86. IK Mylasa, 204, 15-16, 301, 4-6, 405, 2-4, 829, 1.
160 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

each deity. Theomnestos son of Leon cannot be restored at the beginning of the line – as Θεόμνεστος Λέοντ]ος Διοκλείους
Πο[λυκλείτου – owing to the absence of the usual adoption formula 87; instead, one would suppose that preceding Diokles’
name would have stood the name, in the nominative, of a natural son, who then would have inherited his father’s priesthood,
as commonly occurred at Mylasa.
This satisfying solution, however, is undermined by the immediately preceding line of the new portion of the
inscription, which reads (with Robert’s restoration from his notes) ἡρ]ῳσταῖς καὶ τῶι νεωκόρωι. A variant of the more common
ἡρωϊστής, ἡρῳστής denotes the person celebrated in the cult of a hero, in the Hellenistic period often an individual who
has established a funerary foundation to commemorate himself or a relative as a hero after death. The best known such
foundation comes from Thera, but many others are known. In this case, the presence of a neokoros and tamiai who can
only be the treasurers of the polis of Mylasa suggests that, if this inscription represents the creation of such a funerary
foundation, it is likely to have been one administered not privately, like Epikteta’s on Thera or the recently discovered
Lykian foundation of (probably) Tlos apparently run by an association of metalworkers, but instead administered by the
polis of Mylasa itself. There is a good parallel from Ephesian territory, IK Ephesos, 3214 + 3334, in which public officials bear
responsibility for the cult created by the foundation. This inscription also, interestingly, includes an inventory of furnishings
kept in the heroon for use in the cult celebration, which is called specifically a ἡρωισμός 88. The presence in IK Mylasa,
308 of the ἡρῳσταί seems to me to preclude that this regulation can refer to anything but a heroizing foundation. Further
confirmation comes in line 13 (again in the unpublished text) in the phrase ὑπὸ ἐμοῦ, “by me”, which points clearly to an
individual founder. Diokles’ son, then – if that is whom we have at the end of the new text – must be mentioned not in his
capacity (if he so served) as priest of Zeus Stratios and Hera, but rather in a private capacity or as a civic official charged
in some way with administering this new funerary cult.
IK Mylasa, 308 and its expanded text require much deeper discussion, which must be postponed for another time.
But if my conclusions about the nature of the text are correct, then our new and better understanding of what it is affects
how to understand the inventory. There are two possibilities. One is that the inventory and IK Mylasa, 308 are in fact
unrelated, that the inventory refers to sacral objects connected with a public cult and inscribed on the temple of that cult,
while the funerary foundation was displayed on the same temple building because it recorded a new public responsibility
of the polis of Mylasa and so needed to be inscribed in a public place. The Mylaseans typically used the sides of buildings
for to inscribe public texts, so it would not be surprising if they exploited the wall of a temple to memorialize this text.
The second possibility is, I think, more intriguing: that the block bearing both inscriptions came from the heroon
itself, and that the inventory records objects used in the funerary ritual, like those objects recorded in IK Ephesos, 3214 +
3334, 7-17. Because, as far as we know, the Mylaseans typically placed inscriptions on buildings to which the texts were
related (as apparently with the long series of land-lease inscriptions from Mylasa, Olymos, and Sinuri), I am slightly inclined
to favor the second of the two possibilities. But in light of the incompleteness of both texts and pending a more thorough
analysis of IK Mylasa, 308, certainty is impossible.

Final remarks
This inscription, found many years ago now by L. Robert, is the first inventory reported from Mylasa. It records a set
of objects, cups of various types, ladles, and a strainer, used for drinking, and very likely dedicated as a set for a particular
ritual purpose. The objects called basilikoi koiloi may be a particular type of cup, or, less likely (in my view) may be a
sub-type of a vessel whose name is lost. The hemisphairia shed light on objects recorded in an inscription from nearby
Kos. Inscribed on a block belonging to a major building (whether public or private), it must have been intended for public
consumption. If it is related to IK Mylasa, 308, it may be a list of objects used to celebrate a hero cult – which would also
be a new attestation from Mylasa.

