Cities in and Around the Troad

Cities in and around the TroadAuthor(s): J. M. CookReviewed work(s):Source: The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 83 (1988), pp. 7-19Published by: British School at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103104 .

Accessed: 01/02/2013 08:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annual ofthe British School at Athens.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:22:45 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30103104?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CITIES IN AND AROUND THE TROAD

(PLATE I)

THE word n6k1g (city) is generally regarded as having a specific meaning in classical and Hellenistic times. It implied a community, often small but normally ranking as Greek, which was autonomous and not subordinated to another city. A community which was so subordinated and therefore did not have city status was often spoken of as, for instance, a

JTokXXVLOV, oToX.toCLTLov, Xoomlov, or more explicitly xaCLTOLa, xcthbl, or the like. But in

ancient writers whose focus was geographical rather than political the word polis is used freely and cannot be taken as necessarily indicating city status.1

In recent years scholars have varied widely in their readiness to accord city status. L. Robert, whose work on the East Aegean in the Hellenistic era has been of fundamental importance, was notably prodigal of it. In the Troad alone he recognised five independent cities which had not been considered such, and in addition has insisted on city status in Hellenistic times for three more places that have been assumed to have then been incorporated in Alexandria Troas. In a land of barely a dozen recognised Hellenistic cities this is a big increment. It is to these contentions and the criteria adopted that this article is primarily addressed. In general, the ancient settlements in the Troad have been discussed in some detail and with copious references in my The Troad (1973), to which I shall for convenience most frequently refer. Four works of L. Robert with which we shall be specially concerned are articles in BCH 70 (1946) 506-23 and especially BCH io6 (1982) 319-33, his ttudes de numismatique grecque ('95' ), and his Monnaies antiques en Troade (1966).

A factor to be borne in mind is local patriotism. In the Troad we know that Scepsis was incorporated about 3Io B.C. in Antigonus' new city of Antigonia (subsequently known as Alexandria Troas) but regained its independence not many years later under Lysimachus, whereas Sigeum, which was incorporated in Ilium by Lysimachus, revolted at some stage and could pass decrees but was conquered and destroyed (Troad 179 f.). Rhoeteum on the Dardanelles had apparently not flourished in early Hellenistic times and it was awarded to Ilium by the Roman commissioners of Apamea (188 B.C.); but it was to the Rhoeteans that the shrine of Ajax belonged, and apparently to them, not to the Ilians, that Augustus returned the state (Troad 87 f.). Dardanus, we learn from Strabo, kept being incorporated in Abydus and re-established on its own site under 'the Kings' (Troad 60o).

Marpessos in the middle of the Troad had its own local pride. Pausanias says, l5v 6' TL Ev TilhIl8t 9 L Tiji txILt 3t6koEg MaQXpoooi ota QsEtlat with some sixty inhabitants (this is clearly a 'hodoiporic' imperfect, referring to the time when he learned of it at Alexandria Troas in the second century after Christ).2 Marpessos itself belonged to near-by Gergis, as the fourth-century and early Hellenistic coins of the latter show; Gergis does not seem to have adopted city life before about 500 B.C. (Troad 350 f.), and it is doubtful whether (as

' The looseness of usage is well illustrated in Strabo XIII 593 f., where Ilium is spoken of variously as a x(

b before Alexander the Great, as made a nt6kLg by him and Lysimachus, and then indiscriminately called a xo 6- nokLg, a j6OkLg, and a xaToLx'ta around 19o B.C. In fact its city status from about 425 B.C., even when under the control

of imperial Athens, Persia, or a despot, is not in doubt. 2 For Marpessos see Troad 280-82. Unfortunately the

site is covered with fallen pine needles and would need to be cleared before archaeologists could tell whether a population of that size in Roman times has left any recogni- sable impression on the scatter of potsherds on the site.



8 J.M. COOK

Begika Burnu *

- Uvecik Tepe * Fiela Tepe Pinarbai

Uvecik 0o Asarlik o B ~Ballh Kaya

Mahmudiye oKumburun oBozalann

Kum- burnu Camoba o Bozkoy . o Bapr

Bozcaada Roman* oMecidiye Garlic

TENEDOSanepe * oDa Tepe

ACHAIION Geyikli OSogan Dede o Karadag

Odunuko Kapia zie ...rgaz Odunluk o '.. Kuru ee Kumbet K. Ezine f Prehistoric Alada oDalyan Kemallio ER ALEXANDRIA

Kizkutesi oAsaralan

TROAS Ko.al,

ZombakTe

Akta Rovas - - -.Koga l o

.

Beoik Tepe

..C Keacek o UskUap

COLONAE OQuarry

iskele o o K.Ata"mpah oYayiacak Sarpdor:eozoeli

T Fieh oanlien

" eakNDIkRIA Baheli

v "K-esaamb .I

Kotaova sedere uak

A RISA obae ' aack .ap

*LimanTepe d

/.I .erel

R Tuzaepe . Bridge T K A323

U 6 .

Celen BTRAGASAE Ta'mi c

Celen 80 o 44

HAMA.XITUS SMINTHEUM Tabaklaro o'.

i Wiasfaki Goz T. CHRYSA Ktzilke il.i...:s Ak Liman

. o.. .a.

oB Kale ;e::i

n : Behram..:-.

LEKTMEDON ASSOS Kadrga .E

KTO N :.'Mde ..Asarlik ,urnu

SBurnu HARMATOUS? Land over 200 metres Musselim Channel S5 10 20

~95 andvn tv Behram.I i

AREA MAP A. The West Coast

(From J.M. Cook, The Troad, Oxford, The Clarendon Press.)



CITIES IN AND AROUND THE TROAD 9

Pausanias might seem to imply) Marpessos ever was an independent polis.3 But it had a Sibyl, Herophile, whose head appears on the obverse of the coins of Gergis (cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Gergis, and Troad 349-51). She was a suitable subject for local pride - so much so that the people of Ionic Erythrae lopped the last line off her epigram so as to claim her as their own.4 Her utterances and post-obitum dicta were evidently retained in local memory. One of them, foretelling the ruin of Cebren (the city which lay across the Scamander from Marpessos and no doubt was involved in border incidents with it) has survived in the late Hellenistic collection of Sibylline oracles; it is unlikely that it constitutes evidence, as Robert has maintained,5 that Cebren was still a city in later Hellenistic times.

