The Coinage and History of Achaiion in the Troad

THE COINAGE AND HISTORY OF ACHAIION IN THE TROAD* Aneurin ELLIS-EVANS** Résumé. – La provenance de deux exemplaires de monnaie de bronze de Troade avec le monogramme AX (in IVe-début IIIe s. a.C.) a été habituellement attribuée à Achilleion. Cependant, les fouilles menées sur le site d’Achilleion n’ont jamais révélé autre chose qu’un fort. Ces pièces devraient donc être attribuées à Achaion, connu par Strabon comme la cité principale à proximité de la pérée de Ténédos. Outre ces exemplaires, Achaion a aussi frappé un monnayage de bronze au IIe siècle a.C. Ces deux périodes de frappe correspondent probablement à deux moments d’indépendance d’Achaion par rapport à Ténédos, interrogeant du même coup l’importance de la pérée dans l’économie ténédienne et celle du monnayage de bronze dans la reconstruction de l’histoire politique de la Troade hellénistique. Abstract. – Two issues of bronze coinage from the Troad with the monogram AX (late 4th/early 3rd c. BC) have traditionally been attributed to Achilleion. However, excavations of Achilleion show that it was never more than a small fort. These coins should therefore be attributed to Achaiion, known to us from Strabo as the chief town of the nearby Tenedian peraia. In addition to the issues with the AX monogram, Achaiion also produced bronze coinage in the 2nd c. BC. It is argued that these two periods of minting probably represent periods of independence from Tenedos and thus prompt questions about the signiicance of the peraia to the Tenedian economy and the importance of bronze coinage in reconstructing the political history of the Hellenistic Troad. Key words. – Hellenistic world, polis status, bronze coinage, peraia, Achaiion, Achilleion, Tenedos, Troas. * J. Kroll, J. Kagan, A. Meadows, and B. Raynor kindly read and commented on earlier drafts and the anonymous readers for REA also saved me from a number of errors. I am very grateful to the following curators for help with material in their collections: B. Weisser (Berlin), A. Dowler (London), K. Vondrovec (Vienna), H. Horsnaes (Copenhagen), J. Olivier (Paris). ** The Queen’s College, University of Oxford, UK; [email protected] REA, T. 119, 2017, n°1, p. 25 à 47 26 aneurin ellis-evans 1. – ACHILLEION OR ACHAIION? There has long been uncertainty over whether to attribute the following two issues of small bronze coinage bearing the monogram (= AX) to Achilleion or to Achaiion, two neighbouring settlements on the western coast of the Troad (1-2).1 x2 Figure 1: GM 212 (5/3/2013) 1741 – 10mm, 0.92g (AE). © Gorny & Mosch GmbH. (1) AE. Obv. Pseudo-Attic helmet with crest plume l. Rev. Diameter: 8-11 mm.2 1.07 Pecunem 20 (3/8/2014) 219 1.01 1.00 Pecunem 24 (2/11/2014) 169 1.00 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.89 0.88 8h . SNG Copenhagen 64 (E. J. Seltman, acq. 1910) = Jacob Hirsch 25 (29/11/1909) 1870 (G. Philipsen) Pecunem 6 (4/8/2013) 185 2h 8h 7h CNG EA 322 (12/3/2014) 226 CNG EA 287 (26/9/2012) 122 Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer 1900 (Id., Kleinasiatische Münzen, 2 vols. [Vienna 1901-1902] 1:33, no. 1) = W. M. Leake, Numismata Hellenica: A Catalogue of Greek Coins (London 1856) As. Gr. 142 GM 212 (5/3/2013) 1741 Pecunem 37 (1/11/2015) 184 12h SNG Greece 7.779 = MM DE 20 (10/10/2006) 57 10h BM 1938,2060.6 (C. E. Blunt) 1. F. imhoof-blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen, 1:34 claimed that the monogram had to be read as ΑΧ not ΧΑ because ΧΑ would be . This is incorrect since is the invariable monogram of the Achaian Koinon. 2. O. tekin, a. erol-özdizbay, sng turkey 9 (2015), preface: «This catalogue presents part of the Özkan Arıkantürk Collection ... All coins were bought between the years 1990-2013 by [mr. arikantürk] in Burhaniye where ancient Adramyteum lies» the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 0.87 2h [IGCH 1228, Sigeum, Troas, 1852] Berlin, C. R. Fox 1873 (Id., Engravings of Unpublished or Rare Greek Coins, 2 vols. (London 1856-1862) 2:Plate III 42) = Sotheby & Wilkinson (12/7/1852) no. 151 (H. P. Borrell, acq. at Sigeion) 0.85 9h SNG Turkey 9.40 (purchased at Burhaniye, ca. 1990-2013)2 0.84 0.83 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.66 0.59 27 Naville Live Auction 11 (30/11/2014) 54 1h Vienna Gr 35927 = Brüder Egger 46 (11/5/1914) 606 (T. Prowe) 12h Vienna Gr 33006 (A. O. van Lennep, 1907) Pecunem 14 (2/3/2014) 232 Pecunem 18 (1/6/2014) 162 Hauck & Aufhäuser 17 (18/3/2003) 60 GM 156 (5/3/2007) 1422 The helmet is identiiable as Pseudo-Attic from the shape of the bowl, the peak at the front, the hinged cheek-guards, and the truncated neck-guard. A similar helmet is featured as the obverse type on