9

THE KING AND HIS LAND:
SOME REMARKS ON THE ROYAL AREA
(BASILIKĒ CHŌRA)
OF HELLENISTIC ASIA MINOR¹

Christian Mileta

The title of my paper may suggest different things to different readers. A specialist in the Middle Ages might perhaps think of the ‘king’s land’ of the medieval rulers. An ancient historian on the other hand will probably recall the idea that the hellenistic monarchs owned their entire kingdoms. Both of these notions, each the product of a long scholarly tradition, inform current thinking about the part of hellenistic Asia Minor that belonged to the kings. This area, which comprised a considerable part of the Anatolian hinterland, is the subject of this paper. I start with two rather simple observations.

(1) Greeks and indigenous peoples, such as the Lydians and the Phrygians, had been neighbours in Asia Minor since archaic times without exerting particularly deep bilateral influences. Poleis like Miletus and Phocaea founded apoikiai all over the coastal regions of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. But the Asian Greeks made no efforts to colonize the Anatolian hinterland. Obviously they either did not wish, or were unable, to extend their rule and their culture over territories that were large, far from the coast and populated by non-Greek peoples.

(2) That situation fundamentally changed when Alexander the Great conquered Asia Minor and the whole Persian empire. Alexander and all subsequent rulers were inevitably faced with the task of organizing and exercising a Graeco-Macedonian type of rule over huge territories with non-Greek and mostly non-urban social and political structures. In Asia Minor that problem had obviously been solved by the middle of the second century BC. For when establishing their direct rule in Asia Minor, the Romans found its western part to the edges of the Anatolian plateau so urbanized and its population so deeply hellenized that they turned it into the province of Asia.

This rapid development of certain parts of Asia Minor’s interior after Alexander can only be understood in terms of the process of ‘state-formation’.² The development of political, social and economic relations in the Anatolian hinterland was a reflex of the formation of the state within the individual principalities and kingdoms of Asia Minor, and of the evolution of this state’s functions and institutions. Previous research into the hellenistic empires of Asia Minor has focused mainly on the internal circumstances of the poleis, the military colonies and the great temples, and the relationship between these entities and the hellenistic monarchs. The hinterland has received far less attention. Nevertheless there have been strongly-held ideas about the legal status of this area. According to the conventional wisdom, the hinterland of Asia Minor was a kind of personal property of the monarch, while its social structure was feudal.³ Of particular importance for the following argument is the theory mentioned above, namely that the hellenistic kings exercised supreme and sole ownership over all the land within their empires. According to this the kings owned their empires in a personal sense as ‘spear-won territory’: that is, the kings were owners of their kingdoms in general and of all land within them in particular. This right of ownership was based on the conquests made by themselves or their ancestors.⁴

In contrast, I want to stress that the hellenistic states were neither feudal nor based on a constitutional principle. In the beginning they simply and exclusively rested on the Macedonian monarchy and its military power.⁵ Later, as the hellenistic kingdoms were formed, they encompassed Greek, Macedonian, Persian and autochthonous political structures, and these were all held together by the Macedonian monarchs and by Greek urban culture. But it must be emphasized that the king was the strongest and most important factor within the framework of the hellenistic state. And in Asia Minor there was a second very important factor – the dichotomy between the poleis, the Greek cities, on the one hand, and the chōra, the Anatolian hinterland, on the other.

This paper deals with a particular part of the hinterland, the area claimed by the kings. It discusses three aspects of this area, which we will call ‘the royal area’: first, Alexander’s institution of a special area entirely subject to the king in the interior of Asia Minor; secondly the proper designation, extent, and function of this area, and the nature of the internal distinctions within it; and thirdly the developing relationship of the rulers with ‘their’ area. The aim is to work towards an answer to one of the fundamental questions of hellenistic history: What role did the hinterland region and its population play in the formation and the further development of the hellenistic states in Asia Minor and the hellenistic world as a whole?

I

The organization of the area of Asia Minor in question was firmly based upon the regulations Alexander passed immediately after conquering it. We must not forget that the conquest of foreign lands does not just bring greater glory, power and wealth; it also entails the absolute necessity to establish and secure one’s own rule over those territories. So Alexander needed to replace the Achaemenid satraps, to appoint military commanders and other officials and to make decisions on the status of the poleis and the peoples of Asia Minor.⁶ He did indeed address these matters, as did his Successors.⁷ A king who proved unable to organize and carry out his rule in the right manner lost his kingdom sooner or later. Thus one of the reasons why the Successor Demetrios Poliorketes lost Macedonia after being King there for six years was that the Macedonians were angry with him because he had not exercised his rule in the right way – he was far more interested in warfare and the life of luxury than in giving audiences, reading petitions or giving judgements.⁸

After securing his rule over the conquered parts of Asia Minor, Alexander needed to find a means of financing the further war against Persia. Towards this end he had received, it is true, some payments from the members of the Corinthian League. But his personal means were meagre,⁹ as he had given away ‘almost all of the royal property’ (basilika)¹⁰ in Macedonia, i.e. land, villages and the revenues from communities or harbours.¹¹ In effect the prosecution of the war largely depended upon the resources of Asia Minor, which made it essential to settle affairs there.

In arranging these affairs Alexander could only in part follow the common practice of simply confirming the local power structures. This was because the war had been ideologically projected as a campaign of panhellenic revenge against the Persians. As the campaign’s leader Alexander could present himself as conqueror only before the indigenous peoples. In the case of the Greek cities he needed to present himself rather as their redeemer from the Persian yoke. This entailed giving them a status that at least outwardly resembled the independence that was the ideal of the polis. Alexander accomplished this by recognizing the freedom and autonomy of the poleis and freeing them from the burden of the taxes they had been paying to the Achaemenids.¹² Simultaneously, though, he deprived some of the poleis of land.