Several of the communities in the Troad to which Robert extended city status in Hellenistic times can hardly have been independent. For Aianteion see Troad 87. For a city other than Assos striking the Aiole- coins see the argument in Troad 248.6 For Thymbra, which Robert would seem to regard as a Troadic city (though not located on the ground), see Troad 117-23.7 For Achaiion see Troad I8o f., 195 f. (I did not there have occasion to mention that Robert had attributed an issue of bronze coins of Achaitai to his Troadic Achaiion on the ground that the one ascertained provenience (a merchant of Biga) was nearer to this place than to Colchis;8 but Biga is nevertheless 125 km. from the Achaiion in the Troad by the shortest route; and in any case this Achaiion, whether a settlement or not, was of the Tenedian Peraea and so not autonomous). For Kremaste see Troad 342 f. (this in fact has now been eliminated since Robert accepted as an amilioration my restoration of Eresos instead of his Kremaste in the itinerary of the Delphic theoroi).9

Of these promotions to city status three were based on numismatic evidence, whose importance Robert constantly and very properly stressed in his writings; the one that causes most surprise, because the sole provenience Biga should suggest a position in Mysia rather than on the west coast opposite Tenedos, was derived from the outstanding numismatist Imhoof Blumer, whom Robert tended to regard as infallible.'o One (Aian- teion) was a construction built by Robert on a fine restoration of an Athenian inscription by the great epigraphist Wilhelm, who, like Imhoof Blumer, was unsurpassed in the sphere of his specialisation. The fifth (Kremaste) depended on the Delphic thearodokoi list, which Robert regarded as a document of political import and affording incontrover- tible proof of the city status of the places named as visited by the theoroi round about 200

3 Its status after 188 B.C. was that described by Lactantius who gives his eighth (Hellespontine) Sibyl's birthplace as 'in agro Trojano, vico Marpesso, circa oppi- dum Gergithum' (I 6).

4 The epigram (Paus. X 12) ends JtaTQtg bE 1oL t oTLV EdQuqil MaQMp0oo6,g, LrJTQOg Eii, notcaqtg 8' 'Ai8(ovesg. For the rival claims see most recently F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte (1985) 337 ff. The Erythraeans could produce no parallel when they rejected the connection between IboyEvi~ in the epigram and the mountain of the Troad; also, Phlegon (ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Gergis) seems to have known the Sibyl's tomb as being in the sanctuary of Apollo at Gergis - a tradition distinct from that which Pausanias received.

5 Most recently in BCH io6 (1982) 330 n. 70. 6 It may be noted that P.R. Franke, in H.G. Buchholz,

Methymna (1975) 163, leaves the question of the supposed

Methymnaean origin open but remarks that there are 'keine Anhaltspunkte' for their minting at Methymna.

7 Monnaies ant. en Troade 112. My view was that the legend EY on the coins probably represents some other name than Thymbra (Thyatira, for instance, was an outlying city of Mysia south-east of Pergamon, and Pergamon seems to be the focus of such of these coins as have a provenience).

8 Monnaies ant. en Troade io6-o8. 9 BCH Io6 (1982) 330 n. 70. o0 In the same way Robert constantly accepted as being

beyond dispute the findings of V. Cuinet in modern Turkey (Troad 42 f., and Robert's defence of him in A travers I'Asie mineure (i980) iII n. 25; contrast for instance H.B.F. Lynch, Armenia (1901) at various points and especially II 79 n. 2, 'Vital Cuinet, whose statistics I have rarely found reliable').



I0 J.M. COOK

B.C. The Ionic panel of this list, headed T~ag Ei~"Iwmvicv, was studied in some detail by Robert; it merits scrutiny. The editio princeps is that of Plassart (BCH 45 (1921) 5-8; but Robert himself added a large piece (BCH 70 (1946) 506-23). Other relevant references in Troad 221, 342 f., and Robert BCH Io6 (1982) 330 f.; to them should be added the article G. Daux, BCH 89 (1965) 658-64, which is based on re-examination of the stone with the use of charcoal to show up fleeting impressions of chisel strokes. In western Asia Minor the itinerary seems to be a more or less traditional one in that it does not penetrate far inland to take in the new cities of the Hellenistic world.

The Ionic theoria starts with the theoroi crossing to Euboea, evidently at the Euripus since Chalcis is the first place to be named (Plassart I line 28). Eretria is named next, followed by Athenai and Karystos; Robert assumed that this records a precise itinerary, the theoroi crossing from Eretria to Marathon or thereabouts to visit Athens in Attica and then recrossing the Euboea channel to reach Karystos." Next comes the island city of Andros, so Kyme in Euboea seems to be left out (perhaps it was to be visited later from Skyros). After this (I lines 35 ff.) we have [E]v T.O---; this would suggest Ionic Troezen, in which case we might look for Hermione and Arsinoe in the following lines. Daux, however, finds that the names Tenos, Kythnos, and Karthaia fit better with the faint traces he has observed, and this would give a satisfactory itinerary. There then follow (lines 38-39) two cities of the island of Keos (Koresia and Iulis), after which the theoroi cross the Aegean to Cos. If the reading of Karthaia were correct, then three of the four cities of Keos will have been named; if not, only two. It could be that at Poiessa (the fourth city of Keos) and, as I have supposed, Karthaia the hosts were perhaps Delphian proxenoi and so not listed;'2 but it seems more likely that the theoroi delivered their message at the four cities in less than four days and so were only given lodgement in two (or three) of them.

After Cos, and what might just possibly be Telos, there is a gap of uncertain length. The next fragment (Plassart's I C (a)) begins with what in the context could be `v MOv8&rO followed by Halicarnassus, Bargylia, lasos, Cnidus, Caunus, Kalyndos, Kallipolis, Theangela, Mylasa, Stratonika, Antiocheia, after which Plassart's list fails us but Robert's fragment soon takes over. This itinerary might be a single thread, though the jump from lasos to Cnidus is surprising; or it might indicate that the theoroi split into more than one delegation to avoid back-tracking. What seems very likely is that some of the theoroi visited Caunus and Kalyndos and then crossed overland by the low-lying sleeve to the head of the Ceramic Gulf, stopping on the way at Kallipolis (iv Kah oT;6'k). Here they were in the Rhodian Peraea.