Chian-weight silver obols of Neandreia in the Troad dating to the 4th c.3 Helmets of this type are attested from the mid-5th c. on Attic vases and were particularly widespread in the Hellenistic period. However, the particular version depicted on issue 1 most closely resembles examples which Petros Dintsis dated to the late 4th and irst half of the 3rd.4 This is broadly in agreement with Imhoof-Blumer’s date range of ca. 350-300 for this issue and also coincides with the late 4th c. date suggested by H. P. Borrell’s discovery of an example of issue 1 at Sigeion along with bronzes of Neandreia and Kebren, two cities which ceased to exist following their synoikism into Antigoneia Troas in the last decade of the 4th c.5 3. See e.g. Pecunem 40 (7/2/2016) 202 (8mm, 0.38g). Discussing the series illustrated here in igure 3, which also has a Pseudo-Attic helmet as its obverse type, s. psoma in s. psoma, c. karadima, d. terzopoulou, The Coins from Maroneia and the Classical City at Molyvoti: A Contribution to the History of Aegean Thrace, Athens 2008, p. 213 argues that the use of such types indicates that they cannot be civic issues and must instead have been minted for military purposes. This may well be the explanation for some of the series she cites, but I am unconvinced that it is a hard and fast rule (ditto for her view that the wreath on the reverse «clearly refers to victory»). There is, for example, nothing obviously military about the Chian-weight silver obols from Neandreia (a denomination produced by many cities in the Troad at this time), and wreathes are perfectly common as reverse types for bronze coinages of small communities in the Troad in the 4th c. (see e.g. Birytis, Gentinos, and Thymbra). 4. P. dintsis, Hellenistische Helme, Rome 1986, p. 113-133, esp. p. 115-116 with Taf. 54-57. Note that, confusingly, this helmet type is sometimes also termed Thracian, e.g. P. connolly, «Hellenistic warfare» in R. ling ed., The Cambridge Ancient History. Plates to Volume VII Part 1: The Hellenistic World to the Coming of the Romans, Cambridge 1984, p. 82-84, nos. 100 and 105 (no. 104 here being a more typical example of what is usually meant by a Thracian helmet). I am grateful to john ma for discussion on these points. 5. See n. 13. 28 aneurin ellis-evans x2 Figure 2: Roma Numismatics 4 (30/9/2012) 1527 – 8mm, 12h, 0.87g (AE). © Roma Numismatics Ltd. (2) AE. Obv. Head of Athena in Corinthian helmet l. Rev. Diameter: 8-10 mm. in wreath. 1.17 7h Winterthur 2.2698 (F. Imhoof-Blumer 1898, A. O. van Lennep, 1898) 1.06 1.05 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.87 0.81 0.75 – 9h 2h 2h 6h 6h 12h Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer 1900 (Id., Kleinasiatische Münzen, 1:34, no. 2) Vienna Gr 33865 = Jacob Hirsch 21 (16/11/1908) 2537 (Consul Weber) SNG Turkey 9.41 (purchased at Burhaniye, ca. 1990-2013) Berlin, 298/1883 (Sabbas, Smyrna) SNG Turkey 9.42 (purchased at Burhaniye, ca. 1990-2013) Roma Numismatics 4 (30/9/2012) 1527 SNG Greece 5.1347 6h Berlin, Löbbecke 1906 A. R. Bellinger, Troy: The Coins (Princeton 1961) 165, no. 148 (found at Ilion) – no weight given Four examples of issues 1 and 2 were discovered stuck together within the so-called Early Hellenistic Building in the West Sanctuary at Ilion.6 This building was constructed ca. 300, thus providing further support for the late 4th c. date suggested by H. P. Borrell’s ind of an issue 1 specimen at Sigeion.7 Since we now have ive examples found in excavations at Ilion, one in a hoard from Sigeion, and three from the general area of the Troad (the examples in the Arıkantürk collection which were acquired from local sources), the attribution of these coins to a mint in the Troad, and more speciically to the area around the Trojan Plain, seems certain. 6. Inv. C367-370, found in quadrant z6. I am very grateful to brian rose for providing me with information about these inds from the Tübingen-Cincinnati excavations in advance of publication. 7. C. B. rose, «The 1997 Post-Bronze Age excavations at Troia», Studia Troica 8, 1998, p. 71-113, at p. 77-78, p. 82-84. 