¹ See especially Bean, –Cook, , BSA xlvii 171 ff., 202 f.Google Scholar

² So on the modern Turkish map (‘Dorakia’ on Philippson's map); Darahiya in Piri-Re'is (A.D. 1521).

³ Pachym. i 146 (p. 220 Bonn). For the name Tracheia cf. Tomaschek, , Zur hist. Topographie v. Kleinasien im Mittelalter 40Google Scholar; Wittek, , Das Fürstentum Mentesche 166.Google Scholar

⁴ Bean, –Cook, , BSA xlvii 202Google Scholar; Bean in Fraser, –Bean, , Rhodian Peraea 63 ff.Google Scholar, with full discussion. I take this opportunity of acknowledging my indebtedness both to the book here cited and to Bean's valuable criticism of the first draft of the present article.

⁵ Cf. Bean, –Cook, , BSA lii 60 f.Google Scholar

⁶ Rhod. Peraea 95 ff.

⁷ IG xii i, no. 694 (SIG ³ 339), Ann. xxvii–xxix 237 f. (= Tit. Camir. no. 109).

⁸ IG xii 3, no. 6; for a revision of the traces of the obscure first name see Carratelli, , Studi Class, e Orientali (Univ. Pisa) vi 66.Google Scholar

⁹ AE 1911, 61. This interesting name has unfortunately been neglected by scholars who have concerned themselves with the ktoinai.

¹⁰ Fraser-Bean, , Rhod. Peraea 39Google Scholar, no. 26 (περὶ τὰν κτοίναν: or περὶ τᾶν κτοινᾶν, Robert, J. and Robert, L., REG lxxi 317Google Scholar).

¹¹ SGDI 4264.

¹² This possibility cannot be absolutely excluded. It is noteworthy that Tlos (to which Phoenix is thought to have belonged, Rhod. Peraea 58) and Tymnus are the two known Camiran demes of the Peraea; but it is generally supposed that the demes of Carpathus were all Lindian (ibid., 144: the archaic coins which have in the past been attributed to Potidaion in Carpathus are too problematical to be discussed here, but the argument does not seem cogent; see now Cahn, , Num. Chron. 1957, 11 f.)Google Scholar. Thyssanous is of uncertain attachment; Syme perhaps had no regular attachment (see below, p. 59). Since the present article was drafted, Carratelli has reaffirmed the view that the ktoinai were exclusively Camiran, and accepting the equation with the Linear B word for which the value ko-to-na is given in the Ventris-Chadwick decipherment, has attempted to see in the ktoinai evidence of traditionalism at Camirus, (Stud. Class, e Or. vi 66 ff.).Google Scholar I cannot judge this view. But in any case it does not affect the question of the antiquity of the extra-insular ktoinai since a traditional institution of this sort could have been transferred at any time to the Camiran possessions, whether before or after the synoecism.

¹³ Rhod. Peraea 141 ff.; cf. also Carratelli, loc. cit.

¹⁴ IG xii 1, no. 977 (SIG ³ no. 129; Tod, GHI ii no. 110), perhaps of 390–387 rather than 394/390 b.c. See below, p. 68. Though a Lindian appears to be mentioned as willing to transport the cypress, there is no suggestion in the decree of Lindian domination of Carpathus (or of any part of it).

¹⁵ On the evidence for Chalce see Fraser, , Rhod. Peraea 144 f.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The evidence for this is the stone from Old Cnidus bearing the grant of reciprocal rights between the Cnidians and the people of Chalce, , BSA xlvii 187Google Scholar; clarified by Klaffenbach, , Festschrift Weickert 94 ff.Google Scholar (cf. BSA lii 85).

¹⁷ ATL i 455.

¹⁸ Il. ii 671; cf. Diod. v 53, 2.

¹⁹ Lippold, , Griech. Plastik 66.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Fraser, , Rhod. Peraea 139 ff.Google Scholar for the evidence.