On Robert's view it is an anomaly that Kallipolis is entered in the list. If it were at Gelibolu, where he located it over fifty years ago, it would seem to have lain in the Rhodian Incorporated Peraea and its demesmen would have been Rhodian citizens. If it was inland from the head of the Ceramic Gulf, as Bean and I contended, an overnight stop there would make better sense (the distance from Caunus or Kalyndos to the head of the gulf being more than a day's journey); in that case it should have been in the Subject Peraea

" This is probably right; but we should not forget that

Stephanus Byzantius cites eight cities named Athenai of which the sixth, in Euboea, is entered in the Athenian tribute lists (Athenai Diades).

12 The purpose of the list, inscribed and set up at Delphi, was perhaps mainly to gratify visiting thearodokoi rather than, as Robert more than once insisted, to serve as a political record.



CITIES IN AND AROUND THE TROAD I I

but still in Rhodian possession.'" This seems to be a case where the theoroi stopped for convenience at a place which could hardly have had city status. The one notable absentee here is Keramos, which was a city of some consequence in the Carian league and lay directly on the route of the theoroi; it was however, as Robert recognised, in a sympolity, probably with Stratonicea,'4 before it negotiated a friendship with Rhodes.

Robert's important fragment BCH 70 p. 512 then takes up the list of places visited: Seleucia (Tralles), Magnesia (ad Maeandrum), Priene, Eurome, Miletus, Herakleia (Latmos), Samos, Ephesus, Ptolemais (Lebedos), Teos, Oroanna, Colophon, Dioshieron. The route, if such it is, seems rather irregular as though the party may have divided. Robert made a good case for Oroanna as an independent city; Dioshieron is less likely to have been one. Naulochon and Pygela, neither of which is listed, were not cities at this time, the former being in my view a short-lived name under which Priene was refounded in the mid fourth century, the latter having evidently been absorbed into Ephesus. The one clear absentee is Myous, which should not have been fully absorbed in Miletus till later but was in sympolity with it. In his line 17 (next after Dioshieron) Robert read [~v

.. 7...]t nomina; Metropolis (`v MacrQo.r6kt) or Myonnesos would be possible. But Daux has read the name Smyrna here with assurance (his line 75). There are then three lines before Plassart's I D (a) takes over with (as Daux has established) Sardis; but the nominative at the end of the first of these lines (Daux' 76) should indicate that two lines refer to one single place. Chios is the most obvious choice for lines 76-77; Magnesia ad Sipylum (in sympolity of a sort with Smyrna) would be in place in the next line before Sardis.

Plassart's list then continues to Pergamon (and thence on up the coast): Sardis, Cyme, Erythrae, Clazomenae, Myrina, Elaia, Pergamon. Phocaea is missing here unless it was in Daux's line 78. Of lesser places not named it is likely enough that Phrikonid Larisa and Neon Teichos had been swallowed up in the early Hellenistic synoecisms.'5 A Herakleia in the mountain south of the Hermus gorge, claimed as a Hellenistic city by Robert,16 does

13 For Incorporated and Subject Peraea see P.M. Fraser and G.E. Bean, Rhodian Peraea (1954), and more generally Bean, Turkey beyond the Maeander (1980) 128-38. For the location of Kallipolis and Robert's discussion of it see Bean and Cook, BSA 52 (I957) 8I-85, Bean, op. cit. 130, and in Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (1981) 287. The location at Gelibolu depended on the name, that inland on Hula and Szanto's discovery of a sanctuary of the Kalli- politai and on archaeological and topographical study. A point that is too often overlooked deserves mention here. When an inscription giving an ancient place name is discovered, the archaeological context should be considered. To take comparable cases from the same region, the siting of Old Cnidus at Datga is not proved by the classical decree of the Cnidians found there but the fact that it was lying in the middle of a classical site creates a strong presumption (BSA 47, 187 and 52, 85); on the other hand the siting of the Artemis Kindyas temple at the point where the inscription was unearthed receives no support from the other finds on the spot since they were Early Christian (AR 1964-65, 56 and I97o-71, 48). As regards the Kallipolitai, Hula and Szanto's case for recognising a

sanctuary at Duran (iftlik where they found the dedi- cation is strengthened by the fact that remains of an

ancient sanctuary came to light there. If for any reason this Kallipolis was not in Rhodian

possession at the time of the theoroi's visit, we must enquire why Idyma, for instance, was not also visited. We know of no reason why Kallipolis should have been regarded as more Hellenic than other places here.

14 Cf. Fraser and Bean, Rhodian Peraea 10o f. 15 Cook, BSA 63 (1968) 38. An inscription from Denizli

(Chiron V (i975) 59 f.) attests the existence of another Neon Teichos much further to the south which could account for the single Neoteichite recorded (in Egypt) in full Hellenistic times. My very tentative suggestion BSA 63, 38 n. 9, that Olympos (L. Robert, Hellenica X I79 if.) could be mentioned in Pliny, NH V 121, is unlikely; it now seems to me more probable that the MSS read something like 'Aegae itide(m) Posidea'; it is not sufficiently realised that, in spite of differences indicated in their critical apparatuses, the standard texts of Pliny in the geographical books comprise a vulgate rather than critical edi- tions (cf. Cook, CQ 53 (I959) I16-25).

16 Atudes anatoliennes (1937) III ff. For the places known

from boundary stones there, see Cook, BSA 53-54 (1958-59) I8. For Temnos see now P. Herrmann, Ist. Mitt. 29 (1979) 239-71.



12 J.M. COOK

not appear in the list. Two other clear absentees are the Aeolic cities of Temnos and Aegae, the one an hour's hard slog uphill from the Hermus ford, the other uncomfortably far back in the hill country for a visit from the theoroi. Further up the coast, despite its celebrated mussel beds, its appearance in the Athenian tribute lists, its decree for Nicomedes of Cos (about 310 Bc), and its early Hellenistic coinage, Gryneion may already have declined into the status of a rnoX;XvLov of the people of Myrina (as in Strabo XIII 622 and on coins of Myrina depicting Grynean Apollo).