29 the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad x2 Figure 3: BNF 1981.384 – 15mm, 2.99g (AE). © Bibliothèque nationale de France. There are in addition two further issues which are commonly but incorrectly attributed to Achaiion/Achilleion.8 Firstly, four specimens have appeared in trade with an obverse type with the same Pseudo-Attic helmet as issue 1, but facing right rather than left and without a plume added to the raised metal crest. The reverse type has a wreath like issue 2, but with an ‘A’ below instead of the monogram within the wreath (igure 3).9 However, none of these examples which have appeared in trade have ind spots and nine examples of these coins have now appeared in the excavations at Maroneia, thus establishing that these coins were minted in Thrace and not the Troad.10 x2 Figure 4: BNF E 1429 – 9mm, 0.66g (AE). © Bibliothèque nationale de France. Secondly, in older literature a further set of bronzes with proveniences in the area of Aiolis, Mysia, and Troas used to be attributed to Achilleion. The obverse type is either a head of Artemis r. or a male head (Apollo?) wearing a Pseudo-Attic helmet, while the reverse type is a spear tip with X-A to left and right (igure 4 ).11 While the general area from which these 8. I have come across one further coin which has almost certainly been incorrectly catalogued as belonging to Achilleion. Gerhard Hirsch 132 (23/6/1982) 2546 = ibid. 121 (3/7/1980) 3048 is described as, «TROAS. Achilleum. 2. Hälfte d. 4. Jhdts. Kleinbronze. Seepferdchen in Kranz, unten A. Rs: Helm. Vgl. Imhoof Kleinasien p.34.2 … 12 mm». The coin is not pictured and the description does not it any of the known issues. 9. The examples are: 1) BNF 1981.384 = Auctiones Basel 12 (29/9/1981) 103 (15mm, 2.99g; Achaiion); 2) CNG EA 145 (9/8/2006) 82 (15mm, 2.94g; Achaiion); 3) Schulten (19/4/1989) 92 (2.74g; Achilleion); 4) Auctiones Basel 27 (10/12/1996) 301 (2.70g; Achilleion). 10. S. psoma in The Coins from Maroneia, 98, M256-259 and p. 213-215. 11. J. stauber, Die Bucht von Adramytteion, Bonn 1996, 1:226-228 (previous scholarship and discussion), 2:280-282 (catalogue); R. ashton, «The beginning of bronze coinage in Karia and Lykia», NC 166, 2006, p. 8. stauber’s catalogue is missing the example with male head (Apollo?) in Pseudo-Attic helmet: Boston MFA 64.1383 (H. von aulock), 8.5 mm, 12h, 0.75g. 30 aneurin ellis-evans coins come and some aspects of the iconography it, it seems unlikely that Achilleion/Achaiion would spell the beginning of its ethnic backwards. It is therefore preferable to attribute these coins to Chalkis in the Hekatonnesoi off the coast of Aiolis.12 The earliest appearance of the coinage with the AX monogram I have so far discovered is in the sale of H. P. Borrell’s collection at Sotheby’s in 1852, where it is stated that the coin was found at Sigeion along with local bronzes of Kebren, Neandreia, Ilion, and others.13 While this and other proveniences therefore made it clear from the start that these coins come from the Troad, this was no help in deciding whether the mint was Achilleion or Achaiion, since the two sites are only 12 km distant from one another. Initially, it was assumed without argument that Achilleion was the mint, and even when W. M. Leake instead suggested Achaiion he gave no explanation as to why.14 An important development, therefore, was the appearance of types with the longer ethnics AXAI and ΑΧΑΙΤΩΝ (3-4). x2 Figure 5: Berlin 18250795 – 16mm, 11h, 3.82g (AE). © The Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. (3) AE. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo r., all within dotted border. Rev. Tripod within wreath, <LF and RF> A-X / A-I. Diameter: 16 mm. 3.82 11h Berlin 18250795 (O. Bernhard-Imhoof, 1928) = Brüder Egger 46 (11/5/1914) 607 (T. Prowe) 12. J. stauber, op. cit., 1:228-229 suggests the Hellenistic and Roman remains on Çıplakada speciically. 13. Sotheby & Wilkinson (12/7/1852) p. 18, no. 151. His brother, m. Borrell, writes: «In forwarding the description of this coin to the writer, the late proprietor observed: ‘As this coin was found at Sigeum, amongst many others of Cebrenia, Neandreia, Ilium, &c. (all small copper), I suggest the monogram may represent ΑΧ. Achilleum is a small town marked by geographers as close to Sigeum’». 14. W. M. leake, Numismata Hellenica, Add. As. Gr. 142, Fox (1862) 7, no. 42; F. imhoof-blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen, 1:34, no. 2, head, HN2 (1911) 540. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 31 The combination of an obverse type within a dotted border and a reverse type within a wreath is also found on bronze coinages from Dardanos, Elaious, Ilion, Lampsakos, and Mytilene which date to the 2nd/1st c.15 The style of the reverse also bears comparison with other wreathed bronze coinages which likewise date to this period from Abydos, Alexandreia Troas, and Skepsis.16 x2 Figure 6: SNG Greece 5.1346 – 12h, 5.16g (AE). © Numismatic Museum, Athens. (4) AE. Obv. Laureate head of Zeus r. within dotted border. Rev. Artemis standing l. contrapposto, quiver over shoulder, bow and arrow in r. hand, <LF and RF> AXA-ITΩΝ. Diameter: 17-18 mm.17 5.16 12h SNG Greece 5.1346 (Svoronos, Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique 7 [1904] 353, no. 37, Id., Αρχ. Εφ. 3 (1889) 197-9, no. 11) 