²¹ IG xii 3, nos. 1269–70. It is evident that the phrase τοὶ κατοικεῦντες (with its corollary τοὶ παρεπιδαμεῦντες) has its normal Greek meaning here and includes Rhodians resident in Syme (see Fraser, in Rhod. Peraea 140Google Scholar, n. 4); and if we are to accept the universal view of modern scholars that on Rhodian territory the phrase has a more restricted meaning and denotes a class of privileged non-Rhodians only, the usage on Syme appears to differ from that observed in other Rhodian possessions; in which case we might infer that the political standing of Rhodians on Syme was a peculiar one. I believe that the position of Rhodians on Syme was in fact peculiar and that the use of the term Πολίτας in no. 1270 is a proof of this—the use of the word πολῑται (distinguished from πάροικοι) in the Potidaion decree, IG xii 1, no. 1033, is not comparable because there it is not used in place of a demotic but refers to Rhodians encountered during service in the armed forces or fleet. But I am reluctant to base an argument on the use of the term τοὶ κατοικεῦντες. The designation seems to me comparable to that, for instance, at Brykous in Carpathus (IG xii 1, nos. 994–995), with the difference that Syme was not a Rhodian deme and therefore, in so far as it was under Rhodian jurisdiction, had no δᾶμος. The phrase τοὶ k. at Brykous, strengthened as it is by πάντες, can hardly have been intended to exclude all Rhodian citizens who were not demesmen of Brykous—this, in the context, would be ridiculous; and my examination of the term τοὶ κατοικεῦντες at Lindos and in the Rhodian possessions generally has not convinced me that there is ever any intention of excluding Rhodian citizens of other demes or old cities who are resident in the deme (or old city) in question.

²² IG xii 3, nos. 1269–70.

²³ See the list in Rhod. Peraea 84, with the dating of the documents given there.

²⁴ Cf. especially Robert, , REG 1929, 20 ff.Google Scholar; 1933, 437, n. 2 and sq.; Vanseveren, , Reu. Phil. 1937, 314.Google ScholarCf. also the inscription of Icaria (see Robert, , Études épigr. et phil. 113Google Scholar, n. 1) issued by the which is dated by the (Samian) demiourgos and the (local or Milesian) stephane-phoros.

²⁵ Rhod. Pernea 140. For the Camiran (not Lindian) attachment of Casara see now Carratelli, op. cit., 72 f. The damiorgos in the inscriptions of Syme could, of course, alternatively, be Camiran, and not the Cnidian.

²⁶ As Fraser expressly remarks, op. cit., 82.

²⁷ Inscr. Lindos, no. 51; cf. Rhod. Peraea 79.

²⁸ It paid 2,000 drachmae to the Athenians in the year 428/427 B.C., when for an unknown reason some communities of the Chersonese paid separately (ATL i 450).

²⁹ It is not clear to me whether Ps.-Scylax's mention of Rhodian χώρα in 98b (= 99) should be accepted as evidence for Rhodian possession of territory on the mainland at the date (c. mid-fourth century B.C.) generally assigned to the composition of this periplus. The passage reads (going south) This would mean ‘Cape Triopion, Cnidus with [i.e. from which we may turn aside to mention?] the land of the Rhodians and [i.e. returning to the mainland] on the coast Caunus with a closed harbour’. But Ps.-Scylax always makes it clear when he is turning aside to the islands or returning to the continent, and in fact he turns aside to speak of Rhodes and its adjacent islands a few words later. Scholars who are familiar with his usage therefore emend the καί after Ῥοδίων to ἡ, and so read after which Caunus follows without a conjunction. This is a great improvement, since Caunus now becomes the next entry in a coastal sequence and asyndeton is therefore appropriate. But a new difficulty is thus created. The καί after the word Ἑλληνίς no longer serves to relate Rhodes to the coastal sequence, and instead it subordinates the χώρα of the Rhodians to Cnidus. If this χώρα lay in the interior behind Cnidus, or, alternatively, were subject to Cnidus, the καὶ here might be justified; but as things are it seems to be out of place. The difficulties here are similar to those in the same author's description of the Samian Peraea (97d = 98), where the fourth-century text has certainly been altered or supplemented at a later date (cf. the false where Ps.-Scylax would have written ); and it may be that the mention of aRhodian χώρα here is another alteration or interpolation in the fourth-century text by a Hellenistic scholar who did not closely observe the author's usage.

Since there is no unambiguous testimony to Rhodian territory on the mainland before Alexander's conquests in Asia it is useless to speculate on the extent of such territory unless we may assume (as Bean, and I suggested in BSA lii 83Google Scholar) that the chain of Orontobates' forts is to be regarded as a frontier line facing Rhodian territory.

³⁰ BMC Caria, xlvi 80. For these coins and the Olympia dedication cf. BSA xlvii 204, with n. 10.

³¹ Charites 23 ff.

³² Cahn, op. cit., 26, says that Cnidus went over to the Aeginetan standard c. 520 B.C.

³³ AJA 1914, 285 ff., pls. 3–4; (Ogan), Aziz, Guide du musée de Smyrne (1933) 37.Google Scholar

³⁴ Klio Beih. xxx (1933) 21 n. 1.

³⁵ BSA xlvii 173 ff., 202 ff.