Among the first that had to experience this was Priene. It is true that Alexander recognized Priene as free and autonomous and released it from the tribute (syntaxis)¹³, but he also seized a portion of Priene’s chōra. He decreed that this chōra was ‘his’ and that those dwelling in its villages were to pay phoroi ¹⁴, i.e. taxes paid in kind.¹⁵ The confiscated chōra consisted of the land and the villages of indigenous Carians, the Myrseloi and the Pedieis.¹⁶ Obviously the non-urban and indigenous character of these territories and communities was the decisive factor in their incorporation into the area claimed by Alexander.¹⁷

Priene surely was not the only polis from which Alexander took territories in order to add them to ‘his’ area.¹⁸ But to this area he also added further land that had never been part of a polis. Consequently the area in question comprised a considerable part of the Anatolian hinterland such as, for instance, the huge forests and meadows and all the territories that had in the past been in the possession of the Achaemenid kings and their courtiers. A notable part of these were the Achaemenid satraps’ possessions near their palaces at Daskyleion, Sardeis and Kelainai,¹⁹ as well as the estates of favourites of the Great King.²⁰ One could question Alexander’s motives for expropriating land from the poleis when he had access to such large territories. The obvious reason for this was, as mentioned above, his urgent need for resources for the war. The enormous amounts of money and grain he needed to support his army just could not be provided by the often remote and less productive estates of the Anatolian hinterland alone. Support from the rich and fertile former city territories in the coastal plains was necessary. The merging of the latter and parts of the hinterland into Alexander’s area marks the birth of a special tax-paying area claimed by the ruler, the royal area.

In establishing this area Alexander would not have been guided by constitutional precepts; rather, he would have succumbed to the political and monetary necessities of the time and applied his experiences from ruling Macedonia. For in Macedonia the rulers had from time immemorial commanded income and taxes from estates, communities and other sources, which came directly to them, their court and – in time of war – to the army.²¹

The latter was true also of the Achaemenid empire. It seems improbable, though, that Alexander fell back on an Achaemenid tradition when establishing the royal area. For the differentiation of this area is a notable instance of the way in which Alexander clearly distanced himself from the Achaemenid pattern of rule, in the context of the macropolitical structure of Asia Minor. The Achaemenids had made a comprehensive claim to power over the entirety of Asia Minor including the Greek cities. Greek authors such as Thucydides and Xenophon described this political concept by labelling the Achaemenid dominion the ‘land of the Great King’ (χώρα βασιλέως) – referring by this phrase to the whole of Asia Minor including the poleis.²²

Alexander replaced this comprehensive claim to power (which had never been fully realized) with a dichotomous system of hierarchical subordination to royal authority.²³ The dichotomy’s two elements were the mostly autonomous Greek cities (poleis) on the coast on the one hand, and the subjugated hinterland (chōra) on the other. While the poleis were the ruler’s subordinates in the political sense, they were mostly autonomous where administration was concerned. The chōra on the other hand was not only politically subject to the king, but its administration too was subjugated to royal governance. It was itself divided into three categories, as will be shown below, ²⁴ and among these was the royal area claimed by the king.

II

Alexander’s claim to a royal area was adopted by all subsequent rulers of hellenistic Asia Minor. Thus, for instance, in 305/4 BC the Successor Antigonos Monophthalmos mentioned a part of it near Teos and Lebedos.²⁵ Furthermore, we have positive evidence for the existence of parts of the royal area in every single region of Asia Minor.²⁶ However, the correct term for and the precise size of the area in question are problematic. Let us first establish that apparently no common terminology was used to denote this area or the parts of it. In our sources the term chōra (i.e. Latin agri) is most commonly employed. Only in a very few but enlightening instances is this term qualified by adjectives meaning ‘royal’ (βασιλικὴ, βασίλεια or, Latin, regius respectively).²⁷ Modern scholarship usually employs the term ‘royal land’ (French terre royale, German Königsland, Russian zarskaya zeml’a) to describe this area.²⁸ In contrast to this I would like to suggest using the term ‘royal area’ that I introduced above. To start with, ‘area’ is here the most correct translation of the Greek term chōra. Its primary meaning is ‘space’ or ‘room’ and it signifies ‘area’ rather than ‘land’, which is only a derivation and thus a secondary meaning of the term. In addition, the royal area comprised not only land but also – as will be shown below – income from communities, economic institutions and other sources.

The extent of the royal area has been understood in different ways in previous research. It was a priori thought either to consist of the whole of the interior of Asia Minor²⁹ or to be a special royal domain, the parts of which were scattered across the interior.³⁰ The conflict between these two positions has only recently been resolved by the publication of the customs law of Asia in 1988. This law is from the 80s BC but contains regulations stemming from the establishment of Asia as a Roman province, i.e. from the years shortly after 133 BC. Paragraph 10 of the law, regulating importation by land, refers directly to the royal area.

Whoever imports by land has to announce and declare (the goods) at those places where there is a customs office in front (or: on the borders) of the former chōra basileia or free poleis or ethnē or dēmoi.³¹

This regulation demonstrates that at least in the Attalid kingdom basileia chōra was the official term for the area belonging to the king and that this area was distinct from poleis, ethnē and dēmoi where customs and probably tax regulation were concerned. Ethnē were peoples and tribes such as, e.g., the Lydians and certain Mysian tribes. They were granted – either because of their high level of civilization or, conversely, because of their backwardness – a certain degree of internal autonomy that manifested itself in the right to live in accordance with their own traditional laws (patrōoi nomoi). They were obliged to pay taxes without exception but they were given the right to levy them as they themselves wished before passing them on to the administration. The dēmoi, which consisted of the Macedonian military colonies, the cities and the half-urban communities of the indigenous peoples and the great sanctuaries of Anatolian gods, had similar prerogatives. The last of the interior’s areas was the royal area. Here taxes were levied directly by the royal administration.

As mentioned above, seldom do the sources explicitly describe the area claimed by the king as the ‘royal area’, but they label it simply as the ‘area’ (chōra or agri respectively). In order to fix the extent of the royal area precisely it is therefore necessary to exclude all mentions of chōra in the sense of a royal empire or in the sense of the territories of poleis rather than in the sense of the Anatolian interior. We can isolate and identify the royal area by focusing on sources that, in the first place, clearly do refer to the Anatolian interior, and that, in the second place, use the term chōra, so far as context indicates, not merely to denote the interior in general but the actual parts of it that enjoyed no autonomy of their own and that were directly subject to the king and the royal administration. This status is made especially clear by the infrequent but very instructive variants basilikē or basileia chōra and agri regii.