5.14 4.99 4.86 12h 12h 1h BM 1968,1005.1 (H. von Aulock) BM 1979,0101.257 (H. von Aulock) SNG Greece 7.778 15. Dardanos: BNF Fonds Général 621 (3.33g – Obv. Rider r. within dotted border; Rev. igure l. leaning on pillar, all within laurel wreath). Elaious: Corpus Nummorum Thracorum 644 (1.30g, 12mm – Obv. Artemis head r. within dotted border; Rev. ΕΛΑΙ within wreath); Ilion: SNG Turkey 9.606 (3.16g, 17mm, 12h – Obv. Athena head in Pseudo-Attic helmet r. within dotted border; Rev. Athena Ilias r., ΙΛΙ in LF, all within laurel wreath). Lampsakos: BNF Fonds Général 787 (2.40g – Obv. Priapos head r. within dotted border; Rev. ΛΑΜ/ΨΑ within laurel wreath). Mytilene: Pecunem 29 (1/3/2015) 215 (6.15g, 20mm – Obv. Laureate head of Zeus r. within dotted border; Rev. ΜΥ-ΤΙ within wreath). 16. Abydos: SNG Ashmolean 998 (23mm, 12h, 8.02g – Obv. Facing Artemis bust in mural crown; Rev. Deer r., ΑΒΥ above, all within wreath). Alexandreia Troas: CNG EA 228 (24/2/2010) 83 (18mm, 12h, 4.42g – Obv. Facing laureate bust of Apollo; Rev. Lyre, Α-ΛΕ/ΞΑ-Ν, all within wreath). Skepsis: SNG Ashmolean 1210 (18mm, 12h, 4.35g – Obv. Facing Dionysos bust in ivy crown; Rev. Eagle r., Σ-ΚΗ, all within oak wreath). 17. L. Robert, Monnaies antiques en Troade, Paris 1966, p. 108. 32 4.79 4.55 4.19 4.02 aneurin ellis-evans BNF Fonds Général 201B 11h Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof 1928 (F. Imhoof-Blumer, Antike griechische Münzen [Geneva 1913] 112, no. 295) 12h ANS 1944.100.43413 (E. T. Newell) SNG von Aulock 7544 (acq. at Biga on the Hellespont)17 The dotted border of the obverse, the alphas with broken crossbars, the lunate sigma, and the pose of Artemis on the reverse all point to a 2nd/1st c. date for this issue.18 Ioannis Svoronos initially attributed an example of 4 to a mint on Crete (1889) and then to a mint in the Cimmerian Bosporus (1904).19 However, soon afterwards Friedrich Imhoof-Blumer acquired another example from Smyrna along with a batch of coins from western Asia Minor which led him instead to suggest an origin in Aiolis or Troas (1913) and then, when he acquired an example of 3, Achaiion speciically (1915).20 Later, Hans von Aulock purchased an example of 4 at Biga on the Dardanelles, providing further support for Imhoof-Blumer’s attribution of the coins to the Troad.21 On the strength of the fuller ethnics of 3-4, Imhoof-Blumer decided to also attribute the coins with the more ambiguous AX ethnic to Achaiion instead of Achilleion which had been his initial preference. This was perhaps premature. Whereas he had dated 1-2 to ca. 350-300, he had noted that the general style of 3-4 points to a 2nd c. date.22 In addition, it is notable that the die axes of 1-2 do not appear to be adjusted in any one direction, whereas those of 3-4 are adjusted to 12h as we would expect by the mid-Hellenistic period.23 The possibility 18. For the use of lettering as a dating criterion see A. bresson, «Hamaxitos en Troade» in J. dalaison ed, Espaces et pouvoirs dans l’Antqiuité de l’Anatolie à la Gaule. Hommages à Bernard Rémy, Grenoble 2007, p. 151 on the bronzes of Hamaxitos and P. kinns, «Lunate letter forms in the 4th century and Hellenistic coinage of Ionia», NC 174, 2014, p 1-15. For the reverse type of a igure standing contrapposto compare BNF Fonds Général 621 (Dardanos – above n. 15) and SNG France 1244 (Lampsakos, 6.49g – Obv. Helmeted head of Athena r.; Rev. igure l. leaning on pillar, ΛΑΜΨΑ in RF). 19. I. N. svoronos, «Προσθῆκαι εἰς τὸ βιβλίον Numismatique de la Crète ancienne» Αρχ. Εφ. 3, 1889, p. 197199, no. 11; Id., «Τὸ Ἐθνικὸν Νομισματικὸν Μουσεῖον κατὰ το ἀκαδημαϊκὸν ἔτος 1903/4», Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique 7, 1904, p. 353, no. 37 (now SNG Greece 5.1346: see igure 6). 20. F. imhoof-blumer, Antike griechische Münzen, p. 112, no. 295; Id., «Miszellen», NZ 48, 1915, p. 103-104. 21. SNG von Aulock 7544 («von einem Händler im Hellespont erworben»); L. robert, Monnaies antiques en Troade, op. cit., p. 108 (Biga speciically). 22. F. imhoof-blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen 1:34 (Achilleion); Id., «Miszellen», NZ 48, 1915, p. 104 (Achaiion). 