From Pergamon the list continues (Plassart I D (a)) with Pitane, Kanai, Atarneus, Assos, Atramyttion, Antandrus, Gargara, and (round the corner of the Troad) Hamaxitos and Larisa. The names in the next two lines were restored by Robert as Kremaste and Cebren; but my substitution of Eresos and Mitylene has been accepted by him and so may be regarded as well founded." Apart from Assos, these places on the mainland are in their proper coastal sequence from Pergamon as far as Larisa. Possibly, if we trust the order, a delegation took a convenient boat from Atarneus to Assos and from there sailed east to Adramyttion. Since the tour of Lesbos starts with Eresos, it could be argued that a delegation crossed from Kanai or Atarneus'8 and proceeded from Eresos round the east end of the island to avoid the open sea off Cape Sigrion; this party would presumably have visited Mitylene, Methymna, and Antissa, perhaps calling on the way at Nesos (Pordosel- ene), to rejoin its colleagues at Larisa.

From this survey it seems questionable whether the list of places where the theoroi were entertained can be regarded as one continuous, undivided itinerary and unlikely that it comprised all cities recognised as independent and those alone. It would be audacious to claim that every place listed was an independent city at the time.

The coastlands between Aeolic Cyme and the head of the Adramyttene Gulf seem to be relatively unstudied. I have not attempted to collect evidence for land holding in different periods as I did for the Troad, but note that in the late eighteenth century this stretch of coast was well looked after under the rule of an a'a or derebey named Kara Osman. After the middle of the nineteenth century two Greek siftliks were notable. From Pottier and Reinach we learn that Aristides Baltazzis owned the land at Myrina and had his chateau further south at Alia'a; it was his brother Demosthenes who was inspector of antiquities in Asia Minor. North of Ayvallk, on a low hill near the sea where the German maps mark Kisthene, was the Trikoupi siftlik; this was an extensive estate in the heart of Venezis'

17 Troad 342 f., BCH io6, 330 n. 7o. 18 The site of Atarneus (PLATE Ia, from the west, with

a stretch of the east circuit wall PLATE Ib) has in the past been known as Dikeli Kale. In 1960 we heard it called 'Aristo Kale' - a name that brings to mind Aristotle, who once lived there. Further enquiry locally elicited the information that the proper name of the site was 'Aterna' and that a great philosopher ('Sokrat Bey') had lived

there; it emerged that the information stemmed from a

party of students from Izmir who had visited Dikeli. Such fortuitous 'survivals' of ancient names have been reported by travelling archaeologists in the present century; some

may have been of similar origin. The abundant surface pottery on the Atarneus site in

1960 was mainly fourth-century, with tile of that date and one or two black glaze sherds that might be fifth-century;

but on the German excavators' dump at the south-west corner of the citadel (where houses had been cleared) there were also Hellenistic sherds, including West Slope, Megarian, and early eastern sigillata, giving a date around or after ioo B.C. for the end of occupation.

The site of Kanai is at Bademli Pilaji (formerly A(n)ca- noz) on a peninsula which in 196o was called Yahudi

(formerly Qfit) Kale (PLATE Ic, from the south); the

sandy modern plage lies to the east of the peninsula. Ancient potsherds were dense on the isthmus and the east side of the hill from which PLATE Ic was taken: two frag- ments of perhaps fourth-century black glaze but nothing earlier, a good deal of Hellenistic including early eastern

sigillata, and abundant Roman (especially Late Roman red ware and combed ware). There was no sign of marble

buildings.




AiohxkLxr Fi.'9 For the south of the Troad it now appears that fresh light, relating to a period prior to the Middle Ottoman fiscal surveys (cf. Troad 9-11), can be gained from endowments and decrees of Ottoman beys and sultans. Some of this is incorporated in a recent article by Halil Inalcik which is devoted to Arabs and other immigrants engaged in transportation (especially in the south-west of the Troad.20)

Of interest is the new and unexpected evidence of Greeks 'staying on' at Mahram (Assos, now Behram Kale) after the Turkish conquest.21) While Midilli (Lesbos) was in Genoese hands the old citadel town at Behram was an important station, while Kizilca Tuzla was economically more substantial. For mosques and a bath house at Behram (and further north at Kemalli) see Inalcik 262 n. 30a; the handsome bridge over the Tuzla Qay under Behram (Troad pl. 31a), which is still in use for traffic from the interior, can now be dated to Murad I (1362-89). The barrenness of Baba (Cape Lekton, Troad 227 f.) needs no emphasising (in Troad 382 I neglected to mention the derelict windmills to the north of the village, which were still standing in 1959); Inalcik renders the name of the cape in Piri Re'is (AD i52o) as Ekmek Yemez Burnu (=doesn't eat bread).

Proceeding up the coast we come to Tuzla (Troad 221-24). This was one of the three great salt production areas of the Ottomans on this coast, the other two being further south at Menemen and Pe<in.22 Coming from springs, the salt of the Troadic Tuzla was highly esteemed and Inalcik reports that fifteenth-century account books show it as being consumed in the Sultan's palace. The population at Tuzla was large (several hundred), especially at a village there named Derekoyii. The grand mosque at Tuzla, which still stands (Troad pl. I9a), was also built under Murad I; it received 15 aspers a day for maintenance, while the remainder of the revenues was made over as an endowment by Bayezid I (prior to his capture by Tamerlane) to the Tomb of the Prophet at Medina (Inalcik 258).

Proceeding up the coast again, we find ourselves among the ancient cities that were incorporated in Alexandria Troas and thus return to the familiar world of L. Robert. On the coast north of the mouth of the Tuzla (ay is a low hill called Liman Tepe which Frank

19 In I96o I was told by a former retainer on the spot that the family ended with Despoina Trikoupi, who settled in Kephissia near Athens when the land was lost to the Greeks; the giftlik was then bought from the Turkish government by a pasha who lived in Istanbul, but after his death it had been divided into seven separate farms.