87. That is, κατὰ δὲ υἱοθεσίαν. On the cult of Zeus Stratios and Hera at Mylasa, see Laumonier 1958, 45-101, whose identification of Zeus
Stratios with Zeus Labraundos, however, is not correct (despite Herod. 5.119): Debord 2001, 30-31.
88. On these foundations see still Laum 1914, 41-46, 218, and now the overview in Jones 2010, 48-65. Thera: IG, XII, 3, 330 with
Wittenburg 1990. For the new Lykian foundation, see now Parker 2010. The Ephesian foundation has been well analyzed by Jones 1983.
Gary Reger – 161

Bibliographical References

Akarca, A. (1959): Les monnaies grecques de Mylasa, Paris. Gauthier, Ph. (1999): “Nouvelles inscriptions de Claros: décrets
Albert, W.-D. (1972): “Die Tabulae ansatae aus Pergamon”, in: d’Aigai et de Mylasa pour des juges colophoniens”, REG,
Pergamon. Gesammelte Aufsätze, Berlin, 1-42. 112, 17-36,
Aleshire, S. B. (1989): The Athenian Asklepieion. The People, their Geagen, D. J. (1971): “Greek Inscriptions”, Hesperia, 40, 96-108.
Dedications, and the Inventories, Amsterdam. Gerin, D. (1999): “Le corpus des monnaies d’Alexandre et les
Amyx, D. A. (1958): “The Attic Stelai. Part IV. Vases and Other travaux qui l’ont suivi (1991-1998)”, RN, 154, 353-367.
Containers”, Hesperia, 27, 163-307. Gill, D. W. J. (2008): “Inscribed Silver Plate from Tomb II at Vergina:
Ashton, R. and G. Reger (2006): “The Pseudo-Rhodian Drachms of Chronological Implications”, Hesperia, 77, 335-358.
Mylasa Revisited”, in: Van Alfen 2006, 125-150. Greifenhagen, A. (1977): “Mastoi”, in: Von Hoeckmann & Krug
Bagnall, R. and R. Cribiore (2006): Women’s Letters from Ancient 1977, 133-137.
Egypt, 300 BC – AD 800, Ann Arbor. Guarducci, M. (1941-1943): “La stele di Sigeo”, Annuario, 3-5,
Baratte, F. (2002): East and West: A Central Asian Silver Hoard from 135-140.
the Parthian Era, London. Gulletta, M. I. (1992): Lexicon Vasorum Graecorum, Pisa.
Bliquez, L. J. and P. Rodgers (1998): “ΚΥΑΘΟΣ at Aristophanes Hamilton, R. (2000): Treasure Map. A Guide to the Delian Inventories,
Pax 538-42, Lysistrata 443-44, and [Aristotle] Problems 890B7- Ann Arbor.
38”, CPh, 93, 236-241. Harris, D. (1995): The Treasuries of the Parthenon and Erechtheion,
Blümel, W. (1989): “Neue Inschriften aus der Region von Mylasa Oxford.
(1988) mit Nachträgen zu I.K. 34-35”, EA, 13, 1-15. Herzog, R. (1899): Koische Forschungen und Funde, Leipzig.
— (1995): “Inschriften aus Karien I”, EA, 25, 35-66. Higbie, C. (2003): The Lindian Chronicle and the Greek Creation
— (2000): “Ehrendekrete aus Olymos”, EA, 32, 97-100. of their Past, Oxford.
Bresson, A. (2000): La cité marchande, Bordeaux. Homolle, Th. (1887): Les archives de l’intendance sacrée à Délos
Bresson, A. and R. Descat, eds. (2001): Les cités d’Asie Mineure (315-166 av. J.-C.), Paris.
occidentale au iie siècle a.C., Bordeaux. — (1891): “Comptes et inventaires des temples déliens en l’année
Bresson, A., D. Rousset and J.-M. Carbon (2007): “Les estampages 279”, BCH, 15, 113-168.
du Fonds Robert. Précédé d’une présentation par M. Hornblower, S. (1982): Mausolus, Oxford.
Glen Bowersock, Associé étranger de l’Académie”, CRAI, Houghton, A. and C. Lorber (2002): Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive
643-660. Catalogue. Part I: Seleucus I through Antiochus III, New
Brun, J.-P. (2003): Le vin et l’huile dans la Méditerranée antique. York.
Viticulture, oléiculture et procédés de fabrication, Paris. Işık, C., ed. (2000): Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens
Callataÿ, Fr. de and F. Delrieux (2010): “Karian Numismatics in the und des ägäischen Bereiches, Festschrift für Baki Öğün
Fonds Louis Robert (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- zum 75, Geburstag, Asia Minor Studien 39, Bonn.
Lettres)”, in: Van Bremen & Carbon 2010, 23-39. Jones, C. (1983): “A Deed of Foundation from the Territory of
Charitonidis, S. (1968): Αἱ ἐπιγραφαὶ τῆς Λέσβου, Athens. Ephesos”, JRS, 73, 116-125.
Crosby, M. (1943): “A Silver Ladle and Strainer”, AJA, 47, 209-216. — (2010): New Heroes in Antiquity. From Achilles to Antinoos,
Daremberg, C. and E. Saglio, eds. (1904): Dictionnaire des antiqui- Cambridge, Mass.
tés grecques et romaines, vol. 4. Paris. Judeich, W. (1890): “Inschriften aus Karien”, MDAI(A), 15, 252-282.
Debord, P. (2001): “Sur quelques Zeus Cariens: religion et politique”, Kaeser, B. (1990): “Spielformen und Vasenluxus”, in: Vierneisel &
Studi ellenistici, 13, 19-37. Kaeser 1990, 265-271.
Descat, R. (1997): “À propos d’un citoyen de Philippes à Théangela”, Kanowski, M. G. (1984): Containers of Classical Greece. A Handbook
REA, 99, 411-413. of Shapes, St. Lucia - London - New York.
Descat, R. and I. Pernin (2008): “Notes sur la chronologie et l’histoire Keil, B. (1890): “Ein Silberinventar des Amphiaraos von Oropos”,
des baux de Mylasa”, Studi ellenistici, 20, 201-230. Hermes, 25, 595-620.
Dignas, B. (2002): “‘Inventories’ or ‘Offering Lists’? Assessing the Knoepfler, D., ed. (1988): Comptes et inventaires des cités grecques,
Wealth of Apollo Didymaeus”, ZPE, 138, 235-244. Neuchâtel.
Dohan, E. H. (1934): “Some Unpublished Vases in the University — (1997): “Alexandreion nomisma. L’apparition et la disparition
Museum, Philadelphia”, AJA, 38, 523-532. de l’argent d’Alexandre dans les inscriptions grecques.
Drougou, S. and C. Saatsoglou-Paliadeli (2000): Vergina. Wandering Quelques réflexions complémentaires”, Topoi, 7, 33-50.
Through the Archaeological Site, Athens. Kosmetatou, E. (2004a): “‘Persian’ Objects in Classical and Early
Dunst, G. (1972): “Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Hellenistic Inventory Lists”, MH, 61, 152-153.
Pentekontaetie aus Samos”, MDAI(A), 87, 99-163. — (2004b): “Ζωίδια in the Delian Inventory Lists”, Mnemosyne,
Flower, M. A. (1994): Theopompus of Chios. History and Rhetoric 57, 481-484.
in the Fourth Century BC, Oxford.
162 – a New Inventory from Mylasa in Karia