23. For this development see fr. de callataÿ, Les monnaies grecques et l’orientation des axes, Milan 1996, p. 66-67 (Hellespont), p. 101-117 (whole Greek world). the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 33 therefore exists that 1-2 were minted by Achilleion and 3-4 by Achaiion, something which Louis Robert overlooked when he later championed the attribution to Achaiion on the basis of Imhoof-Blumer’s work.24 Responding to Robert’s endorsement of this attribution of 1-2 to Achaiion, John Cook dismissed out of hand the possibility that Achaiion could be the mint: «It hardly seems necessary to enter into details here, because the matter is beyond dispute. Achaiion was politically subject to Tenedos until Roman times; and even Stephanus of Byzantium, always so prodigal of city status, does not know of it. But not only he but Herodotus [5.94.2] knew Achilleion as a polis. The coins must therefore be of Achilleion».25 It is noteworthy, however, that Cook provides no explanation for issues 3-4 whose longer ethnics and ind spots indicate that they can only have been minted by Achaiion. Since Cook’s brief discussion, the issue has been left unresolved. For example, in the Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis (2004) Stephen Mitchell remains agnostic, noting that 3-4 attest Achaiion as a mint in the 2nd c. and that F. Imhoof-Blumer attributed 1-2 (with the AX monogram) to Achaiion for the late Classical period, but then a few pages later Mitchell also attributes 1-2 to Achilleion anyway. As a result, whereas Achilleion gets listed as a polis, Achaiion is relegated to the category of pre-Hellenistic settlements not attested as poleis.26 The main issue at stake here is not really whether to attribute a small bronze coinage to one tiny settlement in the Troad instead of its equally tiny neighbour. Rather, as the approaches taken by Cook and Mitchell illustrate, the issue is polis status – what evidence can we use to establish its existence, what rights did it confer on a community, and to what extent could it be compatible with a dependent or subject political status? Since the monogram on issues 1-2 is ambiguous, it is clear that the matter cannot be resolved by studying the coins alone. However, progress can be made if we instead look to the archaeology of Achilleion and its neighbour Sigeion. 2. – THE SITE OF ACHILLEION For much of the 19th and 20th century the precise locations of Sigeion and Achilleion were disputed. However, in 1973 John Cook made a persuasive case that Sigeion was located at Yenişehir at the northern end of the Sigean Ridge and Achilleion at Beşik-Yassı Tepe at the southern end.27 Subsequently, Manfred Korfmann excavated at Beşik-Yassı Tepe in the 24. L. robert, Études de numismatique grecque, Paris 1951, p. 8-9 n. 4; Id., Monnaies antiques en Troade, op. cit., p. 106-108. 25. J. M. cook, The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study, Oxford 1973, p. 181. 26. S. mitchell, «Troas» in M. H. hansen, T. H. nielsen eds., An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 2004, p. 1001, p. 1003-1004. 27. J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 178-188. 34 aneurin ellis-evans Figure 7: The western Troad (the author). years 1982-1988, Reyhan Körpe conducted a rescue excavation at Yenişehir in 2001, Gebhard Bieg and Rüstem Aslan have published a study of Subaşı Tepe (a site 1 km south of Yenişehir and in the past a rival candidate for the site of Sigeion) in 2006, and Thomas Schäfer has led further excavations of Yenişehir and the surrounding area in 2005-2010.28 As a result, we now 28. Beşik-Yassı Tepe: M. korfmann et al., «Beşik-tepe: Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der Grabungen von 1982», AA, 1984, p. 165-95; m. korfmann et al., «Beşik-tepe … 1983», AA, 1985, p. 157-94; m. korfmann, a.-u. kossatz, «Beşik-tepe … 1985 und 1986», AA, 1988, p. 391-404; m. korfmann, «Beşik-tepe … 1987 und 1988», AA, 1989, p. 473-481; R. aslan, G. bieg, «Die mittel- bis spätbronzezeitliche Besiedlung (Troia VI und Troia VIIa) der Troas und der Gelibolu-Halbinsel: ein Überblick», Studia Troica 13, 2003, p. 165-213, at p. 177-179. Subaşı Tepe: g. bieg, r. aslan, «Eine Quellhöhle in Spratt’s Plateau (Subaşı Tepe) – wo lag Sigeion?», Studia Troica 16, 2006, p. 133-45. Yenişehir: r. körpe, m. f. yavuz, «Sigeion and its foundation» in Ç. özkan aygün ed., the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 35 know that Cook was right in his identiications of Sigeion and Achilleion and we possess a signiicant body of archaeological evidence for the settlement history of Beşik-Yassı Tepe and Yenişehir. Beşik-Yassı Tepe was occupied in four periods: 1) the early 3rd millennium; 2) ca. 580 – ca. 535; 3) the end of the 4th c. to the mid-2nd c.; 4) the 12th-13th c. AD. We may note straightaway that the fact that the Archaic level was found directly beneath the Hellenistic level and the absence in general of any Classical remains rules out two pieces of evidence usually used to establish Achilleion’s polis status: the dubious restoration of its name in the Athenian tribute assessment lists among the Ἀκταῖαι πόλες and Ps-Skylax’s reference to Achilleion as one of the πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες in the Troad.29 Of interest