20 '"Arab" Camel Drivers in Western Anatolia in the fifteenth Century', Revue d'Histoire Maghrebine (Tunis) io nos. 31-32 (1983) 256-70. The name Araplar with its cognates is of particular interest since the Arab or associated immigrant groups were commonly concerned with working the camel transport routes. Thus in the Troad the village of Araplar (now Koca K6y) near Lekton (Troad 236 f.) lies on the track from Guilplnar to Behram K6y which seems to follow the line of the Roman road from the Smintheum to Assos, while the now deserted Araplar in the Scamander gorge behind

Pmnarbapl (Troad 127) could

imply that the river bed provided a regular route from Ezine to the Trojan plain in the dry season. One caution is however necessary: e.g. the name Arap (Kale) which I heard and recorded (Troad 65 and 78) has been corrected by Agkidil Akarca to Harap (=ruin).

21 Inalcik 261 (32 Greek peasants working giftlik units

at Mahram and serving as fortress guardians, but apparently none extant by A.D. I5oo), 258 (at the Tuzla saltworks two converts in the later fourteenth century - Karaca son of Mikhal and Muhammad son of Vasil). But the obligation of Greeks who had been assigned to make oars for the navy under Mehmet II (1451-81) re-appears in 1522.

22 For Menemen, which received its name from the 'mad' river (Gediz Gay, Hermus) when it changed its course southward in mediaeval times (and was only pre- vented from closing the inner gulf of Smyrna by a timely diversion into its ancient bed in 1886) see Cook, BSA 53-54 (958-59) 18 f.

For Peqin ('Old Mylasa'), the seat of the former beys of Menteve, see Cook, BSA 56 (I961) 98-ioi (with references to which should be added Pococke, Description of the East II 2 (1745) 63 and Turner, Journal of a Tour III (1820) 72; also now G.E. Bean, Turkey beyond the Maeander (I98o) 30 ff., A. Akarca in Belleten i971, L. Gilier (as cited in Troad ad loc. and in Inalcik) for the saltworks). The name Tuzla has been applied in modern times to the lagoon at near-by Bargylia.



14 J.M. COOK

Calvert in 1859 rightly recognised as the site of the Troadic Larisa; this city is known by its fourth-century coins, which have a reverse type of a slender-necked amphora. On the site, which I examined in 1959, there were abundant archaic and classical potsherds; Hellenistic was not quite totally absent. It has been assumed, on the authority of Strabo, that, like Neandria and Cebren, the coastal cities of Kolonai, Larisa, and Hamaxitos, were incorporated in Antigonus' new city of about 310o B.C. which we know as Alexandria Troas.23 I therefore concluded that habitation at Larisa came virtually to an end at that time.24

I was shown two bronze coins in 1959 that had been picked up on the site (Troad pl. 24a-b). One is either of Hamaxitos or a very similar issue of Alexandria Troas. The other has a vase as its reverse type. Since the coins of independent Larisa had a vase on the reverse, I at first assumed that this was of Larisa. But G.K. Jenkins was able to identify it as a coin of a Ptolemais. It is true that the coins of Larisa have a slender-necked amphora, whereas the Ptolemais issue apparently has a volute crater - so a difference of function. But the coincidence is nevertheless remarkable. The mentions of this Larisa in the

Delphic thearodokoi list and of a Larisa in a similar inscription of Samothrace were not to be overlooked. So it was with reluctance that in the end I concluded (Troad 221) that "it would be a bold man who would claim this coin as evidence of a third-century refoundation of Larisa under the name Ptolemais." The challenge has been taken up by Robert. He had previously suggested that Larisa and Hamaxitos were independent of Alexandria Troas or linked in a sympolity with it;25 now, in an article entitled 'Ptolemais de Troade',26 he has claimed this single coin as certain proof of a refoundation of Larisa.27 'Ici (he declares) ce temoignage suffit; il est ineluctable.'

"2 It is true that a careful reading of Strabo XIII 597-606 shows that while he speaks of all five former cities as being incorporated and more than once speaks of the territory of Neandria, Hamaxitos, and Cebren equally as subdivisions of that of Alexandria Troas (X 472, XIII 604 and 6o6), he does not refer expressly to any of them save Cebren (together with Scepsis) as being included in the original synoecism, and geographically only Neandria would necessarily be involved in it. It would therefore be

possible to contend that Demetrius of Scepsis (first half of second century B.C.), whom Strabo is quoting here, did not explicitly state that Larisa and Hamaxitos were incorporated at the outset; but it is certainly implied.

The need for care in using Strabo will become obvious. But Neandria is a good example of the need for caution in

using Stephanus Byzantius. His statement (s.v.) that it is 'v'E 1rolor6vtTp (dg XdQQat), though misleading at first

sight, is not seriously incorrect (geographical writers would have been more likely to indicate either the Troad or Mt Ida). But his remark that some spell it Leandros shows how confused he can be. And when he goes on to cite the ethnic

NEavweQg from Strabo he cannot have had

in front of him (as the most recent editors of Strabo would have us believe) a text that was the ancestor of our

Byzantine MSS but was quite different from the largely notional Vatican Palimpsest because all the Byzantine MSS of Strabo read NECtvbQtig, which Meineke was unaware of because he had finished editing Stephanus before he turned to Strabo in Kramer's new recension). Some of Stephanus' errors are obviously faults of transmis- sion; but not a few are blunders, e.g. Meineke s.v. Arteatai (a gross misreading of Herodotus), and in the East Aegean

Assos (1=2), Astypalaia (= 3), Kyme (I=2), Sminthe, Cher- ronesos init., ib. p. 721 f. (Halesion, Tragasai, Chyton), and in his Index Rerum s.v. Kyklades and Sporades. The use of

Stephanus' text to correct Strabo's is especially hazard-

ous; Strabo and Homer are the authors whom Stephanos cites most frequently except for Hecataeus, but the assumption (which F. Sbordone, Milanges E. Tisserant V (I964) 345 if. seemed to make) that when he cites no authority he is following Strabo is demonstrably mistaken. Cf. Cook, JHS 79 ('959) '9 ff.

24 For the description and discussion of the Liman Tepe site and the history of Larisa see Troad 216-21 and 196-98. The mention of a Larisa which sent theoroi to Samothrace (ib. 221) might have been brought into play by Robert (I first suggested the Troadic Larisa in CR XII (1962) Ioo).

25 I'tudes de numismatique grecque (I95i) 34 f- 26 BCH o06 (1982) 319-33. 27 Normally a preponderance of coins is needed for the

identification of an ancient site, as (in the Troad) at Cebren, Scepsis, Neandria, and initially Ilium. But there are occasions on which it is not unduly bold to identify a site on the evidence of a single bronze coin if it is of a

sufficiently rare issue. Lamponia (Troad 263) is a clear case, as also is Kolonai (Troad 220); and my suggestion that the site on the Balli Kaya was Gentinos (Troad 139) has now been reinforced by Akarca's report of a second coin of Gentinos there. But in those cases there were also other

pointers to the identification. We should of course remember that there are other

maritime cities in the Aeolic region whose coins had a reverse type of a vase.




Unfortunately, since in my Troad I dealt with Larisa before Hamaxitos, I did not at that point introduce the most serious objection to such a refoundation of Larisa: not so much that in the Delphic thearodokoi list Larisa, like Hamaxitos, is entered under its old name whereas Lebedos still bears its third-century refoundation name Ptolemais, but that Larisa lies between Alexandria Troas and Hamaxitos and it is generally agreed that Hamaxitos was incorporated from the beginning of the synoecism. A glance at the map will show that it is hardly conceivable that Larisa could have been an independent city in the middle of the coastal territory of Alexandria Troas unless Hamaxitos also was independent of it; for unless this Ptolemais-Larisa were simply a harbour fort with no land attached, land communication between Alexandria Troas and Hamaxitos would have been blocked, and it is unlikely that such a fort would have minted coins. If I had made this point when dealing with Larisa, Robert would have recognised that Hamaxitos must also be taken into consideration and that the numismatic evidence (which he considered paramount in this connection) constitutes an obstacle which he would have had to contest with the numismatists. I had taken it, together with the associated problems of the Smintheum, to be decisive against a Ptolemaic refoundation of Larisa. But Robert's 1982 article, with the wealth of learning and the ingenious reasoning which support it, has caused me to reconsider the question of Hamaxitos, which, unlike that of Larisa, is complex.

Hamaxitos and its surroundings are treated in Troad 228-35, with pls 23d, 24d, 25b, 28b, and Leaf, Troy (1912) pl. 23. Without question the site of the classical city was on Begik Tepe, where the abundant potsherds do not seem to descend later than the fourth century BC. At 2-3 km, south of this and in full view of Begik Tepe is a headland (G6z Tepe) which shows only Hellenistic occupation; this has to be the Chrysa which Strabo (from Demetrius of Scepsis in the second century BC) knew as still existing.28 In the archaeological view the argument from the two sites must be correct unless there exists a third, as yet unnoticed site for a refounded Hamaxitos at a greater distance from Goz Tepe.

An inscription of oi v XQVog ntokX6atc (Troad 232 f., with references), honouring a phrourarch and dating, according to Robert, to the third or second century BC, shows that this Chrysa was an outlying fortification. Robert sixty years ago took the city to be Hamaxitos. But the photographs Troad pl. 23d (of Hamaxitos from the beach by Chrysa) and 25b (looking from the Hamaxitos site over Chrysa), with Leafs Troy pl. 23 (from the south) show that the two sites are in such close proximity that a city at Hamaxitos would be unlikely to have appointed a governor to take charge of Chrysa; certainly we should not expect citizens of Hamaxitos in Chrysa to have formed a separate community passing decrees on its own account. The polis of the inscription should therefore be Alexandria Troas, which was a long day's journey away. Since the Chrysa site yielded us nothing earlier than Hellenistic and the Hamaxitos site nothing later than the fourth century, my assumption that the site that corresponded to Hamaxitos in Hellenistic times (and was so named in the Delphic thearodokoi list) was that of Chrysa seemed to be the only reasonable one on the topographical evidence.

28 In general, though on occasion (as at Gelibolu, above P. 10) regarding his own observations in the field as decisive, Robert dismissed surface finds such as tile and potsherds

as invalid; but progress in archaeological exploration largely depends on such evidence.



16 J.M. COOK

The Smintheum, which lay 1-2 km. inland from Begik Tepe and was famous for its cult statue by Scopas, originally belonged to Hamaxitos. In middle Hellenistic times a grand new marble pseudodipteron was erected there. It is unthinkable that at that time an independent city of Hamaxitos could have funded such a temple; and since Apollo Smintheus appears as a leading device on Hellenistic coins of Alexandria Troas there can be no doubt that this temple was erected at a time when Hamaxitos was incorporated in it. The temple was excavated by Pullan and has generally been dated about the end of the third century BC In particular, H. Weber made a close study of the remains on the spot in 1966 and upheld that dating. Further light may come from C. Ozgiinel's excavations. For the moment the date can not be regarded as quite certain. The Smintheum also came to be used as a repository for inscriptions in honour of citizens of Alexandria Troas, of which examples are known; the earliest datable one, for a Cassander who was also honoured at Delphi, is fixed about 165 B.C. (SIG3 653a, cf. Daux, BCH 89 (1965) 498-502).

The most positive evidence should be that of the coins. It is clear that, after the incorporation, Alexandria Troas continued the minting of coins which reproduced the Smintheus types of Hamaxitan bronzes.29 Numismatists have assumed that the change of name on the coins (and therewith the incorporation) occurred at the end of the fourth century. A.R. Bellinger made a systematic study of the issues of Alexandria Troas in his big monograph, Troy, The Coins (i96i). He had the Smintheus issues of Alexandria start in 301 BC (his p. 81); that was another decisive factor in my reasoning. As regards Neandria, it is beyond dispute that Alexandria Troas had appropriated the grazing horse type and long continued to use it. Hamaxitos is perhaps less clear and may require further study by professional numismatists. What can be said with certainty at this stage is that the issuing of silver tetradrachms of Alexandria Troas with Smintheus types had commenced by 164 Bc

It is very difficult to believe that, as was implied by Robert's suggestion of a link in sympolity (above, p. 14), Larisa and Hamaxitos were not absorbed at all into Alexandria until the second century. It is also very unlikely that the two places were combined in a single Ptolemaic foundation, both being entered separately by name in the thearodokoi list. But though it does not fit with the evidence on the ground, Robert's latest hypothesis, that the two places were included in the original synoecism but were detached and only re-incorporated later (presumably in the second quarter of the second century), does now emerge as a more possible one. The Chrysa inscription might perhaps be as late as that. The dating of Cassander and the silver tetradrachms would be conformable; and in a field where quot homines tot sententiae holds good, scholars can be found to date the new pseudodipteron as late as this.30 This would involve the assumption that Demetrius of Scepsis failed to disclose that it was only in the years of his own mature scholarly activity that Hamaxitos and Larisa were finally incorporated in Alexandria Troas. But that again is not impossible.31 Without further topographical and archaeological exploration, new light from the Smintheum, Hellenistic inscriptions from the site of Alexandria Troas, or

29 Thus G.K. Jenkins was unable to determine whether

my bronze coin from Liman Tepe (Troad 219, pl. 24a) is of Hamaxitos or Alexandria because the types do not differ. What does seem clear is that the Alexandria ones were more or less immediate successors of the Hamaxitos ones.

30 This then would be the date at which the Sminthia

superseded the lHfIah av T tod6t as the main agonistic

festival celebrated by Alexandria Troas. "3 Strabo's mentions (from Demetrius) of the territories

of the former cities of Neandria, Hamaxitos, and Cebren as subdivisions of that of Alexandria Troas (above P. I4n. 23) might seem suggestive, though Neandria at least can never have been detached.




closer study of the relevant coin issues Robert's contention about Ptolemais can neither be ruled out nor be verified. It is unfortunate that we can no longer have his considered views on this more extended problem.

The site of Cebren on the Qal Da' was discovered and identified about 1860 by Frank Calvert; his identification, based on a preponderance of coins of Cebren there, is universally accepted. No scholar who has visited the site has remarked any occupation later than about 310o BC when Cebren was incorporated in Antigonus' new supercity.32 Fabricius in 1888 noted that there were no architectural pieces there; and learning that Imhoof Blumer had noted coins with types formerly current at the Cebren mint which were issued by people calling themselves Antiocheis and had therefore postulated a Seleucid refoundation of Cebren, Judeich in 1896 forcefully remarked on the lack of any evidence on the site for such re-occupation. My findings in 1959 and 1966 were in agreement with Fabricius' and Judeich's. In Troad 327-44 I set out all the evidence of different kinds bearing on the question whether Cebren was refounded on the Qal Da'. That there did exist a community preserving the name Cebren (and not Antiocheia) and celebrating a festival of the (?Kybel)eia is shown by an inscription found at Assos, which probably dates to the later third century BC;33 its location may have been in the plain north of the Qal Dag, and it was presumably subject to Alexandria Troas (Troad 313 f.).

My main reasons for concluding that Cebren was not refounded as a Greek city in the Troad were (i) Strabo's express statement that while the people of Scepsis were released from Antigonus' synoecism by Lysimachus and returned to their old home, the Cebre- nians stayed on in Alexandria Troas with the others (XIII 596 f.); (ii) the lack of any Hellenistic occupation on the Cyal DaV site; (iii) the absence, not only on the site but anywhere in the ancient world, of inscriptions of the Hellenistic age referring to an independent city of Cebren (or Antioch of Aeolis) or mention of any citizen of it abroad; (iv) that not a single coin of these Antiocheis has been noted in the Troad.

I had assumed that this conclusion would not be contested; my argument that Robert's restoration of the name Cebren in the Delphic thearodokoi list, which was a principal support of his refoundation theory, was erroneous not only weighed heavily with me but has in fact been accepted by him. Nevertheless he continued in his former view.34 My case was argued at some length, but two or three points can be brought into sharper focus.

First of all Strabo: In his ttudes de numismatique grecque (1951) p. 21 (quoted in Troad 341) Robert wrote of Strabo's testimony on this point 'Je n'aurais aucune h6sitation 'a rejeter sur ce point le valeur d'un temoignage, mime formel, de cet auteur. Ce n'est pas at l'auteur d'une g6ographie du monde tout entier, tel qu'il 6tait connu 'a l'6poque d' Auguste, qu'on peut demander l'histoire pr6cise en tous ses d6tails et absolument exacte d'une petite ville de la Troade; il n'a jamais pretendu donner cela, et il efit sans doute 6te scandalis6 qu'on

32 I noted a few Byzantine sherds in 1959, and coins of Roman date are found. But the absence of ancient tile and potsherds later than classical on the surface must mean that Hellenistic was never there.

"3 Cf. Troad 338 and 344. The facsimile drawing given by Sterrett suggested a third rather than second-century date; presumably Robert's reason for preferring the second century was that on his theory the place should

have been named Antiocheia, not Cebren, in the third century. Merkelbach in the meantime has republished the inscription with a photograph (Die Inschriften von Assos (1976) no. 4 and pl. i) and dates it 'wohl 3. Jahrh. v. Chr?; that date should of course have been seen to be decisive against Robert's Antiocheia.

34 In BCH Io6 (1982), especially 330 n. 70, where the dating of the Assos inscription is brushed aside.



18 J.M. COOK

le lui demandat.' Robert cannot often have put so much misrepresentation into so short a space. Strabo addressed himself to the Geographica in his old age; prior to that he had written extensively on history. It is true that he recognised the impossibility in colossal works of tracking down every minute detail (I 13). But he wrote at quite exceptional length on the Troad, introducing his treatment of it with the phrase Tno1oyia oUiX 0 ]tXo)ocu (XIII 581). To judge by its normal tribute of three talents in the Athenian league and the extent of its wall circuit, classical Cebren would seem to have been not a 'petite. ville' but the most substantial city of the Aeolic mainland between Abydus and Cyme. And finally Strabo's information here is directly cited from Demetrius of Scepsis, so dates not to Augustan times but to approximately the first half of the second century Bc If the information about Cebren is wrong, it would seem not to be an oversight of Strabo's but a falsification of the facts by Demetrius. For that reason it can not be lightly set aside.