Lawall, M., K. M. Lynch, J. K. Papadopoulos and S. I. Rotroff (2002): Reger, G. (2004): “Sympoliteiai in Hellenistic Asia Minor”, YClS,
“Notes From the Tins. 2, Research in the Stoa of Attalos”, 31, 144-180.
Hesperia, 71, 415-433. — (2010): “Mylasa and its Territory”, in: Van Bremen & Carbon
Labarre, G. (1996): Les cités de Lesbos aux époques hellénistique et 2010, 43-57.
impériale, Paris. Reger, G., F. X. Ryan and T. Winters, eds. (2010): Studies in Greek
Lang, M. and M. Crosby (1964): Weights, Measures and Standards, Epigraphy and History in Honor of Stephen V. Tracy,
The Athenian Agora X, Princeton. Bordeaux.
Laum, B. (1914): Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Robert, L. (1935): “Rapport sommaire sur un premier voyage en
Antike. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Kulturgeschichte, Leipzig Carie”, AJA, 39, 221-340.
- Berlin. — (1936): Études anatoliennes, Paris.
Laumonier, A. (1958): Les cultes indigènes en Carie, Paris. — (1940): Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec, Paris.
Le Rider, G. (1990): “Antiochos II à Mylasa”, BCH, 114, 543-551. — (1955): “Deux villages de Carie. Hymessos et Olymos”, Hell.,
— (1996): “Note additionnelle”, BCH, 120, 773-775. 10, 223-227.
— (2001): “Sur un aspect du comportement monétaire des villes Robert, J. and L. Robert (1983): Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie, Paris.
libres d’Asie Mineure occidentale au iie siècle: leurs Rodríguez Casanova, I. (2008): “El Tesoro celtibérico de Quinana
émissions de tétradrachmes de poids attique frappées entre Rendonda (Soria): Nuevos datos y materials”, AEAI, 81,
188 et c. 140”, in: Bresson & Descat 2001, 37-59. 229-244.
Linders, T. (1972): Studies in the Treasure Records of Artemis Rosasco, J. (1989): Form and Ornament. The Arts of Gold, Silver,
Brauronia Found in Athens, Stockholm. and Bronze in Ancient Greece, New York.
— (1988): “The Purpose of Inventories: A Close Reading of the Russell, D. A. and M. Winterbottom (1972): Ancient Literary
Delian Inventories of Independence”, in: Knoepfler 1988, Criticism, Oxford.
37-47.
Schweigert, E. (1938): “Inscriptions from the North Slope of the
Ma, J. (2002): Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor, Acropolis”, Hesperia, 7, 264-310.
Oxford.
Sevinç, N. and C. Brian Rose (1999): “A Child’s Sacrophagus from
Maiuri, A. (1921-1922): “Viaggio di esplorazione in Caria. Parte the Salvage Excavations at Gümüşçay”, Studia Troica, 9,
III – Iscrizioni. Nuove iscrizioni dalla Caria”, Annuario, 489-509.
4-5, 461-488.
Seyrig, H. (1963): “Monnaies hellénistiques”, RN, 6/5, 7-64.
Makres, A. (2010): “A New Fragment of a Fourth Century BC
Shrimpton, G. S. (1991): Theopompus the Historian, Montreal.
Athenian Treasure Record”, in: Reger et al. 2010, 63-71.
Strong, D. E. (1966): Greek and Roman Silver Plate, London.
Marcellesi, M.-Chr. (2004): Milet des Hécatomnides à la domination
romaine. Pratiques monétaires et histoire de la cité du ive Tchernia, A., P. Pomey, A. Hesnard and M. Couvert (1978): L’épave
au iie siècle av. J.-C., Mainz am Rhein. romaine de la Madrague de Giens (Var) (Campagnes 1972-
1975). Fouilles de l’Institut d’archéologie méditerranéenne,
Marek, C. (2000): “Wer War der Basileus Kaunios ?”, in: Işık 2000,
Paris.
195-199.
Talbert, R., ed. (2000): Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman
— (2006): Die Inschriften von Kaunos, Munich.
World, Princeton.
Migeotte, L. (1992): Les souscriptions publiques dans les cités
Themelis, P. G. and I. P. Touratsoglou (1997): Οι τάφοι του Δερβενίου,
grecques, Geneva - Québec.
Athens.
Oliver, Jr., A. J. (1977): Silver for the Gods. 600 Years of Greek and
Roman Silver, Toledo. Thompson, M. (1981): “The Alexandrine Mint of Mylasa”, NAC,
10, 207-217.
— (1980): “A Set of Ancient Silverware in the Getty Museum”,
GMusJ, 8, 155-166. Tracy, St. V. (1990): Attic Letter-Cutters of 229 to 86 B.C, Berkeley.