to us here are instead the Archaic and Hellenistic phases of occupation. Even though there is a 200-250 year gap between these two phases, it is useful to establish the status and function of the settlement in the Archaic era because this is the period for which Achilleion is explicitly labelled a polis by Herodotus, an important factor for Cook and Mitchell in attributing the later AX coinage to Achilleion. The Archaic phase of occupation clearly corresponds to the events of the so-called Sigean War known to us from the literary sources.30 Our sources have obviously embellished the narrative of this war, in part because it features cameos from several famous individuals (Alcaeus, Pittacus, and Periander). Nevertheless, the basic outline of the conlict is clear enough. Mytilene had founded Sigeion in the 7th c. at a time when it was involved in colonization throughout the coastal Troad and the Thracian Chersonese.31 In the late 7th c. the Athenian aristocrat Phrynon seized Sigeion for Athens, a move which can be placed in a broader context SOMA 2007: Proceedings of the XI Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Oxford 2009, p. 230-232; r. körpe, «The manufacture of protomes in the Aegean. A terracotta female protome mould from Sigeion», Thetis 18, 2011, p. 31-34; t. schäfer, «Sigeion Yüzey Araştırmaları 2005-2007», Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 26.2, 2008, p. 1-12; Id., «Sigeion, Troas. Bericht über die 1. Grabungskampagne 2009», Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32.2, 2010, p. 407-420; Id., «Sigeion … 2010» Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33.2, 2011, p. 239-259. 29. Stratigraphy: m. korfmann, a.-u. kossatz, AA, 1988, p. 394-395. Tribute Lists: IG I3 71.III.137 (425/4): Ἀ[χίλλειον]; 77.IV.23 (422/1): [Ἀχίλλε]ιον. For the numerous problems with the restoration of the Actaean panels see L. kallet-marx, Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1-5.24, Berkeley 1993, p. 155-159. Ps-Skylax: g. shipley, Pseudo-Skylax’s Periplous: The Circumnavigation of the Inhabited World. Text, Translation and Commentary, Exeter 2011, p. 6-8 dates the composition of the work to 338/7, but notes (FGrHist 2046 III.0.2) that the author can anachronistically include vanished communities. In this case, Achilleion’s status as a promontory on a relatively featureless coast may have induced Ps-Skylax to include it. This illustrates the potential danger of relying too heavily on Ps-Skylax to establish polis status, as we see throughout IACP, e.g. S. mitchell, op. cit., p. 1003 (Ps-Skylax as evidence for Achilleion being a «polis in the political sense»). 30. The best accounts are D. page, Sappho and Alcaeus: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient Lesbian Poetry, Oxford 1955, p. 152-161 and now S. hornblower, Histories. Book V, Cambridge 2013, p. 268-273. 31. Hellanicus of Mytilene FGrHist 4 F 24b (foundation of Arisbe on the Dardanelles), Ps-Skymnos FGrHist 2048 1.696-7 (foundations of Madytos and Sestos in the Thracian Chersonese), IG I3 71.III.124-41, 77.IV.14-27 (425/4 and 422/1 – extent of Mytilene’s peraia from Nesos Pordoselene off the coast of Aiolis to Ophryneion on the Dardanelles). 36 aneurin ellis-evans of Athenian interest in the neighbouring Thracian Chersonese and in Aegean Thrace more generally.32 Phrynon’s actions precipitated a conlict with Mytilene which was eventually settled in Athens’ favour by the Corinthian tyrant Periander. The Athenians won on the grounds that they had participated in the Trojan Wars and so their right to the land superseded that of the Mytilenaeans who had only arrived later during the Aeolian migration.33 Thereafter, Herodotus tells us that Mytilene set up a πόλις of Achilleion from which the Mytilenaeans continually warred with the Athenians at Sigeion.34 Mytilene’s choice of Beşik-Yassı Tepe will have been partly strategic (it is the obvious place from which to raid Sigeion), partly ideological: locating themselves next to the tumulus of Achilles and naming the settlement after the hero buried there was a riposte to the Athenian claim to Sigeion rooted in their participation in the Trojan Wars. In the 530s the Athenian tyrant Peisistratos set up his bastard son Hegesistratos as ruler of Sigeion. Since Herodotus says he had to win it back, it would seem that at some point in the mid-6th c. Mytilene had succeeded in recapturing Sigeion. While Herodotus calls Achilleion a polis, he also says that it was inhabited by Mytilenaeans who were there to ight with the Athenians at Sigeion, and we now know from the archaeology that it was irst settled a few decades after the conlict began and then abandoned around the same time the conlict