Thus the extent of the royal area of Asia Minor in any given period of the hellenistic epoch can only be determined by exclusion. It consisted of those territories that were neither part of the poleis, nor belonged to the territories of the ethnē or the dēmoi in the hinterland. But it does become clear that the royal area was a special and uniform zone in terms of direct control by the royal administration, without being a territorially joined block. It consisted of smaller and larger stretches of the flat land with its villages,³² of estates temporarily awarded to dignitaries and favourites of the king, of forests,³³ pasture,³⁴ wasteland,³⁵ and of economic institutions such as mines, salt-works, and fishing grounds³⁶, scattered as they were all across the Anatolian hinterland.

A special part of the royal area was the royal domain. This consisted of estates and residencies belonging to the ruler’s oikos.³⁷ They were situated at different localities throughout the empire and were administered by special custodians. The ruler and his relatives³⁸ commanded different parts of this domain without gaining personal rights of ownership independent of their functions. This is well demonstrated by the example of the former Seleucid queen Laodike, who needed to be compensated with land after her divorce from Antiochos II in 254 BC.³⁹ The estates which had been at her disposal as a queen had fallen to her successor Berenike. As part of the divorce proceedings she received an estate not far from Daskyleion.⁴⁰ This estate and a village belonging to it had until then been part of the flat land within the royal area of the province of Hellespontine Phrygia. Now it had to be partitioned off from it in a series of costly administrative acts, the surveying of the estate, the setting up of boundary stones, the sale and the sale-registration in the royal archive (basilikai graphai) at Sardis.

All the territories, estates, communities and other units of the royal area, including the royal domain, had to pay the earnings-related property taxes (phoroi). When speaking about ‘his chōra’ in the hinterland of Priene, Alexander explicitly mentions that the inhabitants of the villages there had to pay ‘the phoroi’. And Antigonos Monophthalmos expressly mentions that one could get as much grain as one wished from there.⁴¹ Because of this duty to pay taxes in kind, the royal area of Asia Minor can be compared to the gē basilikē of Ptolemaic Egypt.⁴² Although quite different in terms of their structure, both areas seem to have performed similar economic functions. This guess is based on the observation that the grain production of both of them was about the same.⁴³

III

As to the relationship of the hellenistic kings to the royal area and the way they ruled, exploited and developed it, it should be stressed once more that the rulers had to consider the traditional rights and privileges of the poleis and, in the hinterland, those of the ethnē and the dēmoi. So the sole part of their kingdom they could rule and exploit without any restriction was the royal area. Consequently, this was the area that the kings exploited but also developed more than any other.

It is true that all rulers were aware of the economic and political significance of the royal area, but Alexander seems to have viewed it mainly as a strategic area and as a source of income. This attitude towards the hinterland changed during the era of the Successors as a consequence of the growing independence of the territories held by each individual ruler and the initial progress towards the state-formation of each kingdom. The Successors started to act like independent rulers. In the context of Asia Minor those of the greatest interest are Eumenes, Antigonos Monophthalmos and Lysimachos. They inevitably had to secure and organize their rule over their territories, and at the same time foster their economic prosperity. The latter was especially true for the royal area, standing as it did directly under the kings’ absolute sovereignty. So the rulers started to view this area not only as a source of income but also as an object of which they had to take special account. This is proved by the completely different way they dealt with their ‘own’ area and those of other rulers. When, for instance, in 311 BC Demetrios had invaded Babylonia, which was ruled at that time by Seleukos, he gave the order to his soldiers, as they withdrew, ‘to take and make booty of everything they could carry or drive from the chōra’, which here was almost identical with the royal area. In this way, remarks Plutarch, ‘he left Seleukos more confirmed than before in his possession; for by ravaging the country (chōra) Demetrios was thought to admit that it no longer belonged to his father’.⁴⁴ This example also shows the very personal relationship the king enjoyed with ‘his’ area, a thing that is noticeable in the cases of all the hellenistic rulers. It had become particularly strong at the end of the Diadochic era and at the inception of the hellenistic kingdoms. Although stable political conditions never did truly emerge in Asia Minor, even so we can trace the development of its hinterland through urbanization and through the progressive sophistication of the agricultural techniques employed in it. The latter can easily be seen from its enormous grain output, which enabled the Attalids to give even more gifts of grain to Greek poleis in Greece and in the East alike than the Ptolemies did.⁴⁵

The very personal relationship with, and care for, the royal area perhaps had much to do with the continuous wars of the hellenistic period. They made the chōra important as a strategic area but also as the main source of taxes, food and soldiers. So the kings and their administrators made efforts to secure the chōra by improving agriculture and by founding military colonies and new cities. Another reason for the development of the chōra was the general tendency towards centralization in all the hellenistic states. For most of the third and second centuries BCAsia Minor belonged to the smaller kingdoms (i.e., besides Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pontus, the Attalid kingdom and those of Antiochos Hierax and Achaios), in which the rulers or administrators had a better understanding of, and stronger control over, their state than, for instance, the Seleucids did.

The royal area was not under the control of a special administration. It was administered by the provincial governors, the satrapai or, as they were called later, the stratēgoi. Each individual province of a state was subdivided, as was the state itself, into poleis and chōra, and the latter was divided again into areas of ethnē and dēmoi and into the topoi (‘territories’). In their capacity as the king’s representatives within their provinces the governors had full administrative and juridical power over the topoi, but only restricted authority over the ethnē and dēmoi.⁴⁶ These had to obey the orders of the governor but were entitled to carry them out themselves in accordance with their own laws. Furthermore, they were allowed to collect taxes in their own way before paying them over to the royal treasury. By contrast the taxes of the communities, estates and economic units that belonged to the topoi were collected by officers of the royal administration.

Although the governors were formally responsible for its administration, the kings frequently intervened in the affairs of the royal area. They interacted with it in very personal ways, through military campaigns and travels, euergetism and festivities, the foundation of new poleis and military colonies, and negotiations with envoys and the processing of written petitions from the royal area. Indirect forms of interaction were contacts through special envoys and the royal administration, the ruler cult, and the conveying of estates to relatives and ‘friends’.

In the course of the hellenistic epoch this personal element of the king’s dealings with the royal area declined as a result of the developing process of the state-formation within the individual state. It is true that the rulers kept a great interest in the royal area and its evolution, for instance through orders and edicts supporting colonization, road construction and agriculture. ⁴⁷ But the more of those orders – to be carried out by the governors and their administrators – the rulers enacted, the more they lost of direct control over ‘their’ area. As a result, the relationship between king and population of the royal area came to display a more official, constitutional character.

This process developed more quickly and more strongly in the large and federal empire of the Seleucids than it did in minor kingdoms such as Bithynia, Pontus and Pergamum. In the last of these Eumenes II obviously put his brother, later king Attalos II, in charge of the hinterland and thus also of the royal area. The strong control the Attalid kings exercised over the hinterland was certainly a result of the fact that Pergamum had for a long time been a very small state that was, of course, very centralized. But it seems even more important that the Attalid kingdom in 188 BC, through the treaty of Apameia, had become one of the great hellenistic powers. From that point its rulers followed an ambitious foreign and cultural policy symbolized by the transformation of their capital into one of the most important cultural centres of the hellenistic world. The financing of this policy was, with the exception of the reparations paid by the Seleucids immediately after 188 BC, based solely on the resources of Asia Minor. In this respect the effective control and exploitation of the hinterland, and of the royal area in particular, was one of the most important aims of the Attalids’ domestic policy. The extensive gifts made by the Attalids, mentioned above, give us an idea of the vast agricultural produce of their royal area. We have every reason to assume that this economic capacity resulted from the purposeful development of this area by the rulers. It is symptomatic that it was the Attalids above all who concerned themselves with improving the economic conditions of communities in the royal area. Note also their special interest in stockbreeding⁴⁸ and agriculture; Attalos II and Attalos III even wrote handbooks on this topic.⁴⁹

The example of the Pergamene kingdom shows that the development of agriculture and villages was an important aspect of the rulers’ dealings with the royal area. The same is true of its colonization. In Seleucid and Attalid times especially a considerable number of military colonies was founded.⁵⁰ It is clear that this colonization was planned as far as it went because it would have been impossible without the rulers’ consent and the active assistance of the royal administration. So one can suppose that most if not all colonies were founded in places belonging to the royal area,⁵¹ because here, unlike in the areas of the ethnē and dēmoi, the traditional rights and privileges of the local population did not need to be heeded. That the colonization must have been a planned process is also made highly probable by the fact that most of the colonies were founded in Western Lydia, Caria and along the main routes through Asia Minor, i.e. in regions which already in pre-hellenistic times had reached a high level of civilization. By contrast, we hardly ever see any colonization in underdeveloped regions such as Phrygia and North Mysia.⁵²

It has usually been held that the aim behind the colonization was principally the military protection of special areas. But the colonization’s importance for the hellenization and economic development of the Anatolian hinterland should also be stressed. Each of the newly-founded colonies which, incidentally, often later became poleis of a new type subject to the king, was a building-block of the hellenistic kingdom as well as a beacon of Greek urban culture in almost entirely indigenous surroundings. In this respect the rulers seem to have regarded the colonization, for all that it took place mainly in the royal area, as a tool for the hellenization of the hinterland.

The colonies had often been founded on, or adjacent to, the site of a pre-existing indigenous village or city.⁵³ The fact that the mostly Graeco-Macedonian colonists incorporated the Anatolian gods into their pantheon and shared in the local sanctuaries shows that from the first they were in close contact with the indigenous population. Such contacts were also necessary if the colonists were to be introduced to local plant varieties and cultivation methods and if they were to procure intermarriage with indigenous women. Since we have no evidence for serious conflicts between the new arrivals and the locals, we should conclude that the rapprochement between the two sides proceeded without major difficulties. This was surely a result of the fact that the colonization was under the control of the rulers and the royal administration. The hellenistic state took care of the interests of the local indigenous people in such a way that they were not offended by the foundation of the colonies, or at any rate were offended only to a minor extent. On the other hand the evidence shows that the indigenous population was quite open-minded towards the culture and institutions of the Graeco-Macedonians.⁵⁴

In sum I would contend that the royal area of Asia Minor was established by Alexander through the merging of territories expropriated from the Greek poleis and a part of the Anatolian hinterland. So, despite their central position within the hellenistic state, the rulers had full political and economic control over only a part of the land, estates, communities and economic institutions within their kingdoms. The relationship of the rulers with the royal area was at first completely personal. But, from the beginning of the era of the Successors and from the simultaneous inception of the process of the formation of the individual hellenistic states of Asia Minor, this relationship began to change and to display a more official, constitutional character. At the same time the kings and hellenistic kingdoms made the royal area a cornerstone of the development of the Anatolian hinterland and of its ensuing hellenization, through the improvement of agriculture and through colonization.

Abbreviations

BE	Bulletin épigraphique
DNP	Cancik and Schneider 1996–
FGH	Jacoby 1923–
I.Didyma	Rehm 1958
I.Ephesos	Wankel et al. 1979–81
I.Iasos	Blümel 1985
I.Ilion	Frisch 1975
I.Laodikeia a. Lykos	Corsten 1997
I.Priene	Hiller von Gaertringen 1906
OGIS	Dittenberger 1903–5
RC	Welles 1934
Zollgesetz	Engelmann and Knibbe 1989

Notes

¹ I present here some results of a work in progress entitled Der König und sein Land. Herrschaft und Verwaltung im kleinasiastischen Binnenland der hellenistischen Zeit. References to sources and scholarship will only be given as necessary. For fuller documentation the reader is referred to the projected monograph.

² As explained in the main text, I use the term state-formation (German: ‘Verstaatlichung’) to refer to the processes of the genesis of the hellenistic state within the individual principalities and kingdoms of Asia Minor, and to the emergence of its functions and institutions. These processes comprise the gradual consolidation of the relationship between, on the one side, the ruler and his apparatus of power and, on the other side, the population over which they rule. Cf. the similar conception of ‘state-building’ in pre-modern societies (Bendix 1978, esp. 5 with n. 1). For the application of the term ‘state’ to the Graeco-Roman antiquity in general and the hellenistic period in particular see Eder 2001, 873, and Schmitt 1993, 751–6, especially 751 and 753–4.

³ For an outline and criticism of this view, which was established by W.M. Ramsay, M. Rostovtzeff and M. Weber, see Briant 1982, 99–102.

⁴ For an outline and a well-balanced assessment of this notion, which was developed by E. Bikerman, see Gehrke 1990, 175–6.

⁵ Gehrke 1990, 48–9 and 165 (with further references), and Austin 1986.

⁶ Cf. Alexander’s regulations concerning Western Asia Minor (334 BC) as reported by Arrian 1.17.1–7 ‘(1) Alexander made Calas satrap of the province which Arsites had governed [i.e. Hellespontine Phrygia], ordering the inhabitants to pay the same taxes (φóροι) they had formerly paid to Darius. All the barbarians who came down from the hills and gave themselves up he ordered to go back to their homes … (2) Parmenion he sent to take over Dascylium … (3) Alexander himself marched towards Sardis … (4) … to the Sardians and the other Lydians he granted the use of their ancestral laws and allowed them their freedom … (7) He left behind as commander of the citadel of Sardis Pausanias, one of the hetairoi; Nicias became overseer of the taxes (φóροι), the contribution (σύνταξις) and the tribute (ἀποφορά) and Asandros, son of Philotas, governor of Lydia and the rest of the province of Spiridates [i.e. parts of Ionia] … ’ (trans. Brunt, with some alterations).

⁷ Cf., for example, the Successor Eumenes, who in 320 BC after conquering Cappadocia, τὰς μὲν πόλεις τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ φίλοις παρέδωκε, καὶ φρουράρχους ἐγκατέστησε καὶ δικαστὰς ἀπέλιπε καὶ διοικητὰς οὓς ἐβούλετο – ‘he gave the cities to his friends and appointed commanders of garrisons and left behind him such judges and administrators as he wished’ (Plutarch Eumenes 3.14, trans. Perrin, with some alterations).

⁸ See the account of Demetrius’ government by Plutarch Demetrius 41–2.

⁹ Plutarch Alexander 15.1, with reference to Aristoboulos, Duris and Onesi-critos.

¹⁰ Plutarch Alexander 15.4: ‘σχεδὸν ἁπάντων τῶν βασιλικῶν’.

¹¹ Plutarch Alexander 15.3–6: τὰ τῶν ἑταίρων πράγματα σκεψάμενος ἀπονεῖμαι τῷ μὲν ἀγρόν, τῷ δὲ κώμην, τῷ δὲ συνοικίας πρόσοδον ἢ λιμένος. ἤδη δὲ κατανηλωμένων καὶ διαγεγραμμένων σχεδὸν ἁπάντων τῶν βασιλικῶν… τοῖς δὲ λαμβάνουσι καὶ δεομένοις προθύμως ἐχαρίζετο, καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἐν Μακε– δονία διανέμων οὕτως κατηνάλωσε.

¹² Diodorus 17.24.1: Alexander marched with all his army into Caria, winning over the cities that lay on his route by kind treatment (φιλανθρωπίαι). He was particularly generous to the Greek cites (τὰς Ἑλληνίδας πόλεις), granting them independence and exemption from taxation (ποιῶν αὐτὰς αὐτονόμους καὶ ἀφορολογήτους), adding the assurance that the freedom of the Greeks was the object for which he had taken upon himself the war against the Persians.

¹³ As for the σύνταξις see Sherwin-White 1985, 84–6.

¹⁴ I.Priene no. 1, following the reading of Sherwin-White, 1985, 80–1. Cf. Heisserer, 1980, 142–68 no. 6: Βασιλέως Ά[λεξάνδ]ρου. τῶν ἐν Ναυλόχωι [κατοικούν]των ὅσοι μέν εἰσι [Πριηνεῖ]ς, αὐτο[νό]μους εἶναι κα[ὶ ἐλευθ]έρους, |⁵ ἔχ[οντ]ας τήν τ[ε γῆγ κ]αὶ τὰς οἰκίας τὰς ἐν τ[ῆι π]όλει πά[σα]ς καὶ τὴγ χώραν, ὥ[σπερ οἱ] Πριηνε[ῖς αὐτοί] ... ^{ca. 8} ... αἷς ἂν δέω[νται .. ^4-5 .. ] το δε .. ⁵ .. καὶ Μυρσ[ηλείωγ] |¹⁰ [κ]αὶ Πε[διέωγ – – – ^{ca. 9–10} – –] χώραγ [γ]ι νώσκω ἐμὴν εἶναι, τοὺς δὲ κατοικοῦντας ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ταύταις φέρειν τοὺς φόρους τῆς δὲ συντάξεως ἀφίημι τὴμ Πριη|¹⁵ νέωμ πόλιν, ... (‘Of those residing in Naulochon, as many as are [Prienians] are to be independent and free, possessing the [land] and all the houses in the city and the countryside [like the] Prienians [themselves]; . . . . . . . . . . . . . But the . . . . [? villages] land of the Myrs[eloi] and the Pe[dieis], and the countryside I decree to be mine, and those dwelling in these villages are to pay the tribute; I release from the syntaxis the city of (the) Prienians, … ’ (trans. Sherwin-White). The readings of Sherwin-White and Heisserer are both based on autopsy of all fragments and are almost identical except at l. 10. Heisserer’s restoration of this line ([κ]αὶ Π[εδιέωγ γῆν, τὴν δὲ περὶ]χώραγ) is possible but far from sure. I prefer the reading of Sherwin-White. As for the dating of Alexander’s instructions to 334 BC, see Sherwin-White 1985, 82–3.

¹⁵ Cf. Rostovtzeff 1910, 246–7.

¹⁶ Cf. Botermann 1994, 183 n. 53.

¹⁷ The confiscated land was never returned to Priene: in the 270s BC we hear that the Seleucid officer Larichos owned an estate in the neighbourhood of Priene, which he could only have got from the king (I.Priene no. 18, ll. 24–6: Larichos gets tax exemption on cattle and slaves ‘on his own properties as well as within the territory of the city’ – ἔν τε [τ]οῖς ἰδίοις κτήμασ[ι] καὶ ἐν τῆι πόλει). And as for the reign of the last Pergamene king, Attalos III (138–133 BC), this ruler is also reported to have cultivated land here (I.Priene no. 111, Col. 16, ll.112–13, mentions estates ‘which King Attalos earlier cultivated [III]’ ([– – ¹⁶ – – ἃ π]ρότερο[ν] εἰργάζετο βασιλεὺς Ἄτταλος).

¹⁸ Aliter Sherwin-White 1985, 83: ‘There is no reason to assume, or evidence to prove, that Alexander is changing the status of land i.e. annexing land to royal domain. … (he) is concerned with Achaemenid royal domains to which, as victor over Darius’ forces, Alexander is affirming his entititlement.’

¹⁹ See, for example, the environs of Daskyleion as portrayed by Xenophon, Hellenica 4.1.15–16: many big and rich villages, enclosed parks (paradeisoi) and open grounds suitable for hunting, and a river full of all kinds of fish.

²⁰ See Sekunda 1988, 175–96 (an extremely helpful survey of Persian magnate families settled in Hellespontine Phrygia). Cf. Balcer 1984, 195–226, for Persian nobles and other landed gentry in Asia Minor and the Achaemenid Empire as a whole.

²¹ See Funck 1978.

²² Thucydides 1.96.2; 8.18, 8.37, 8.58; Xenophon Memorabilia 3.5.26, Hellenica 3.1.13 f., 4.8.17, Anabasis 3.2.23, 5.5, Cyropaedia 6.1.30. Cf. Schuler 1998, 138: ‘Wenn die griechischen Historiker von achämenidischem Reichsgebiet sprechen, gebrauchen sie in der Regel die Wendung χώρα βασιλέως.’

²³ Cf. Schuler 1998, 138–45.

²⁴ I here leave aside the dynasteiai that were almost independent princedoms and only indirectly part of the kingdoms in question, cf. Bengtson 1964, 5–6.

²⁵ RC no. 3 (Letter of Antigonos Monophthalmos to Teos regulating the synoikismos with Lebedos, 306–302 BC),ll. 83–5: in referring to the request of the Lebedians for the setting-aside of money from the public revenues for the importation of grain, Antigonos mentions that ‘the crown land is near (πλησίον οὔσης τῆς φορολογουμέ[νης χώρας] ) [and thus if a need] of grain arose, we think there could easily be brought from [there as much as] one wished’ (trans. Welles). For the understanding of the phorologoumenē chōra as royal area see Rostovtzeff 1910, 246–7. See also Préaux 1954, 313; Briant 1982, 275; and Kreissig 1978, 38–9.

²⁶ Examples: Ionia – Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 275, ll. 122–6 with Meyer 1925, 74: land given back to Miletos by Ptolemaios II. Ionia/Smyrna – OGIS no. 228, with Rigsby 1996, no. 7, ll. 6–9: Seleucus II promised to restore to Smyrna its old territory. Aiolis –Herrmann 1959, 4–6 no. 2: boundary stone between city territory and royal area. Mysia – OGIS no. 338 mentions estates (ousia) confiscated by the kings and that Attalos III by will gave land to Pergamum. Hellespontine Phrygia – Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 253: the kings Attalos [I] and Prusias [I] gave land to the sanctuary and the city of Aizanoi. Lydia – Buckler et al. 1932 no. 1: the estate of Mnesismachos is part of the royal area. Lycia – Maier 1959–81 no. 76: Eumenes II grants privileges to the village Kardakome belonging to the royal area near Telmessos. See further the examples given in the next note.

²⁷ I.Ilion no. 33 (RC no. 10–13), ll. 41 and 68–9 (Troad, Seleucid era, 281–260 BC): ἡ βασιλικὴ χώρα. Zollgesetz ll. 26–8 (§ 10): the βασιλεία χώρα of the former Pergamene kingdom. Cicero, De lege agraria 2.19.50–1: agri regii Bithyniae and regii agri Mithridatis in Paphlagonia, Pontus and Cappadocia. Livy 37.56.2 (of Mysia in 189/8 BC): regiae silvae Mysiae (ed. Briscoe). Not just the royal area but the whole kingdom outside a particular polis is signified by the (χώρα) τοῦ βασιλέως mentioned in an inscription from Herakleia on the Latmos – Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 296 (Ionia, Seleucid era, 196–193 BC),frag. III. l. 8: ἡ (χώρα) τοῦ βασιλέως; cf. frag. IV. l. 3: [ … .. … .. ..] τοῦ βασιλέως ἥ τε χώρα κ[αὶ ].

²⁸ The terminology goes back to Rostovtzeff 1910, 246–7, who used the Greek term ‘βασιλικὴ χώρα’ that appears in an inscription (now I.Ilion no. 33 ll. 41 and. 68–9) which explicitly applies this term to territories of the north-western Troad. Most scholars prefer modern equivalents of this term.

²⁹ See, for instance, Rostovtzeff 1910, 247 (he is more cautious at 1941, 503), and Corsaro 1980, 1163–1219, 1163–6.

³⁰ See, for instance, Bikerman 1938, 180, Bengtson, 1977, 394, and Kuhrt et al. 1993, 47. Hahn 1978, 24, stresses the ambiguity of the term χώρα βασιλικὴ: ‘Die zwei äußerstenPole [sc. of the term] bilden … einerseits der gesamte besteuerte Boden [sc. the φορολογουμένη χώρα], andererseits die Masse der unmittelbar und zentral von der königlichen Schatzkammer bewirtschafteten königlichen Domänen.’

³¹ Zollgesetz (enacted in 62 AD but containing provisions mainly stemming from the 80s BC but also from the time immediately after 133/29 BC, when the Roman province of Asia was being established) ll. 26–8, § 10 (Importation by land): ὁ κατὰ γῆν εἰσάγων ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τόποις προσφω[νείτω καὶ ἀπογραφέσθω ἐν οἷς ἂν τελώνιον πρὸ τῆς χώρας τῆς (or: ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῆς χώρας)] πρὸ τῶν βασιλείας ἢ ἐλευθέρων πόλεων ἢ ἐθνῶν ἢ δήμων ὑπάρχη; the restoration of text by Engelmann and Knibbe is safe until ‘τελώνιον’. The following sentence ‘πρὸ τῆς χώρας τῆς’ is surely right in gist, but too short. Judging from the photographs of the squeezes provided with the editio princeps, the lines in question have 4 to 5 letters more than calculated by Engelmann and Knibbe. Thus there is no obstacle to restoring ‘ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῆς χώρας … βασίλειας’ vel sim. as the author would prefer.

³² Cf. Kreissig 1978, 38–9: ‘Königsland war eben ‘überall’, wo die Eigentums- und Besitzverhältnisse nicht ausdrücklich anders geregelt waren. Um solches ‘offenes’ Königsland dürfte es sich auch in der Nähe von Teos und Lebedos gehandelt haben. ’

³³ Livy 37.56.2: regiae silvae Mysiae (ed. Briscoe). These ‘royal forests’ were among the areas attached to the Attalid kingdom in 189/8 BC. They consisted of large wooded areas in Northern Mysia (Schwertheim, 1988, 73–6). For forests as part of the royal area see also the ‘(royal) forests of Taranza’ near Sardeis from which Antiochos III gave wood for the reconstruction of Sardeis in 213 BC (Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 260, ll. 2–4). Cf. Gauthier 1989 (= editio princeps) 26, ‘le bois “des forêts de Taranza” provient d’un domaine royal’, Kuhrt et al. 1993, 181, and Ma 1999, 138. Furthermore the extensive quantities of timber and pitch given by all the hellenistic rulers to Rhodes in 227/6 BC (see Polybius 5. 89–90) also indicate that large forests belonged to the kings.

³⁴ Cf. the βασιλικὰ ἱππoφόρβια (royal herds of horses) grazing around Mount Ida (Plutarch Eumenes 8). It seems that all wasteland automatically belonged to the rulers. Sometimes it was used as pasture; see also Polybius 5.44.1 and 10.27.1–2, for the royal herds of horses in Seleucid Media, and Strabo 12.6.1, for the 300 herds of sheep the Galatian king Amyntas had in the meagre regions of Lykaonia. The royal area in the north-west of the Troad partly consisted of γῆ ἐργάσιμος (I.Ilion no. 33). The term obviously meant potentially fertile, but actually fallow soil (see LSJ s.v. and Preisigke 1925–71 s.v. ἐργάσιμος).

³⁵ Cf. the preceding footnote.

³⁶ Cf. Kreissig 1978, 33.

³⁷ Cf. Kreissig 1982, 142.

³⁸ Not only the king but also the queens and the sons and other relatives too of the king could own estates. Examples: the estate of Laodike I, wife of Antiochos II, near Labraunda (Karia) – Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 301; her estate near Cyzicus and Zeleia – see next note; her estates and also those of her sons near Babylon – van der Spek 1986, 241–8 no. 11. Cf. also the estates of Laodike III, wife of Antiochos III, from which wheat was to be delivered to Iasos – I.Iasos no. 4 (Bringmann et al. 1995 no. 297). The estate of Achaios in Karia – I.Laodikeia a. Lykos no. 1.

³⁹ I.Didyma 492 = RC 18–20.

⁴⁰ The estate sold to Laodike consisted of a village called Petra, a fortfied manorhouse (βᾶρις) and all the village’s territory bordering on the territories of Cyzicus and Zeleia. Thus the estate was situated not far from Daskyleion, which had been the capital of Hellespontine Phrygia already under the Achaemenids.

⁴¹ Welles, RC no. 3. The term ‘ἡ φορολογουμένη χώρα’ used by Antigonos is a hapax legomenon but clearly means the royal area (cf. n. 25). It obviously was formed ad hoc in order to stress the function of that area as a source for taxes in kind (φόροι) that mainly consisted of wheat.

⁴² See Holleaux 1938–68, vol. 2, 106: ‘Le Domaine royal, appelé chez les Lagides ἡ βασιλικὴ γῆ, est dit, chez les Séleucides, ἡ βασιλικὴ χώρα … , et l’on ne peut douter que, chez les Attalides, il ne fût désigné de même façon’, with reference to Rostovtzeff 1910, 246–7 and 288–9, and Haussoullier 1902, 97–8. See also Préaux 1978, 370.

⁴³ As proved by the extensive grain gifts of the Attalids, see further below.

⁴⁴ Plutarch Demetrius 7 (trans. Perrin, with some alterations). Cf. Diodorus 17.27.6: some of Alexander’s forces were sent into the Carian hinterland (mesogeios). The commanders support their soldiers from the area of the enemies (ἐκ τῆς πολεμίας <χώρας>).

⁴⁵ As shown by the evidence compiled in Bringmann et al. 1995 vol. 1.

⁴⁶ Cf. Bengtson 1964, 3–4 and 11, and Mileta 1990, 428–30.

⁴⁷ Cf. Corsaro 1985, 74 (on the policy of the Achaemenid and hellenistic rulers towards Asia Minor as a whole): ‘The monarchy did not limit its activity to raising taxes, but engaged in a ‘social’ policy, such as the development of agriculture and, in the hellenistic period, the founding of new cities and the construction of public utilities.’ (English summary by Corsaro.)

⁴⁸ Eumenes II used to buy a particular breed of very big white pigs at Assus (Athenaeus 9.17 [375D] = FGH 234 F 10).

⁴⁹ Attalos II: Pliny Natural History 1.8, 1.14–15, 1.17–18. Attalos III: Varro, De re rustica 1.1.8, Columella 1.1.8. Pliny Natural History 1.8, 1.11, 1.14–15, 1.17–18, 1.22. Cf. Hansen 1971, 144–5.

⁵⁰ For the hellenistic colonization see Billows 1995 and Cohen 1978.

⁵¹ Cohen 1978, 66.

⁵² Cf. Mitchell 1995, 7 and 85–6.

⁵³ For the example of Thyateira see Cohen 1995, 238–42, and Mileta 1999.

⁵⁴ See, for instance, the honorary decree of two villages for Achaios the elder [I.Laodikeia a. Lykos no. 1], and the dossier of inscriptions from Tyriaion (L. Jonnes et al. 1998, with Brixhe BE 1999 no. 509). In the latter dossier the Attalid king Eumenes II surely acts in favour of the indigenous when acting (ll. 26–8): συνχωρῶ καὶ ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς μεθ’ ὑμῶν συνοικοῦσιν ἐνχωρίοις εἰς ἓν πολί τευμα συνταχ[θ]ῆναι καὶ νόμοις τε χρῆσθαι ἰδίοις – ‘I grant it to both you and the natives living together with you to organize yourselves into one citizen body and to use your own laws.’

Bibliography

Austin, M.M.

1986	`Hellenistic kings, war and the economy’, CQ 36, 450–66.

Balcer, J.M.

1984	Sparda by the Bitter Sea: Imperial interaction in Western Anatolia, Chico.

Bendix, R.

1978	King or People. Power and the mandate to rule, Berkeley.

Bengtson, H.

1977	Griechische Geschichte, 5th edn, Munich.
1964	Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit, Vol. 2, 2nd edn, Munich.

Bikerman, E.

1938	Institutions des Séleucides, Paris.

Billows, R.A.

1995	Kings and Colonists. Aspects of Macedonian imperialism, Leiden.

Blümel, W. (ed.)

1985	Die Inschriften von Iasos, Bonn.

Botermann, H.

1994	‘Wer baute das neue Priene? Zur Interpretation der Inschriften Priene Nr. 1 und 156’, Hermes 122, 162–87.

Briant, P.

1982	Rois, tributs et paysans. Études sur les formations tributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien, Paris.

Bringmann, K. and von Steuben, H.

1995	Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, Teil 1. Zeugnisse und Kommentare. Bearbeitet von W. Ameling, K. Bringmann und B. Schmidt-Dounas, Berlin.

Buckler, W.H. and Robinson, D.M. (eds.)

1932	Sardis VII 1, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, Leiden.

Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.)

1996	Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart.

Cohen, G.M.

1978	The Seleucid Colonies. Studies in founding, administration and organization, Wiesbaden.
1995	The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor, Berkeley.

Corsaro, M.

1980	‘Oikonomia del re e oikonomia del Satrapo. Sull’amministrazione della chora basilike d’Asia Minore dagli Achemenidi agli Attalidi’, ASN Pisa 10, 1163–1219.
1985	‘Tassazione regia e tassazione cittadina dagli Achemenidi ai re ellenistici: alcune osservazioni’, REA 87, 73–93.

Corsten, T. (ed.)

1997–

Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos, Teil 1, Die Inschriften, Bonn.

Dittenberger, W. (ed.)

1903–5

Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vols., Leipzig.

Eder, W.

2001	‘Staat’ in DNP, vol. 11, 873–7.

Engelmann, H. and Knibbe, D. (eds.)

1989	‘Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia. Eine neue Inschrift aus Ephesos’, Epigraphica Anatolica 14. [Article occupies entire volume.]

Funck, B.

1978	‘Zu den Landschenkungen hellenistischer Könige’, Klio 60, 45–55.

Gauthier, P.

1989	Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes II, Geneva.

Gehrke, H.–J.

1990	Geschichte des Hellenismus, Munich.

Hahn, I.

1978	‘Königsland und königliche Besteuerung im hellenistischen Osten’, Klio 60, 11–34.

Hansen, E.V.

1971	The Attalids of Pergamum, 2nd edn, Ithaca.

Haussoullier, B.

1902	Études sur l’histoire de Milet et du Didymeion, Paris.

Heisserer, A.J.

1980	Alexander the Great and the Greeks. The epigraphic evidence, Norman.

Herrmann, P.

1959	‘Neue Inschriften zur historischen Landeskunde von Lydien und angrenzender Gebiete’, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften 77/1.

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. (ed.)

1906	Inschriften von Priene, Berlin.

Holleaux, M.

1938–68

Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques, 6 vols., Paris.

Jacoby, F.

1923–

Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, multiple volumes and parts, Leiden.

Jonnes, L. and Ricl, M.

1998	‘A new royal inscription from Phrygia Paroreios: Eumenes II grants Tyriaion the status of a polis’, Epigraphica Anatolica 29, 1–30.

Kreissig, H.

1978	Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Seleukidenreich, Berlin.
1982	Geschichte des Hellenismus, Berlin.

Kuhrt, A. and Sherwin-White, S.

1993	From Samarkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid Empire, London.

Ma, J.

1999	Antiochos III and the cities of Western Asia Minor, Oxford.

Maier, F.G. (ed.)

1959–81

Griechische Mauerbauinschriften, 2 vols., Heidelberg.

Meyer, E.

1925	Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien, Zürich.

Mileta, C.

1990	‘Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der Gerichtsbezirke der Provinz Asia’, Klio 72, 427–44.
1999	‘Menodoros: einer der λαοί von Thyateira? Überlegungen zu einem Epigramm des Arkesilaos’, Epigraphica Anatolica 31, 181–5.

Mitchell, S.

1995	Anatolia. Land, men and gods in Asia Minor, Vol. 1, Oxford.

Préaux, C.

1954	‘Sur les origines des monopoles lagides’, Chronique d’Égypte 29, 312–27.
1978	Le monde hellénistique, 2 vols, Nouvelle Clio 6.1, Paris.

Preisigke, F.

1925–71

Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, Berlin.

Rehm, A. (ed.)

1958	Didyma. II. Die Inschriften, Berlin.

Rigsby, K.J.

1996	Asylia: territorial inviolability in the Hellenistic world, Berkeley.

Rostovtzeff/Rostowzew, M.I.

1910	Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Kolonats, Leipzig.
1941	The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, 3 vols., Oxford.

Schmitt, H.H.

1993	‘Staat, hellenistischer’, in H.H. Schmitt and E. Vogt (eds.) Kleines Lexikon des Hellenismus, 2nd edn, Wiesbaden, 751–6.

Schuler, C.

1998	Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien. Vestigia 50, Munich.

Schwertheim, E.

1988	‘Studien zur historischen Geographie Mysiens’, Epigraphica Anatolica 11, 65–77.

Sekunda, N.V.

1988	‘The Persian settlement in Hellespontine Phrygia’, in A. Kuhrt and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg (eds.) Achaemenid History III, Leiden, 175–96.

Sherwin-White, S.

1985	‘Ancient Archives: the Edict of Alexander to Priene, a reappraisal’, JHS 105, 69–89.

Van der Spek, R.J.

1986	Grondbezit in het Seleucidische rijk, Amsterdam.

Welles, C.B.

1934	Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period, New Haven.