³⁶ E.g. Nireus (above, p. 59); RE s.v. ‘Triopas’ col. 171.

³⁷ See Bean, –Cook, , BSA xlvii 185, 202.Google Scholar

³⁸ See Philippson, , Reisen v 77Google Scholar; Maiuri, , Ann. iv–v 405.Google Scholar

³⁹ For this record see ATL i 272 f.

⁴⁰ Cf. Rhod. Peraea 80 f.

⁴¹ See the references given in RE Suppl. v col. 751 f.

⁴² Études anatoliennes 495.

⁴³ Robert, Coll. Froehner no. 52.

⁴⁴ REA 1931, 12 ff.

⁴⁵ Rhod. Peraea 68.

⁴⁶ Loc. cit. This, as their text shows, is an ingenious inversion of a proposal of Hiller's to place Hygassus north-west of Hisarönü, with the two denies straddling Rena Bay. But since the deme of the Bybassians must be placed at Rena Bay, the presence of both Hygassus and Erine there would be intolerable; three demes there is altogether too many.

⁴⁷ Rhod. Peraea 68.

⁴⁸ Rhod. Peraea 28 f.; for Hygassus ibid. 67.

⁴⁹ Clara Rhodos ii 238 nos. 150–1; Hiller, , GGA 1933, 17Google Scholar (non vidi); cf. Rhod. Peraea 80 f.

⁵⁰ Lindos ii no. 465, and p. 847. To the documents mentioned above may be added a dedication of an Erinaeus, , Ann. xxx–xxxii 265Google Scholar no. 13.

⁵¹ For the testimonia see Tomaschek, , Zur hist. Topographie 39Google Scholar; Wittek, , Das Fürstentum Mentesche 167Google Scholar, 170, 172.

⁵² Cf. Bean's and my remarks on the corresponding problem of the Callipolis, Carian, BSA lii 84.Google Scholar Two identifications comparable with that of Erine are Hiller's placing of the Rhodian deme of Loxidae at Loxa or Losa (Losta) Bay and D. Khaviaras' equation of Bosporanoi with Bozburun (both in the Carian Chersonese); these are now both rejected with good reason (Rhod. Peraea 61, 81 n. 5).

⁵³ Rhod. Peraea 67; note also ‘Eren Dağı’ for the mountain, as on the modern Turkish map.

⁵⁴ Ann. iv–v 405; it is not stated whether the name was orally received or not.

⁵⁵ AE 1911, 67 f.

⁵⁶ Bericht über eine Reise in Karien 31.

⁵⁷ Über eine Reise im Orient (1892) 6.

⁵⁸ See Spratt, 's article, Archaeologia xlix 351 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Med. Pilot.

⁵⁹ In a field note-book in the British School at Athens (cf. BSA xxviii 115 f.).

Evliya Çelebi (A.D. 1670) in his MS. itinerary cites (in Arabic script) a name Rabiya (vel sim.) somewhere in this part of south-west Caria. Wittek, , Das Fürstentum Mentesche 170Google Scholar, seeks to relate this name to Erine Bay and Raena Çay; if this is right, the name is evidently corruptly rendered; but the geographical position of this place in Evliya seems very vague.

⁶⁰ Reϊses gives it as (ἡ) Ῥίνα in his Περιγραφὴ τῆς νήσου Καλύμνον (1913) cf. BSA lii 127 ff.

⁶¹ Bürchner, , Die Insel Lews index (p. 47)Google Scholar; ‘Porto Rina’ is marked on the east side of Partheni Bay on the Italian administration's map of Leros.

⁶² Reisen ii 114, map at end.

⁶³ The maps show the following names here: H. Kamariani, an islet Mikale, Cape Apostoli, Badalena (= Panteleëmon) Bay, the islet H. Varvara, Saranta (the Holy Forty), and I believe there is a Foneremi (= Phaneromene).

⁶⁴ Head, , HN ²622Google Scholar, there entered as Carian!

⁶⁵ Cf. Imhoof-Blumer's remarks on the early Cnidian coin with legend A, which had been attributed to Halicarnassus or Acanthus, and on other East Greek issues with initials and monograms (Kleinasiatische Münzen i 65).

⁶⁶ See BSA xlvii 210 ff., with further remarks BSA lii 85 f. This dating is of course conjectural.

⁶⁷ Cf. Bean, –Cook, , BSA iii 116Google Scholar (with reference to Robert, L., Reo. Phil. lx 46Google Scholar).

^67a See especially Xen., Hell. iv 8, 22, 24.

⁶⁸ Hell. iv 8, 19:

⁶⁹ xiv 99: The contrast of the compound verb διεσώθησαν here with the simple form in Xenophon could fit with the assumption of a remoter destination in Diodorus' account. It is also worth notice that Diodorus does not write εἰς φρούριόν τι or τὸ καλούμενον Κ.; although Knidinion has not been mentioned, the name of the fort is given in such a way as to imply that Diodorus expected his readers to know what it was, and in the circumstances only the obvious association of the name with Cnidus could serve as a clue.

⁷⁰ Assuming the date before 390 to be right, Foucart's reading of [Λιν]δίους (and not [Κνι]δίονς) would require reconsideration as being not necessarily the worse of two evils; the note in SIG ³ no. 129, which purports to give ancient literary authority for the statement that Cnidus came over to Conon after the battle, is beyond atonement.

⁷¹ See most recently Cawkwell's valuable article in Num. Chron. 1956, 69 ff., where the evidence is carefully assembled, though the conclusion drawn from it seems to me to be wrong.

⁷² Xen. Hell. iv 8, 30; Diod. xiv 94 fin.

⁷³ If, with Diodorus (xiv 94 sqq.), we date Thrasybulus' mission before the Spartan expedition across the Aegean, the supposed anti-Spartan league could still have been functioning; but I am not aware that any modern scholar is prepared to accept this sequence of events. Otherwise, with Ephesus, Samos and Cnidus on the Spartan side and Rhodes in revolution, the alliance must have been defunct when Byzantium joined it.

⁷⁴ For a statement of these views see Cawkwell, op. cit., 69 ff.

⁷⁵ For these theories see Cawkwell, op. cit., 70 ff.

⁷⁶ I cannot discuss Accame's theory of an ‘alleanza monetale a scopo di commercio’, which I know only from the reference to it in Cawkwell, op. cit., 70.

⁷⁷ Head, HN ² 97.

⁷⁸ Andoc, de Pace 20; the scholium on Ar., Eccl. 193 raises major problems that cannot be dis cussed here.

⁷⁹ This is Judeich, 's supposition (Kleinasiatische Studien 87).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Though not mentioned by Xenophon, this conveniently explains how it came about that Teleutias was later able to pick up ships at Samos, (Hell. iv 8, 23Google Scholar).

⁸¹ It can be shown by innumerable instances that naval strategy in the Aegean in antiquity and even Byzantine times has centred upon control of Samos as the key to the all-weather Aegean crossing; the Spartans could not have failed to learn this lesson in the Peloponnesian War, and the Athenians (in my view) remembered it in 365 B.C. when Epaminondas was known to be building a war fleet.

⁸² Since Diodorus speaks of the Spartan army as quartered at Ionda and Mt. Kornisos in the vicinity of Ephesus, Judeich (op. cit., 86 n. 3) argued that Xenophon was wrong in making Thibron use Ephesus as his base (Hell. iv 8, 17), and assumed that Ephesus continued in the anti-Spartan alliance. But this view rests solely on inference from the ΣΥΝ coins. It is surely most unlikely that under the circumstances the democratic party in Ephesus, which does not seem ever to have been very powerful, could have enforced a policy of intransigence in face of Thibron's liberating army, especially when Ionic auxiliaries had been enrolled in it; and, equally, Thibron would hardly have continued to occupy a camp close to a city which remained hostile and provided no market for his army. His previous experience in Ionia in 400/399 B.C., when he allowed his troops to plunder the Greeks of the coast, would sufficiently account for his preference for camping outside the city in 391 B.C.; and in any case accommodation for an army of this size would have been hard to come by in a city.

⁸³ Xen. Hell. iii 2, 12.

⁸⁴ Thuc. viii 42, 4; Athenian decree of 410/409 B.C. praising the Halicarnassians, IG ii² no. 142. Judeich characterised Iasus as ‘athenerfreundlich’ (op. cit., 79 f.), but the city of Iasus is not to be confused with the rebel Amorges, who was a political figure of much greater consequence. (I cannot judge how far, if at all, the Athenian decree IG ii² no. 3 supports Judeich's view.)

⁸⁵ Lys. Ergocl. (xxviii).

⁸⁶ Xen. Hell. iii 4, 10.

⁸⁷ For the relationship between coinage and payment of troops see Cook, R. M., Historia vii (1958) 261.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ On this question see Robert, 's excellent article, to the Hellenica x 167–71.Google Scholar Newell and Robert both prefer the attribution of the Θιβρώνειον νόμισμα to the later Thibron.

⁸⁹ Diod. xviii 19–21.