ended. This suggests that Achilleion was in fact a fort and therefore Herodotus was either misinformed about the size and status of the settlement or, more probably, was using the term polis here in the sense of ‘stronghold’ rather than that of ‘political community’.35 It is unlikely that the Mytilenaeans manning Achilleion would have come to see themselves as a separate community (‘the Achilleitai’) since they were only a short distance from the rest of the Mytilenaean peraia (10 km north-east to Ilion or 20 km south to Kolonai) and a day’s sail from Mytilene itself. By contrast, the Athenians at Sigeion were several days’ 32. See briely A. moreno, Feeding the Democracy: The Athenian Grain Supply in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC, Oxford 2007, p. 140-143 and for Aegean Thrace L. kallet, «The origins of the Athenian economic arche», JHS 133, 2013, p. 43-60. 33. Hdt. 5.94.2, 95.2: Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ οὔτε συγγινωσκόμενοι ἀποδεικνύντες τε λόγῳ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον Αἰολεῦσι μετεὸν τῆς Ἰλιάδος χώρης ἢ οὐ καὶ σφίσι καὶ τοῖσι ἄλλοισι, ὅσοι Ἑλλήνων συνεπρήξαντο Μενέλεῳ τὰς Ἑλένης ἁρπαγάς ... Μυτιληναίους δὲ καὶ Ἀθηναίους κατήλλαξε Περίανδρος ὁ Κυψέλου· τούτῳ γὰρ διαιτητῇ ἐπετράποντο· κατήλλαξε δὲ ὧδε, νέμεσθαι ἑκατέρους τὴν ἔχουσι. See also Arist. Rhet. 1375b, Strabo 13.1.39 (both quoted below), and Apollodoros of Athens FGrHist 244 F 27a (who instead makes the conlict about the territory of the Achilleitai). 34. Hdt. 5.94.2: ἐπολέμεον γὰρ ἔκ τε Ἀχιλληίου πόλιος ὁρμώμενοι καὶ Σιγείου ἐπὶ χρόνον συχνὸν Μυτιληναῖοί τε καὶ Ἀθηναῖοι. For the interpretation of γάρ (important for the chronology) see S. hornblower, op. cit., p. 270. 35. For the term polis originally meaning ‘stronghold’ and only occasionally doing so by the Classical period see m. h. hansen, t. h. nielsen eds., An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford 2004, p. 16-17, p. 39-40, p. 42-43. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 37 sail from Athens during the summer months and to a great extent cut off from home during the winter. It therefore made sense for them to develop the institutions of an independent community, much as also happened with the Athenian settlements on Lemnos and Imbros.36 Since Herodotus can no longer be used to argue for Achilleion’s polis status, we are left with the statement in Strabo that: «Achilleion is the place where the monument of Achilles stands and is a small settlement (κατοικία μικρά)».37 However, we know from the archaeology that Achilleion had been abandoned for about a century and a half by the time Strabo completed the Geography late in the reign of Augustus. While Strabo was aware of the fate of the Troad’s more famous cities in his own day (e.g. places like Ilion and Alexandreia Troas), for smaller settlements he relied on whichever source he was using at that moment.38 In this case, he has just inished quoting Demetrios of Skepsis (ca. 205 – ca. 130) polemicizing against a clearly very confused Timaios of Tauromenion (ca. 345 – ca. 250) who had claimed that the Corinthian tyrant Periander had fortiied Achilleion against the Athenians using stones from Ilion.39 Demetrios was a native of Skepsis in the Troad who wrote a commentary on the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad.40 In the course of his learned discussions of various topics, he included a substantial amount of information about the Troad in his own day. Since the archaeology indicates that Achilleion was still occupied in Demetrios’ lifetime, it seems likely that he is the origin of this description of Achilleion as a κατοικία μικρά. While Demetrios has a reputation for misrepresenting the state of contemporary Ilion as a result of the rivalry between Ilion and his hometown of Skepsis, in the case of Achilleion we have more reason to trust Demetrios because his description of it as a κατοικία μικρά is borne out by the archaeology.41 Achilleion’s Archaic and Hellenistic remains are conined to an area 36. For the evolution of these institutions on Lemnos see D. marchiandi, «Rilessioni in merito allo statuto giuridico di Lemno nel V secolo a.C: la ragnatela bibliograica e l’evidenza archeologica: un dialogo possibile?» ASAA 86, Ser. 3, 8, 2008, p. 11-39 and E. culasso gastaldi, «Cleruchie? Non cleruchie? Alcune rilessioni sugli insediamenti extraterritoriali di Atene» in c. zizza, r. scuderi eds., In ricordo di Dino Ambaglio, Pavia 2011, p. 115-46 and for the important archaeological evidence L. ficuciello, Lemnos: cultura, storia, archeologia, topograia di un’isola del nord-Egeo, Athens 2013, p. 197-213. 