Parker, R. (2010): “A Funerary Foundation from Hellenistic Lycia”, Tréheux, J. (1952): “Études d’épigraphie délienne”, BCH, 76,
Chiron, 40, 103-121. 562-595.

Parker, R. and D. Obbink (2000): “Aus der Arbeit der ‘Inscriptiones — (1965): Études sur les inventaires attiques, Paris.
Graecae’ VII. Sales of Priesthoods on Cos, I”, Chiron, 30, van Alfen, P., ed. (2006): Agoranomia. Studies in Money and
415-449. Exchange Presented to John H. Kroll, New York.
Pearson, A. C. (1917): The Fragments of Sophocles, Cambridge. van Bremen, R. and J.-M. Carbon, eds. (2010): Hellenistic Karia,
Peek, W. (1969): Inschriften von den dorischen Inseln, Berlin. Bordeaux.

Petrakos, B. Ch. (1997): Οι επιγραφές του Ωρώπου, Athens. Vierneisel, K. et B. Kaeser, dir. (1990): Kunst der Schale. Kultur des
Trinkens, Munich.
Prestianni Giallombardo, A. M. (1990): “Kausia diadematophoros
Vickers, M. et D. Gill (1994): Artful Crafts. Ancient Greek Silverware
in Macedonia. Testimonianze misconosciute e nuove
and Pottery, Oxford.
proposte”, Messana, 1, 107-126.
Von Hoeckmann, U. and A. Krug, eds. (1977): Festschrift für Frank
Price, M. J. (1991): The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great
Brommer, Mayence.
and Philip Arrhidaeus, Zurich - London.
Walter, H. B. (1921): Catalogue of Silver Plate (Greek, Etruscan and
Prêtre, C. (1997): “Imitation et miniature. Étude de quelques suffixes
Roman) in the British Museum, London.
dans le vocabulaire délien de la parure”, BCH, 121, 673-680.
Gary Reger – 163

Watzinger, C. (1901): “Vasenfunde aus Athen”, MDAI(A), 26, 50-102. Wittenburg, A. (1990): Il testament di Epikteta, Trieste.
Wiemer, H.-J. (2003): “Käufliche Priestertümer im hellenistischen Zahn, R. (1899): “Zur Midasvase aus Eleusis”, MDAI(A), 24, 339-344.
Kos”, Chiron, 33, 263-310. Zimmermann, N. (1998): Beziehungen zwischen Ton- und
Wilhelm, A. (1909): Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde, Metallgefässen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer Zeit,
Vienna. Rahden.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi