## THE STRUCTURE OF PTOLEMAIC ADMINISTRATION IN SOUTH-WESTERN ASIA MINOR: CARIA, CAUNOS AND LYCIA

By Alain Bresson

For Vincent, 'fellow Rhodian' and dear friend of many years

Summary: This paper addresses the question of the structure of Ptolemaic administration in south-western Asia Minor in the third century BCE. On the basis of the later command structure of Rhodes over the same regions, it demonstrates that there were not two, but three Ptolemaic strat ē goi , one being in charge of Caria, one of Caunos, and one of Lycia. The existence of a specific command over Caunos was justified by the fact that this city was separated from the rest of Caria by a curtain of Rhodian and Seleucid territories.

## I ntroduction

Between 280/79 BCE and the turn from third to the second century, many of the coastal regions of southern Asia Minor found themselves under the control of  the  Ptolemies. 1 The  four  regions  of  Cilicia,  Pamphylia, Lycia and Caria each had specific administrations. 2 At the top of the hierarchy, with both military and civil powers, it is possible to hypothesize the existence of a strat ē gos - at least as much can be proven in the case of Cilicia and Caria. For Pamphylia, Louis Robert postulated the existence of a Pamphyliarch in a damaged inscription, whose title may bring to mind the Nesiarch of the Aegean islands. But A. Meadows and P. Thonemann have argued that this restoration cannot be followed. It is possible that what is mentioned in the initial lacuna is a strat ē gos , but it

- 1 For the administration of foreign Ptolemaic possessions, see Bagnall 1976, especially 80-116 for Asia Minor, and Huß 2011: 157-71.
- 2 On the administration of Cilicia, see Huß 2011: 157-60; of Pamphylia, p. 161; of Lycia, pp. 161-66; of Caria, pp. 167-70.

may  just  as  likely  have  been  a  high  Ptolemaic  official  such  as  an oikonomos . 3 For Lycia despite there being an important number of testimonies for the presence and role of the Ptolemaic administration, our documentation apparently does not mention any strat ē gos , to the point that it has been possible to ask whether in fact the region was not treated as an administrative annex of Caria. 4

When it comes to the Ptolemaic strat ē goi in Asia Minor, it is Caria that provides the richest documentation, even if again it is not as explicit as one might wish. A strat ē gos of Caria is known to us from a decree in Samos for  the  Macedonian  Aristolaos,  son  of  Ameinias, IG XII.6  120,  l.  2: [ σ ] τρατηγὸς ἐπὶ Καρίας κατεστηκ [ ώς ] (from the reign of Ptolemy II). This is the only one known to us by an explicit title. However, as W. Huß has pointed  out,  several  other  texts  from  Caria  might  make  mention  of strat ē goi and their case merits particular attention. 5

- Amyzon. A decree from Amyzon ( Amyzon , pp. 118-24, no. 3) honors the strat ē gos Margos, dated to year 9 of Ptolemy II, that is, 277 BCE. 6 On lines 6-7 he is described as Μάρ | γος ὁ στρατηγός ,  and  ll.  8-9, Μάργον τὸν στρατηγόν . As a very likely hypothesis, one might consider this is an implicit reference to a function - the strat ē gos of Caria - that was so well-known that there was no need to state so explicitly.
- Labraunda. In a letter from Olympichos to Mylasa concerning the status and privileges of the sanctuary of Labraunda ( I.Labraunda 3), one finds on line 4 a reference to τὰ παρὰ Σώφρονος γραφέντα πρὸ [ ς | 5 ὑμ ] ᾶς κ̣αὶ Πτολεμ̣ [ α ] ίου τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ βασιλέως Πτολε |-[ μ ] α̣ίου .  The problem concerning the identities and roles of both Sophron and Ptolemy, brother of king Ptolemy, has recently been the  subject  of  detailed  discussion,  so  it  will  suffice  here  to  just briefly  summarize its results. 7 For  J.  Crampa,  Sophron  was  none
- 3 Meadows & Thonemann 2013, with a new restoration of Robert 1966: 53-58, l. 9.
- 4 See Meadows 2012: 127-28.
- 5 See Huß 2011: 168 n. 207, who provides a list and detailed bibliography.
- 6 The text is dated to 273 by J. & L. Robert, Amyzon : 120, but we should calculate the years of the reign starting in 284. See Meadows 2006: 467.
- 7 Van Bremen 2017: 251-55 (on Sophron see again PP 6 15125).

other than the Seleucid officer in charge of Ephesos, who is known to  us  from  an  anecdote  from  Athenaeus  (13  593b-d  =  Phylarch, FGrHist , 81 F24) for having changed sides and joined the Ptolemies during the troubles of the year 246. 8 C. Habicht departed from this identification and believed the Sophron from the Labraunda inscription to be a Ptolemaic officer, distinct from the Seleucid one posted  to  Ephesos  in  246.  He,  in  turn,  suggested  that  Sophron might be the strat ē gos of  Caria before Ptolemy 'the Son' came to exercise authority over the region. 9 However, M. Domingo Gygax returned to the analysis by Crampa, 10 even if he holds that Ptolemy 'brother of the king' was indeed the son of Ptolemy II (brother to Ptolemy III), who, after operating in western Asia Minor, defected in 259. But if this is the case, as R. van Bremen notes, there is no reason to see why the letter by Sophron would have been mentioned  before  that  of  Ptolemy.  As  many  other  parallel  dossiers show, the chronology of documentary pieces turns out to be of fundamental importance. 11 We must, therefore, return to the hypothesis by C. Habicht. 12 If  the letters by Ptolemy 'the Son' to Mylasa ought to be dated to 260, Sophron would have been in office during the 270s or at the beginning of the 260s.

- Territory of the Mogoreis (Xystis), certainly of 274 BCE, with mention of a strat ē gos of Caria and its periphery. 13
- Samos. Hagesarchos, originally from Megalopolis, appears in a dossier of correspondence with Samos in 245/4 BCE ( IG XII.6 156) as someone bearing a letter from Ptolemy III. The inscription is damaged, and the title of the individual is lost. His son Ptolemaios was a high dignitary at the court of Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V and the strat ē gos of Cyprus ( PP 6 14778 = 15068). The parallel with the Aris-
- 8 Crampa in Labraunda

: 15 and 121-22.

9 Habicht 1972: 167-70.

10  Domingo Gygax 2000: 358-59.

11  A natural example is the arbitrage dossier between Samos and Priene; see I.Priene 2

132.

- 12  Van Bremen 2017: loc. cit.

13  See Bresson et al. 2021; Rousset 2024; Bresson forthcoming.

- tolaos inscription may legitimately suggest that Hagesarchos was another strat ē gos of Caria. 14
- Theangela (rather than Halicarnassos). In an honorific decree of the third century (it is not possible to date the text with more precision given the information available to us) for Iason, son of Minnion, C. Marek has proposed reconstructing στρατηγὸς ἐ [ πὶ Καρίας ] as the individual's title. 15
- Kildara. In a letter to the city of Kildara in 246 BCE, Tlepolemos, son of Artapates, encourages the Kildarians to persevere in the choice they made to support queen Berenice in the conflict between her and Laodice. The letter's introduction does not mention any title for Tlepolemos and leads to the question, without there being any way to answer it, whether he was the strat ē gos of Caria or if he was there on a special mission. 16
- Caunos. The case of the strat ē gos Motes poses a particular problem. He is mentioned in the correspondence of Zenon, P.Cair.Zen. 59341 (247/6), a ll. 20-21: ἐπί τε τὸν στρατηγὸν Μότην καὶ τὸν οἰκονόμον | Διόδοτον , and l. 29, τὸν στρατηγὸν ⟦Μο⟧ καὶ τὸν οἰκονόμον . This papyrus is composed of three memoranda (a-c). 17 The first, sent by Theopropos,  who  was  originally  from  Kalynda,  to  the dioik ē t ē s Apollonios concerns a financial affair involving the city. The second, sent by Neon, also from Kalynda, is something supposed to be
- 14  See the argument by Hallof & Mileta 1997: 270-79, who detail the origins and the career of Hagesarchos.
- 15  Marek 1982: 119-23, ll. 1-3: ἐπειδὴ Ἰάσων ] | Μιννίωνος Ἁ [ λικαρνασσεύς , ἀποδεδειγ -μένος ] | στρατηγὸς ἐ [ πὶ Καρίας ὑπὸ βασιλέως Πτολεμαίου ?], cf. SEG 32 1112. The inscription had been published by Cousin & Diehl 1890: 90-93, no. 1, as coming from Halicarnassus because they had seen it in Bodrum, without realizing that the stone could have another provenance. Like another inscription that they published with a provenance, in fact, from Theangela, C. Marek proposes the hypothesis that the same goes for this decree and notes that it goes well with the mention of the ethnic in l. 2 (which would not have appeared if the person in question had been honoured in his own city).
- 16  Blümel 1992 ( SEG 92 1994). Van Bremen 2017: 229 and n. 23 designates him only as a Ptolemaic 'official' (officer). On Tlepolemos, his origins, career and family, see Habicht 1985: 87-88 and PP 9 5228.
- 17  See Orrieux 1983: 53-54.

dealt with by Zenon. It concerns a renewal application for the contribution exemption for the costs of housing soldiers. The father of the individual who originally had benefited from the exemption had been the husband of Zenon's paternal aunt. The third is an explanatory memorandum from Zenon himself. We know that Zenon was from Caunos. Kalynda was the neighbouring city immediately to the east of Caunos. With both the strat ē gos and the oikonomos being mentioned in the same document and at the same level the document stems from the highest level of a provincial administration. But which province	was	this?

Logically (or so it seems), H. Bengtson, followed by W. Huß, thought of Caria. 18 Besides, both also pointed out that, according to Polybius, Astymedes in his address to the Roman senate had recalled the particular situation of Caunos and Stratonikeia among their possessions in Asia Minor. 19 With regard to Caunos, Astymedes mentions: ἀλλὰ Καῦνον δήπου διακοσίων ταλάντων ἐξηγοράσαμεν παρὰ τῶν Πτολεμαίου στρατηγῶν , 'But Caunos, as you well know, we purchased from Ptolemy's generals for the price of two hundred talents'. For Bengston, the plural is only a stylistic flourish, and it is the strat ē gos of Caria that he really means here. 20 However, things may not be so simple.

We must first mention the question of the date on which the Rhodians acquired Caunos. Directly or indirectly, three ancient sources relate to this  event.  It  is  first  and  foremost  the  explicit  testimony  of  Polybius, which has just been mentioned. But two other sources evoke the fate of Caunos in this period. It is first Livy, who evokes the context in which the Rhodians were brought to prevent the offensive of Antiochos III against the Ptolemaic possessions in the south of Asia Minor. In the summer of 197,  the  Seleucid  offensive  unfolded  from  east  to  west.  This  offensive aimed at seizing Cilicia, Lycia, and Caria (Liv 33.19.11). Worried about these operations, the Rhodians sent an embassy to Antiochos demanding that his fleet should not move beyond the Chelidonian islands on the southeastern tip of Lycia ( ibid ., 33.20.2). Even if the Roman victory of Cynoscephalae lifted the threat of a convergence between the forces of Antiochos III and those of Philip V and if Antiochos III assured the Rhodians of his will to maintain their traditionally good relations, this did not ensure the safeguarding of the last Ptolemaic possessions in the region. The Rhodians had to take things in their own hands ( ibid ., 33.20.12-13): 'They did not, however, abandon the other object, the defence of the liberties of the states in alliance with Ptolemy which Antiochos was now threatening. To some they gave active assistance, others they forewarned of the movements of the enemy; it was thus that Caunos, Myndos, Halicarnassos and Samos owed their liberty to Rhodes'. 21

18  Bengtson 1937-1952: III, 174-77 (the same point of view in PP 6 15058); Huß 2011: 168 n. 207.

19  Polyb. 30.31.6

20  As noted by Huß 2011: 168 n. 207, the hypothesis by Walbank in his commentary on Polybius (1979, III, 457), according to which 'the generals' would actually mean the strat ē gos of Caria and the commander of the garrison of Caunos, is not convincing.

Some scholars have seen here a contradiction between Livy and Polybius. 22 But there is no contradiction at all. In 197 the Rhodians safeguarded the 'freedom' of 'the cities allied to Ptolemy', that is, of the cities that were nominally autonomous but under his control, including the presence of a garrison, by sending armed forces to protect those cities against the Seleucid forces, if needed. This means that the operation was carried out in cooperation with the Ptolemaic authorities on the spot. Then, as testified by Polybius, a second phase could come, which in the case of Caunos meant that the local Ptolemaic strat ē goi sold the city to Rhodes.

The only incongruous testimony is that of Appian ( Mithr . 23.89), who indicates: Καύνιοι Ῥοδίοις ὑποτελεῖς ἐπὶ τῶ Ἀντιόχου πολέμῳ γενόμενοι , καὶ ὑπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἀφεθέντες οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ ... 'The Caunians, who had become subject to Rhodes after the war against Antiochus and had been recently liberated by the Romans ...' This testimony is framed in a rhetorical construction that tends to emphasize the ingratitude and the cruelty of the Caunians, who massacred the Romans and the Italians in 88 BCE. It obviously contains a double error, on the date on which the Rhodians had acquired Caunos, and on the one at which they had lost it (since the city was lost by Rhodes as early as 167 BCE). H.-U. Wiemer has observed  that  Appian  was  not  to  be  trusted. 23 Yet,  after  an  historiographic review that summarizes the positions of scholars who have commented on this question (with the debate on the supposed contradiction between Livy, who presented the Rhodians as having safeguarded the 'freedom' of the Caunians, and Polybius, who signaled that they had been sold to the Rhodians), S. Dmitriev concludes that 'these texts do not confirm  the  evidence  offered  by  Polybius  that  the  Rhodians  had  actually gained Caunus by a purchase. Unlike what we read in Polybius (which surely  reflected  the  Rhodian  point  of  view),  neither  Livy  nor  Appian shows how, exactly, Rhodes acquired Caunus'. 24 In fact, as we saw, there is no contradiction between Livy, Polybius and the epigraphic sources. Only Appian is divergent, for reasons that can easily be explained: chronological distance from the facts and rhetorical construction. Rejecting Polybius' testimony on the pretext that it would only reflect 'a Rhodian point of view' is untenable. Polybius was in Rome at the time Astymedes had delivered his address before the senate. How could we imagine that Astymedes or a later Rhodian source could have misled Polybius on this question? 25

21 Illam alteram curam non omiserunt tuendae libertatis civitatum sociarum Ptolomaei, quibus bellum ab Antiocho imminebat. Nam alias auxiliis iuverunt, alias providendo ac praemonendo conatus hostis causaque libertatis fuerunt Cauniis, Myndiis, Halicarnassensibus Samiisque. Tr. Canon Roberts, Everyman's Library (London 1912).

22  The debate is summarized by Dmitriev 2010: 160-61 with n. 20.

Now, as the epigraphic record shows, in 190, the territory of Daidala, on the western borders of Lycia, was already Rhodian, since already on this date - that is even before the end of the war against Antiochos there existed a hagem ō n epi Lykias who was active there. 26 It is thus between 197 and 192 (date of the beginning of the Antiochic War) at the latest that the Rhodians acquired Caunos and Daidala. Therefore, the two testimonies of Polybius and Livy are not contradictory. On the contrary they perfectly complement each other. It may be legitimate to think that it was already in 197 or 196 (before the conclusion of the peace between Antiochos III  and  Ptolemy  V  in  195)  that  the  sale  was  concluded,  but there is no proof of this for the moment. In any case, the alleged mention of the Caunians in the peace treaty between Miletos and Magnesia by the Meander, traditionally dated to 196 BCE but which more recently has been dated to the 180s, cannot be used to assert that Caunos was still independent at that time. The restoration of the name of Caunos in this document cannot be adopted. 27 Moreover the treaty must certainly be dated to the 180s rather than the 190s. 28

23  Wiemer 2002: 237 n. 14.

24  Dmitriev 2010: 161.

25  For an analysis of the speeches of Astymedes, that from the winter 168/7 and that from 164, see Thornton 2013: 225-26 and 228, who notes that, according to Polybius 30.4.11, Astymedes was so proud of his first speech that he made sure it was published.

26  See below on this question.

- 27 Milet I.3 148 ( Syll . 3 588, with I.Kaunos T149). Not only is the restoration ([ Καυ | ν ] ίων , ll. 12-13) not certain, it is also wholly unlikely. In the list of the ambassadors who came to reconcile Miletos and Magnesia, after Athens and Cnidos, one has for Asia Minor: Myndos,  Samos,  Halicarnassos,  the  city  with  the  uncertain  name,  then  Iasos (Crowther 1995a: 98, and 1995b: 232-34; on the basis of a prosopographic identification; for the patronymic Νύσιος of this delegate of Iasos, see now also LGPN VB, with eight attestations of the name at Iasos against only two at Mylasa), Teos and Cyzicos. Caunos, isolated at the eastern end of Caria, would break the geographic sequence of the cities of western Asia Minor. The names of several other cities have been proposed and M. Errington (1989, 283) has suggested among others those of Chios, Erythrai and Smyrna, and Wiemer (2002: 237, n. 12), that of Bargylia (but see Wörrle 2004: 53, n. 53: this solution is impossible). As for the only sequence of name plus patronymic in the list of the two delegates from this city that has been preserved, Dionysikles  the  son  of  Olympichos  (l.  13, Διονυσικλείους τοῦ Ὀλυμπίχο [ υ ]),  one should observe that Διονυσικλῆς is  characteristic of western Caria and Ionia (see LGPN VA and B, with Bresson et al. 2021, 155) and that Ὀλύμπιχος is found in a series of cities, including cities of Asia Minor ( LGPN ), but that neither of them can be found in the inscriptions of Caunos (see index I.Kaunos ). Besides, one should also observe that the names Διονυσικλῆς and Ὀλύμπιχος are both found in Ephesos, Kolophon and Smyrna only. One should conclude that the city of which the name is mutilated in the inscription has a good chance of being one of these three cities, or possibly of one of the cities  where Διονυσικλῆς and Ὀλύμπιχος appear  separately.  But  once again this excludes Caunos.
- 28  It is not possible to reopen here the dossier of the chronology of the peace treaty between Miletos and Magnesia by the Meander and of that of the arbitration between Samos and Priene (on which see now Magnetto 2008 and I.Priene 2 132). See however the argument developed by Errington 1989, Bresson 2003: 186-87, and Habicht 2005 in favour of the low dates, and contra Wörrle 2004 and Magnetto 2008 and 2009 in favour of the high chronology (following Magnetto, Badoud 2015: 177, dates to  195  the  Rhodian  eponym  Pratophanes, I.Priene 2 132,  l.  33-34,  under  whom  the treaty was recorded).

If the exact date of the purchase of Caunos by the Rhodians eludes us, the context in which the sale of Caunos took place is clear. Ptolemy V was only six years old when his father died in 204. In the following years, the power passed into the hands of a clique of courtiers. 29 Between 206 and 185, an Egyptian national revolt started in Upper Egypt. Led by two indigenous pharaohs, Haronnophris and Chaonnophris, it threatened to destroy the Ptolemaic state. In 197, fights took place in Lycopolis, a city of the Delta, close to Alexandria. 30 In 196, as testified by the Memphis Decree, Ptolemy V had to make considerable concessions to the Egyptian clergy. 31 Nevertheless, the unrest continued until the final defeat of the rebels in 185 and even so agitation continued until 182. 32 Antiochos III took advantage of this situation to launch an offensive against the Ptolemaic kingdom during the Fifth Syrian War and its follow up. This period saw, after the catastrophic defeat of Panion in 200, the loss of all southern Syria  and  that  of  almost  all  the  Ptolemaic  positions  in  Western  and Southern Asia Minor. 33 The peace treaty of 195 between the two kingdoms marked the Seleucid victory, since it confirmed the loss of the territories of Syria and Asia Minor to Antiochos III. 34

In 197 and in the following years, the Ptolemaic kingdom was on the verge of collapse. One can easily understand how the Ptolemaic strat ē goi in southern Asia Minor judged the situation hopeless. As they certainly received no more funding or troops and as they were unable to defend the territories entrusted to them, they preferred to sell some of them to Rhodes, which de facto had already become their real protector. This was at least a way to make a profit, while with a Seleucid take-over these territories would simply have been 'written off from the books'.

To come back to the Rhodians, it can be observed that, when they took control of the regions of southern Asia Minor, they not only had a magistrate  in  command  in  Caria  and  in  Lycia,  but  also  one  in  charge  of Caunos. Between 188 and 167, each of the three regions was placed under the command of individual hagemones , one for Caunos, one for Caria, and one for Lycia. 35 However, we know that it was after the acquisition of the territory of Daidala between 197 and 192 (as we saw maybe as early as in 197-196), that they had a ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Λυκίας , anticipating the situation that we observe after Apameia. The dedications NS 22 and I.Lindos 160, ll.7-8, mention the same ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Λυκίας , Hagesandros, the son of Eudamos. Our new restoration of I.Lindos 160,  ll.  3-4, ἔν τε τᾶι |  [ περὶ τὰ Δαίδαλ ] α παρατάξει , 'in the battle near Daidala', proved that as hagem ō n epi Lykias Hagesandros had been directly involved in the events told by Livy (37.22.3) of the operations of the Rhodian fleet under Pamphilidas: oppugnantibus  regiis  Dedala  et  quaedam  alia  Peraeae  castella  obsidione  exemerunt ,  'they  relieved  the  blockade  of  Daidala  and  several  other  fortresses of the Peraea which were besieged by the king's troops'. 36 Thus, it is clear that there existed a Rhodian hagem ō n epi Lykias at Daidala, in Lycia, already before the Antiochic War.

29  Huß 2001: 474-86.

30  Veïsse 2004: 3-26.

31 OGIS 90 = SB

V 8299.

32  Huß 2001: 510-13; Veïsse 2004: 9-10.

33  Huß 2001: 487-501.

34  Huß 2001: 500-1

It is, therefore, logical to think that it was also in or after 197 (in any case before the outbreak of the Antiochic War in 192) - and having already acquired Caunos - that the Rhodians established the distinction between the three hagemones , one being in charge of Lycia (the territory of Daidala), the other of Caunos, and the third of Caria (at that time this must have corresponded to the territory of Stratonikeia). But this tripartite  division  raises  a  question.  One  must  ask  whether  this  command structure could not have dated back to the period of the Ptolemies, who might  also  have  made  use  of  provincial  commands  (at  that  time  entrusted to strat ē goi ), consisting of, from west to east, Caria, Caunos along with its expanded territory (with Kalynda), and Lycia. 37

- 35  See IG XII.1 49 ( Syll . 3 619), ll. 59-64: 59: ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Καύνου , 61: ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Καρίας , 63: ἁγεμὼν ἐπὶ Λυκίας (on the chronology of the inscription, see Kontorini 1989: 39-40, who dates the text c. 185). For more details, cf. Bresson 1999: 125 n. 97.
- 36  On these questions, see detailed demonstration and parallels in Bresson 1999: 109110, with notes pp. 124-26 and SEG 49 1068 and 1072. Our new restoration and discussion have been skipped by Wiemer 2002: 264 n. 14, and Magnetto 2008: 161 n. 10, which makes their presentations of the dossier pointless. On the allies of Rhodes, see Gabrielsen 2000: 174-79. Text of Livy: Loeb translation.
- 37  On the complex relations between Caunos and Kalynda during the Hellenistic period, cf. Bresson 1998: 80-81.

First of all, it should be noted that, for the moment, our epigraphic documentation for Ptolemaic control of Caunos during the third century does  not  provide  information  concerning  the  organization  of  the  region's administration. It consists of an altar in honor of Arsinoe Philadelphos and a dedication to Sarapis and the brotherly gods. 38 Without Zenon's dossier of correspondence, we would know nothing of the existence of the strat ē gos Motes and, beyond that, of the close relations among Caunos, Kalynda and Ptolemaic Egypt under Ptolemy II. 39 As for the existence of the Ptolemaic strat ē goi for Lycia and Pamphylia, 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. We should be careful about firmly asserting that these regions were not each led by a Ptolemaic strat ē gos during the period under consideration, even in the case of Lycia, where the documentation for Ptolemaic power is certainly abundant and detailed, but where the randomness of available sources could conceal the hierarchy's top echelon.

As for Caunos, the city had always occupied a special place in the Carian universe, if Herodotus is to be believed. 40 Its remote and isolated geographic position from the rest of the Carian world makes it easy to understand this fact. But the city was undoubtedly and fully Carian, as testified beyond Herodotus by a series of inscriptions in the Carian language

- 38 I.Kaunos 54, under Ptolemy Philadelphos, as shown in the text, and 67, rather under Ptolemy IV, respectively. C. Marek notes that the cult of the brotherly gods dates to after 272 (for this cult, see most recently Grabowski 2014, who, before examining the case of the Aegean islands, presents the general lines of its development). The writing of the inscription with broken-bar alpha and line-shaped apices , is later than that of I.Kaunos 54. In addition, the initial dedication to Sarapis and Isis evokes the series of similar documents which are frequently encountered starting with Ptolemy IV, see SEG 39 1234 with the new edition by Meadows 2013. For other aspects of the Ptolemaic presence in Caunos, see the still unpublished dissertation of P. Kossmann.
- 39  On these relations, see I.Kaunos , testimonia : 53-62, nos. 120-38.
- 40  Herodotus insisted on the specific ethnicity of the Caunians. It is worth noticing that he begins with telling us that c. 544 Harpagos, the Median general in command of Persian forces, 'launched an expedition against the Carians, Caunians and Lycians' (1.171.1); see more broadly 1.171-72 (origins of the dialect and customs of the Caunians in relation to the other Carians) and 176.3 (imitation of Lycian habits); 5.103.2 (the Caunians finally joined the Ionians and the other Carians in their revolt against the Great King after the siege of Sardis).

and by coin series with Carian legends of the Classical period. 41 It  had been part of the Carian koinon as far as can be reconstructed from the inscriptions of Sekköy during the time of the Hecatomnids. 42 However, Caria of the third century had a complicated political geography and the situation was no longer the one that prevailed a century earlier. The vicissitudes of Caunos in the early Hellenistic period illustrate particularly well  the  complex  situation  in  which  the  cities  of  Caria  were  placed. 43 Starting in the 260s the interior of the land was in the hands of the Seleucids. Further south, the Rhodians incorporated the Carian Chersonese into their civic territory following the siege of 305-304. 44 At the turn of the third and second century they were in control of the territories forming the 'Subject Peraea', from Pladasa to Pisye, and they allied with and subjugated  the  small  cities  of  the  Ceramic  Gulf,  Idyma,  Callipolis  and Kyllandos. 45 But when did they put their hands on the territories of this Subject Peraea?

The Rhodians actively participated in the Second Syrian War (260253) and sided with Antiochos II against Ptolemy II. A dedication from the people of Rhodes to Athena Lindia known from the Temple Chronicle of Lindos formally attests to it. 46 This testimony reinforces those of Polyaenus and Frontinus on the decisive role of the Rhodian fleet operating

41  Inscriptions in Carian language: Adiego 2007: 151-58, 294-302, and 453-57; coinage: Konuk in Adiego 2007: 471-92.

- 42  Blümel 1990: 29-30, nos. 11 ( SEG 40 991; HTC , no. 90), ll. 18-19, and 12 ( SEG 40 992; HTC , no. 91), ll. 5-7, cf. testimonia in I.Kaunos , pp. 49-50, no. 113. See the commentary by Debord 2003: 118-25, and map p. 123. On these texts, see also now van Bremen 2013 ( SEG 63 911).

43  See Meadows 2006: 462-63.

44  Badoud 2011.

- 45  See Fraser and Bean 1954: 70-78, and HTC , map on pp. 86-87, as well as, for the period of the war against Philip V, the dossier of the Rhodian strat ē gos Nikagoras IG XII.1 1036 ( SGDI 4234); I.Lindos 151; IPér.Rhod. 6  = IRhod.Per .  81:  the strat ē gos had  reconquered the territories of Pisye, Idyma, Kyllandos and defended the Chersonese. Before the Second Macedonian War, these regions were thus already under the control of Rhodes (see Bresson 2003: 182-83).
- 46 I.Lindos 2, § XXXVII, ll. 98-99, which mentions the dedication of a shield according to an oracular prediction that, after the dedication, ἐσεῖται λύσις τοῦ τόκα ἐνε | στακότος ποτὶ Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Φιλάδελφον πολέμο [ υ ],  'the  war  that  was  then taking place against Ptolemy Philadelphos would come to an end'.

alongside Seleucid forces and led by the naval commander Agathostratos in the victory against Ptolemaic forces at Ephesos probably around 258 BCE. 47 So far, the reasons for the Rhodian participation against Ptolemy II have not been clarified. It has been suggested that the Rhodians wished to  maintain  a  balance  between  the  great  powers  or  that  Ptolemy  II wanted to force the Rhodians to join the League of Islanders under their control, but H.-U. Wiemer has demonstrated the weakness of these assumptions. 48 Thus  the  reasons  for  the  Rhodian  intervention  have  remained enigmatic. The hostility against the Ptolemies seems all the more surprising if one recalls the reciprocal interests of the Rhodians and Ptolemies in commercial matters and the decisive support given by Ptolemy I to the Rhodians during the siege of Demetrius of 305/4. 49 The Rhodians must have had reasons much more concrete than simply seeking a 'balance between great powers' in order to involve themselves in this conflict.

We must begin thinking about the problem through a parallel in reverse chronological order. After the Peace of Apameia, between 188 and 167, when the Rhodians obtained control over Caria and Lycia, a conflict developed between them and Eumenes II, although the Attalid kingdom had been their ally during the Second Macedonian War and the Antiochic War. Border incidents took place along the frontier between the Rhodian Peraea and Attalid territories. 50 Similarly, it is legitimate to assume that it was because they conflicted with the Ptolemies over their possessions

- 47  Polyaen. Str. 5.18; Frontin. Str. 3.9.10. The literature related to the issues is presented and discussed by Wiemer 2002: 97-101: there is no reason to disassociate the three sources; the Temple Chronicle is related to the Second Syrian War, in which the Rhodians participated alongside the Seleucids, and both Polyaenus and Frontinus deal with one and the same episode, the battle of Ephesos. On the career of Agathostratos as trierarch and then Rhodian navarch , see Badoud 2014 (with Badoud & Herbin 2014 for the monument of Agathostratos at Delos).
- 48  Wiemer 2002: 101-2, against the views respectively of Berthold 1984: 91 and Rostovtzeff 1932: 748-50 (= Scripta varia , 247-48).
- 49  Diod. 20.84.1, 88.9, 94.3, 96.1-2, 98.1, 99.2, 100.1-4.
- 50  Pol.  27.7.6: μικροῖς δ᾿ ἀνώτερον χρόνοις ἐκ τῶν Λυκιακῶν ἀναξαινομένης τῆς διαφορᾶς ἔκ τινων ἐρυμάτων καὶ χώρας , ἣν συνέβαινε κεῖσθαι μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐσχατιᾶς τῆς τῶν Ῥοδίων Περαίας , κακοποιεῖσθαι δὲ συνεχῶς διὰ τῶν ὑπ᾿ Εὐμένει ταττο -μένων . See Bresson 1999: 109, with literature (it was certainly the region of Daidala, in immediate contact with the Attalid enclave of Telmessos, that was concerned).

in Caria that the Rhodians came into conflict with them during the Second Syrian War. 51

If  (which cannot be excluded) the Rhodians had not conquered the region even earlier, following their victorious resistance to Demetrios Poliorcetes in 305-304, we are then faced with two options for the question of the date of the Rhodian acquisition of the Subject Peraea: either the Rhodians took advantage of the void left in the aftermath of the assassination  of  Seleucos  I  in  autumn  281  and  settled  in  the  territories ranging from Pladasa to Pisye around 280-279, just as the Ptolemies were doing similarly elsewhere in Caria and in southern Asia Minor more generally; or they took advantage of the hostilities of the First or Second Syrian War to wrest from the Ptolemies territories under their control and invade what was to become their Subject Peraea. In any case, it is hard to imagine the Rhodians alone initiating a conflict and entering into war with the Ptolemies in order to snatch from them what they had conquered. Whatever the solution retained, the Ptolemaic territories in the Ceramic Gulf came to directly border Rhodian territory, which certainly ended up in the subsequent conflict with Ptolemy II. 52

The ne ō ria of Akbük, the location of the port of Pladasa, are thus likely to have been built at a time when Rhodian domination of the region had already been established and, therefore, we should not hesitate to restore the name of the people of Rhodes in the dedication 'to the people' (the  following  being  unfortunately  badly  damaged)  of  the  inscription

- 51  See HTC : 165-66, and the question of the division of Pladasa's territory, some of which certainly went to Keramos. The latter city is very likely to have been under Ptolemaic control or influence like the rest of the northern coast of the Ceramic Gulf west of Pladasa. There is no direct testimony for the presence of Ptolemaic officials or of a Ptolemaic garrison at Keramos, but the inscription I.Keramos , 4, intended for the construction of a Sarapeion, which no doubt dates to the third century BCE (see the photograph of the stone in Varınlıo ğ lu 1981: 51-62, no. 1, photo pl. VI.1) would conform well, in this period, with Ptolemaic control. Also a decree of Ouranion, the small city immediately to the west of Keramos, in favour of a Salaminian might also testify to a Ptolemaic presence in this city (Varınlıo ğ lu et al. 1992: 166-67, no. 2, with discussion concerning the Salaminian pp. 173-74).
- 52  On the Ptolemaic presence in the Ceramic Gulf, see, for Halicarnassus, Isager 2004 and Pedersen 2004. On the penetration of Ptolemaic bronze coins in the region (Ptolemy I, Ptolemy II and, above all, Ptolemy III, but no coins from Ptolemy IV), see Konuk 2004.

SAMOS

LEROS

KALYMNA

KOS

Phygela d

Marathesion

THORAX M.

MYKALEM.

Miletos

Didymyr trallers Magicsia

(alandros R-

Tuyzon

LAIMOS Mi

"Alinda

"Herakleia

Euromos

GRION M.

Hyllarima · Xystiy

KARLA

PISIDIA

HTC , no. 1, l. 2 and 4, which has been dated to the second or third quarter of  the  third  century.  It  is,  in  effect,  the pl ē thos of  the  Pisyetans  and Pladasians and the members of a series of koina who also regularly appear within the Rhodian sphere whom we see mentioned in this text. 53 Consequently, we must hold for certain that in the 250s at the latest the Subject Peraea was already under Rhodian control. Phaseliss

огута

RHODIAN

TERRITORIES, ye

¿ Rhodes LYKIA

<!-- image -->

Xanthos.

Limyra

Figure 1: Hellenistic Caria and Lycia and Ptolemaic administration in the 260s-250s BCE (O. Henry & A. Bresson)

NB. The map only aims at showing the regions controlled by the main powers of the time and perfect accuracy would be illusory. For western Caria, it illustrates the approximate delimitation of the regions under Ptolemaic control or influence in the 260s-250s (the zone under Ptolemaic control shrank in the course of the century). For Lycia, it is here supposed that the upper Xanthos valley was also under Ptolemaic control. The detail of the border delineation of Seleucid territories south and east of Tabai is especially uncertain. The date of incorporation of the islands of Nisyros and Telos to Rhodian territory is not yet clarified.

With a continuous barrier formed by the Subject Peraea, i.e. the cities under Rhodian domination from the bottom of the Ceramic Gulf and the

53  This restoration, suggested to us by Riet van Bremen, had been cautiously anticipated in HTC : 102. It now seems obvious to us.

· Tlos

abraunda

·Nysa -

·Antiokheia

SELEUCID

·Tabai

·Laodikeia

· Apollonia S:

SELEUCID

PHRYGIA

Krykanda Chersonese, as well as further north the territories of inland Caria lost to the Seleucids in the 270s or 260s, Ptolemaic Caunos was cut off from the Ptolemaic territories of western Caria (see map fig. 1). For the Ptolemies there was territorial continuity between Caunos and Lycia (by Daidala and Telmessos), but not between Caunos and western Caria. It is very likely that the Ptolemies tried to unite or re-unite the two parts of their Carian domains, hence the conflict with Rhodes. As they failed in their attempt, the territories of the Subject Peraea remained under Rhodian control and the separation between Caunos and western Caria became permanent.

In the same vein, it should be noted that, at least in the current state of our sources, there is no indication that the Caunians were part of the Chrysaorian koinon , centred on Stratonikeia, in western Caria, but whose existence (and perhaps creation?), dated back to the time of the occupation of Caria by Ptolemy II. 54 All the Carian cities which we are certain belonged to the Chrysaorian koinon are to be found in western or central Caria.  These  are  Mylasa,  Stratonikeia,  Amyzon,  Alabanda/Antiocheia, Alinda, Thera and Keramos. To this list V. Gabrielsen suggests possibly adding Tabai and Pisye, which does not modify the observation on the origins of the participating cities. 55 In this regard, the difference from the Carian koinon of the fourth century, of which, as we have seen, Caunos was a member, is significant. 56 That is why, even if (at least for the moment)  our  sources  do  not  directly  point  to  the  existence  of  a  Lycian strat ē gos , the concept of a unified command over Caria and Lycia, as in the time of Mausolus (which would thus explain the absence of a Lycian strat ē gos in  our  sources),  is  difficult  to  accept.  Likewise,  the  territorial separation between Caunos and the rest of Ptolemaic Caria invites us to think that the Ptolemaic strat ē gos of Caria could not have had Caunos under  his  charge.  This  justifies  the  existence  of  a  separate strat ē gos for Caunos.

54  On the Chrysaorians, see Debord 2003: 125-43, with map on p. 142, and Gabrielsen 2011. The question of the political orientation of the koinon , if indeed there was any, has not to be discussed here.

55  Gabrielsen 2011: 337-38 and 341. There were several Tabai in western Asia Minor, but everything points to the existence of a Tabai in the Subject Peraea, close to Thera and Pisye; see detailed discussion in HTC , pp. 182-88. Besides, V. Gabrielsen considers that the koinon of the Chrysaorians had all the characteristics of a true federal state. See however P. Hamon, Bull. ép. 2012: 381.

56  See above n. 44.

Despite its specificities, Caunos was undoubtedly Carian, as well as (in this period) as its eastern neighbours Kalynda, Krya, and Lissa/Lissai. 57 It was also itself a considerable city (together Stratonikeia and Caunos paid yearly 120 talents to the Rhodians), and it could not be assimilated to Lycia. 58 If Polybius does not detail the case of Daidala, it is because the small importance of this position did not justify a separate treatment given that its fate was implicitly tied to that of the great city of Caunos slightly to the west. The purchase of 'Caunos', therefore, must be understood as not simply the city itself but its surroundings, including on the one hand its dependencies Kalynda and the other minor cities of the west coast of the gulf of Telmessos, and on the other the small contiguous Lycian territory of Daidala, which by the time marked the border with Carian territories. 59 The reference made by Polybius to the ' strat ē goi of Ptolemy' suggests that Polybius was implying the Ptolemaic strat ē gos of Lycia, who by then held only Daidala and the surrounding territory (all that was left  to  the  Ptolemies  of  their  former  Lycian  possessions)  and  that  of Caunos.

## Concluding Remarks

To conclude, from the fact that the Rhodians had three separate commands for Caria, Caunos and Lycia, we may deduce that the three Ptolemaic 'provinces' of Caria, Caunos and Lycia were also each placed under the orders of its own strat ē gos .  Motes was thus certainly the Ptolemaic strat ē gos of Caunos, which constituted a separate regional command from the time of the Ptolemies, and not of Caria (as previously suggested) or Lycia.

57  For the Carian character of Krya in the late Classical period, see the Caunian-Carian inscription of Krya Adiego 2007: 158-59, no. 15 Krya (C.Kr.), with Schürr 2013.

58  Polyb. 30.31.7.

59  On the dependence of Lissa towards Caunos, see also I.Kaunos 183, l. 1, a late Hellenistic or early Imperial dedication from Lissai (see photo and detailed commentary in Tietz 2003) by a man who defines himself as [ οἰκῶν ἐν ] Λίσσαις τῆς Καυνίας .

## SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS

- HTC = Debord, P. & E. Varınlıo ğ lu (eds.) 2001. Les hautes terres de Carie . Bordeaux.
- PP = Peremans, W. & E. Van't Dack (et alii) 1950-2002. Prosopographia Ptolemaica . 10 vols. Leuven.
- NS = Maiuri, A. 1922. Nuova silloge epigrafico di Rodi e Cos . Florence.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Adiego, I.J. 2007. The Carian Language . Leiden & Boston.
- Badoud, N. 2011. 'L'intégration de la Pérée au territoire de Rhodes' in N. Philologos  Dionysios.  Mélanges  offerts  au  professeur  Denis
- Badoud  (ed.) Knoepfler . Geneva, 533-66.
- Badoud, N. 2014. 'Rhodes et les Cyclades à l'époque hellénistique' in Bonnin and Le Quéré 2014, 115-29.
- Badoud, N., & F. Herbin. 2014. 'Le monument d'Agathostratos de Rhodes
- à Délos' in Bonnin & Le Quéré 2014, 183-88.
- Badoud, N. 2015. Le temps de Rhodes
- Bagnall,R.S.  1976. Egypt . Leiden.
- . Munich.
- The  Administration  of  the  Ptolemaic  Possessions  outside
- Bengtson, H. 1937-1952. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit , 3 vols. Munich.
- Berthold, R.M. 1984. Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age . Ithaca and London.
- Blümel, W.  1990.  'Zwei  neue  Inschriften  aus  Mylasa  aus  der  Zeit  des Maussollos' EA 16, 29-42.
- Blümel, W. 1992. 'Brief des ptolemäischen Ministers Tlepolemos an die Stadt Kildara in Karien' EA 20, 127-33.
- Bonnin, G. & E. Le Quéré (eds.) 2014. Pouvoirs, îles et mer. Formes et modalités de l'hégémonie dans les Cyclades antiques (VIIe s. a.C.-IIIe s. p.C.) . Bordeaux.
- Bresson, A. 1998. 'Rhodes, Cnide et les Lyciens au début du IIe siècle av. J.-C.' REA 100, 65-88.

- Bresson, A. 1999. 'Rhodes and Lycia in Hellenistic Times' in V. Gabrielsen, P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad & J. Zahle (eds.) Hellenistic Rhodes: Politics, Culture and Society . Aarhus, 9-131.
- Bresson, A. 2003. 'Les intérêts rhodiens en Carie à l'époque hellénistique jusqu'en  167  a.C.'  in  F.  Prost  (ed.) L'Orient  méditerranéen  de  la  mort d'Alexandre aux campagnes de Pompée. Cités et royaumes à l'époque hellénistique (= Pallas 62). Rennes, 169-92.
- Bresson, A. forthcoming. 'Xystis, Ptolemaic Caria, and the War against Antiochos I'.
- Bresson, A., R. Descat & E. Varınlıo ğ lu 2021. 'Décret des Mogôreis pour le stratège ptolémaïque Moschiôn de Théra' in P. Brun, L. Capdetrey & P. Fröhlich (eds.) L'Asie Mineure occidentale au IIIe siècle a.C. Bordeaux, 141-71.
- Cousin, G. & C. Diehl 1890. 'Inscriptions d'Halicarnasse' BCH 14, 90-121.
- Crampa, J.  1969. Labraunda.  Swedish  Excavations  and  Researches .  Vol.  III. Part 1: The Greek Inscriptions . Lund.
- Crowther, C. 1995a. 'Iasos in the Second Century BC III: Foreign Judges from Priene' BICS 40, 91-138.
- Crowther, C. 1995b. 'The Chronology of the Iasian Theatre Lists: Again' Chiron 25, 225-34.
- Debord, P. 2003. 'Cité grecque - village carien. Des usages du mot 'koinon'' Studi Ellenistici 15, 115-80.
- Dmitriev, S. 2010. 'The Rhodian Loss of Caunus and Stratoniceia in the 160s' HSCP 105, 157-76.
- Domingo Gygax, M. 2000. 'Ptolemaios, Bruder des Königs Ptolemaios III. Euergetes, und Mylasa: Bemerkungen zu I. Labraunda Nr. 3' Chiron 30, 353-66.
- Errington, R.M. 1989. 'The Peace Treaty between Miletus and Magnesia (I. Milet 148)' Chiron 19, 279-88.
- Fraser, P. & G. Bean. 1954. The Rhodian Peraea and Islands . Oxford.
- Gabrielsen,  V.  2000.  'The  Rhodian  Peraia  in  the  Third  and  Second Centuries B.C.' C&M 51, 129-83.
- Gabrielsen, V. 2011. 'The Chrysaoreis of Caria' in L. Karlsson & S. Carlsson (eds.) Labraunda and Caria . Uppsala, 331-53.
- Grabowski, T. 2014. 'The Cult of the Ptolemies in the Aegean in the 3rd Century BC' Electrum 21, 21-41.

- Habicht, C. 1972. Review of Crampa 1969, Gnomon 44, 162-70.
- Habicht, C. 1985. Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece . Berkeley.
- Habicht,  C.  2005.  'Datum  und  Umstände  der  rhodischen  Schlichtung zwischen Samos und Priene' Chiron 35, 137-46.
- Hallof, K. & C. Mileta 1997. 'Samos und Ptolemaios III. Ein neues Fragment zu dem samischen Volksbeschluß AM 72, 1957, 226 Nr. 59' Chiron 27, 255-85.
- Huß, W. 2001. Ägypten in hellenistischer Zeit 332-30 v. Chr. Munich.
- Huß, W. 2011. Die Verwaltung des ptolemaiischen Reichs . Munich.
- Isager, S. 2004. 'Halikarnassos and the Ptolemies I: Inscriptions on Public Buildings' in Isager & Pedersen 2004, 133-44.
- Isager, S. & P. Pedersen (eds.) 2004. The Salmakis Inscription and Hellenistic Halikarnassos . Odense.
- Kontorini, V. 1989. Ανέκδοτες επιγραφές Ρόδου . II. Athens.
- Konuk, K. 2004. The Ptolemaic Coins in the Bodrum Underwater Archaeology Museum' in Isager & Pedersen 2004, 167-75.
- Magnetto, A. 2008. L'arbitrato di Rodi fra Samo e Priene . Pisa.
- Magnetto, A. 2009. 'La querelle territoriale entre Samos et Priène: propositions pour un débat' Topoi 16, 7-17.
- Marek, C. 1982. 'Ein ptolemäischer Strategos in Karien' Chiron 12, 119-23.
- Meadows, A.R. 2006. 'The Ptolemaic Annexation of Lycia: SEG 27.929' in K. Dörtlük (ed.) The Third International Symposium on Lycia 07-10 November 2005 Antalya . Antalya, vol. II, 459-70.
- Meadows, A.R. 2012. 'Deditio in Fidem: The Ptolemaic Conquest of Asia Minor' in C. Smith & L.M. Yarrow (eds.) Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius (Papers in Memory of Peter Derow) . Oxford, 113-33.
- Meadows, A.R. 2013. 'Two 'Double' Dedications at Ephesus and the Beginning of Ptolemaic Control of Ionia' Gephyra 10, 1-12.
- Meadows, A.R. & P. Thonemann 2013. 'The Ptolemaic Administration of Pamphylia' ZPE 186, 223-26.
- Orrieux, C. 1983. Les papyrus de Zénon. L'horizon d'un Grec en Égypte au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. Paris.
- Pedersen, P. 2004. 'Halikarnassos and the Ptolemies II: The Architecture of Hellenistic Halikarnassos' in Isager & Pedersen 2004, 145-64.
- Robert, J. & L. Robert 1983. Fouilles d'Amyzon en Carie . Paris.

- Robert, L. 1966. Documents de l'Asie mineure méridionale: inscriptions, monnaies et géographie . Geneva.
- Rostovtzeff, M.I. 1932. 'Foreign Commerce of Ptolemaic Egypt' The Journal of Economic and Business History 4, 728-69 (= Scripta varia , ed. by A. Marcone. Bari 1995, 231-63).
- Rousset, D. 2024. 'La communauté des Mogôreis, la forteresse des Xystioi et Moschiôn, stratège ptolémaïque en Carie vers 275 av. J.-C.' JS , 17-46.
- Schürr, D. 2013. 'Kaunisch-Karisches in Krya: Revision der Grabinschrift und Vergleiche' in O. Henry (ed.) 4th Century Caria. Defining a Carian identity under the Hekatomnids . Istanbul, 21-31.
- Thornton, J. 2013. 'Polybius in Context: The Political Dimension of the Histories' in B. Gibson & T. Harrison (eds.) Polybius and his World: Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank . Oxford, 213-29.
- Tietz,  W.  2003.  'Lissai  und  Kaunos  -  eine  neue  Grabinschrift  aus  dem lykisch-karischen Grenzgebiet' EA 36, 121-26.
- Van Bremen, R. 2013. 'A Property Transaction between Kindye and Mylasa. I.Mylasa 11 Reconsidered' EA 46, 1-26.
- Van Bremen, R. 2017. 'Labraunda and the Ptolemies: a Reinterpretation of Three Documents from the Sanctuary of Zeus ( I.Labraunda 51,  45 and 44)' Studi Ellenistici 31, 223-59.
- Varınlıo ğ lu, E., A. Bresson, P. Brun, P. Debord & R. Descat. 1992. 'Ouranion en Carie' REA 94, 155-74.
- Varınlıo ğ lu, E. 1981. 'Two Inscriptions from Ceramus' ZPE 44, 51-66.
- Veïsse, A.-E. 2004. Les 'révoltes égyptiennes': recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine . Leuven.
- Walbank, F.W. 1957-1979. A Historical Commentary on Polybius . 3 vols. Oxford.
- Wiemer,  H.-U.  2002. Krieg,  Handel  und  Piraterie:  Untersuchungen  zur  Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos . Berlin.
- Wörrle, M. 2004. 'Der Friede zwischen Milet und Magnesia. Methodische Probleme einer Communis opinio' Chiron 34, 45-57.