Second, the lack of Hellenistic occupation on the site is dismissed by Robert, though it has clearly made some impression on him since he ventured the ingenious suggestion that the new foundation of Antiochus was not on the Qal Da' (Cebren) but on the former site of Birytis (which, as Robert had previously pointed out, also had a share in the new

Antiocheia).35 On the Qal Da' site it is riot only a question of the total absence of Hellenistic tile and potsherds, which to Robert do not rank as evidence. Much of the great wall circuit is preserved to a height of several courses, from Xenophon the wall circuit would seem to be fifth-century, and lay-out and masonry are entirely classical in appearance (Troad 328-31 and 339). On the citadel abundant remains of late archaic or early classical terracotta revetments recently came to light in surface earth (Troad 334-36), thus showing that at Cebren, as at Neandria, which was abandoned when Antigonus' new supercity was founded, no new cult buildings were erected to replace the derelict ones and meet the needs of a city founded by a Seleucid king. If, as the Assos inscription implies, there was a settlement of people from the old Cebren in this vicinity at the time, it would seem to have been near BayramiC Pinarbagi under the north foot of the Qal Da', and its status seems to be indicated by the three Hellenistic coins seen there -

they were third-century Bc bronzes of Alexandria Troas (Troad 313). At the time of the Assos inscription these people recognised their settlement as Cebren and not Antiocheia.

The most decisive point, however, seems to me to be the total absence of coins of the Antiocheis in the Troad. Despite his peculiar argument about the Achaitai (above, P. 9) Robert was not unaware of this criterion of negative evidence from coins, as when he declared that the ancient city of Pioniai could not have been in the Troad north of Gargara (where J.T. Clarke placed it) because no coin of Pioniai had been reported in the Troad and, most particularly, none from the excavations of neighbouring Assos.36 In Troad 343 f. I attempted to estimate the number of ancient coins from the Qal Dag site and from the

35 BCH Io6, 322 n. 23, where my argument is acciden-

tally misrepresented: the point that I made was that no coin of Birytis seems to have come from the Ada Tepe site

(not the Qal Dag). For the discussion of the situation of

Birytis see Troad 353-57, with my reasons for supposing that it was not incorporated in the synoecism of Alexan- dria Troas but (at a later date) in that of Ilium.

36 Monnaies ant. en Troade (1966) 113, cf. Troad 324 and

387. In fact, so extraordinarily few non-Assian city coins were published by the American excavating team (none whatever of the neighbouring cities of Lamponia, Hamaxi- tos, Cebren, or Antandrus) that there is a doubt whether the share that went to them in the division of the finds was representative of the whole. For Clarke's Pionia site it is the archaeological evidence that is decisive.



CITIES IN AND AROUND THE TROAD I9

Troad generally that have come under effective scrutiny." It is, I suppose, conceivable that in a hasty examination Calvert, Schliemann, or I could have failed to distinguish a coin of the Antiocheis among numerous ones of Cebren. So perhaps the most significant is the new evidence from the excavated site of Ilium. The many dozens of Hellenic city coins from Blegen's excavations were published by an eminent numismatist who could not have failed to recognise a coin of the Antiocheis. Thanks to the circulation of human beings to which the festival of Athena Ilias gave rise, Hellenic coins from more than forty different mints were recognised. There were for instance 14 Hellenic bronzes of Alexandria Troas, Ii of Sigeum, 8 each of Dardanus and Gergis. If we add the sporadic finds of the American Troy mission and Schliemann's and my notes, the bronzes of Scepsis-Scamandria, as of Birytis, from Ilium also reach double figures.38 If Imhoof Blumer's and Robert's Antiocheia had been a neighbouring city in the central Troad, its citizens should have frequented the festival at Ilium and the odd coin of theirs would surely have come to light there. It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the Antiocheia for which the coins were minted did not come into existence in the Troad.

These coins exist, like those of the Achaitai. They have been found somewhere. A provenience or two could be decisive." In the meantime we can only try to assess the divergent evidence according to the scale of values that seems most appropriate. That there should be differences of opinion in the application of these values is only natural. On different issues discussed in this article Robert may prove to have been wrong or right. To disagree with him is not to impugn his greatness as a scholar.40

J.M. COOK

37 The total number of Hellenic city mints whose coins have been recorded at different times in the Troad is nearly 70 according to my notes. Hellenistic cities not represented are all fairly distant, the nearest being Kios, Astakos, Perinthos, Abdera, Pyrrha in the south of Lesbos, Gryneion.

Typical of the various anomalies that come to light when Robert's contention is examined is this: he assumes that Birytis had the same history as Cebren (incorporation in Antigonus' synoecism and transference to Antiocheia) and therefore also lay on what became the territory of Alexandria Troas in the middle Scamander valley; yet ten bronze coins of Birytis seem to have been recorded as found at Ilium at different times (Troad 356 f.) but not a single one of Cebren (or of Neandria, which was also absorbed in Antigonus' synoecism). Points like this may be minute but they have a cumulative effect. Robert's last sentence in his footnote 23 on his p. 323 of BCH Io6 had long since ceased to be even partially true.

38 What seems to me to be at issue is this. It is believed that the decade 310-301 B.C. saw the incorporation of cities like Neandria in the new foundation of Antigonus, the establishment of the festival of Athena Ilias, and the first striking of coins of Ilium itself. Neandria and Cebren were evidently issuing bronze coins in quantity until their incorporation, but none of their coins have been found at Ilium. Coins of Sigeum and Birytis, on the other hand, are frequent at Ilium; it is therefore reasonable to suppose that they continued to be minted after the festival was instituted and therefore that they were still flourishing then.

39 I did show illustrations of Troadic coins to the jeweller Riza Iirgiivin in BayramiC and occasionally of types (as those of Birytis) to other handlers of coins; but clearly such enquiries need to be pursued more systemati- cally if proveniences are being sought.

40 I am indebted to Dr S. Mitchell for reading a draft of this article and making pertinent suggestions.



A

B3

C

CITIES

IN

AND

AROUND

THE

TROAD

(a)

Atarneus,

from

the

West;

(b) Atarneus,

East

Circuit

Wall;

(c) Kanai

(Yahudi

Kale)

B.S.A. 83 PLATE 1



Documents

Cities in and Around the Troad