37. Strabo 13.1.39: Ἀχίλλειον δ᾿ ἐστὶν ὁ τόπος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ Ἀχιλλέως μνῆμα, κατοικία μικρά. 38. G. ragone, «Corograia senza autopsia. Strabone e l’Eolide» in a. m. biraschi, g. salmeri eds., Strabone e l’Asia Minore, Naples 2000, p. 283-356. 39. Strabo 13.1.39: Τίμαιον [BNJ 566 F 129] δὲ ψεύσασθαί φησιν ὁ Δημήτριος [FGrHist 2013 F 27] ἱστοροῦντα ἐκ τῶν λίθων τῶν ἐξ Ἰλίου Περίανδρον ἐπιτειχίσαι τὸ Ἀχίλλειον τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις, βοηθοῦντα τοῖς περὶ Πιττακόν· ἐπιτειχισθῆναι μὲν γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν Μιτυληναίων τὸν τόπον τοῦτον τῷ Σιγείῳ, οὐ μὴν ἐκ λίθων τοιούτων οὐδ᾿ ὑπὸ τοῦ Περιάνδρου· πῶς γὰρ ἂν αἱρεθῆναι διαιτητὴν τὸν προσπολεμοῦντα; 40. E. schwarz, ‘Demetrios (78)’, RE 4, 1901, 2807-2813. 41. See G. ragone, «Polemica localistica e ζητήματα omerici in Demetrio di Scepsi» in E. lanzillotta et al. eds., Tradizione e trasmissione degli storici greci frammentari, Tivoli 2009, p. 653-695 and for an example of the archaeology of Ilion exposing Demetrios’ misrepresentations E. hatsaki, «Studies in Hellenistic Ilion: a note on roof tiles in the Lower City», Studia Troica 9, 1999, p. 225-36. 38 aneurin ellis-evans approx. 80 x 40 m atop a small promontory which juts out into the sea at the northern end of a shelving bay. This promontory is connected to a hill of slightly greater elevation which is approx. 400 x 80 m, but neither the Archaic nor the Hellenistic settlements expanded into this area. By contrast, Sigeion was spread out over much of Yenişehir (approx. 700 x 150 m) while Ilion, even though it was a modestly sized settlement and mostly conined to its citadel before the Hellenistic period, was still substantially larger than Achilleion (approx. 200 x 200 m). For the late Byzantine settlement at Beşik-Yassı Tepe, which occupied a similar archaeological footprint to the Archaic and Hellenistic settlements, Beate Böhlendorf-Arslan has estimated that the site could have housed no more than 40-70 people.42 When Demetrios speaks of a κατοικία μικρά, this is therefore probably what we should have in mind. The decent fortiications, small size, lack of public buildings, and failure to expand beyond the narrow conines of the promontory all suggest that in the Hellenistic period Achilleion was being used as a fort just as it had been in the Archaic period. We cannot be sure who was occupying Achilleion in the Hellenistic period or for what precise purpose, but two possibilities are worth bearing in mind. One is that Achilleion was the Seleukid ναύσταθμον mentioned in a letter of Antiochos I which is dated to 274. However, this could equally have been located anywhere along the Troad littoral.43 Alternatively, Aristotle refers to the Tenedians recently (ἔναγχος) appealing to the authority of Periander in a territorial dispute with the Sigeans.44 Achilleion (or rather the tumulus of Achilles) would be an obvious bone of contention in any territorial dispute between Tenedos and Sigeion. It is located at a point which is roughly equidistant between Sigeion and the Tenedian peraia, on the seaward side it protects Beşika Bay and has clear views of the entrance to the Hellespont, and on the landward side it overlooks the coastal road connecting the Skamander Plain to the core territory of the Tenedian peraia and, beyond, the route past Kolonai, Larisa, and Hamaxitos and on to Assos and Antandros south of Mt. Ida.45 Beyond these strategic considerations, controlling the tumulus of Achilles of course had ideological value. Since Periander’s arbitration allowed Mytilene to keep the land on which they subsequently built Achilleion, he would be a good authority for the Tenedians to cite in making the negative argument that the land did not belong 42. B. böhlendorf-arslan, «Wohnen auf dem Beşiktepe (Troas): einige Bemerkungen zur Architektur einer kleinen byzantischen Siedlung» in e. öztepe, m. Kadıoğlu eds., Patronus: Coşkun Özgünel’e 65. yaş armağanı, Istanbul 2007, p. 37-38. 43. I. Ilion 33.53-4. J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 185-186 and P. frisch, I. Ilion, 1975, p. 99 identify the Seleukid ναύσταθμον with the one in the Iliad and locate it near Sigeion on the basis of Strabo 13.1.36 (καὶ μὴν τό γε ναύσταθμον τὸ νῦν ἔτι λεγόμενον πλησίον οὕτως ἐστὶ τῆς νῦν πόλεως κτλ. … ἔστι γὰρ τὸ ναύσταθμον πρὸς Σιγείῳ, πλησίον δὲ καὶ ὁ Σκάμανδρος ἐκδίδωσι διέχων τοῦ Ἰλίου σταδίους εἴκοσιν). This is certainly possible, but one can equally imagine there being a Seleukid ναύσταθμον somewhere else in the Troad of which Strabo was completely unaware. 44. Arist. Rhet. 1375b: Τενέδιοι ἔναγχος Περιάνδρῳ τῷ Κορινθίῳ πρὸς Σιγειεῖς. 45. For remains of the ancient road at Hamaxitos (whose name refers to this trafic) see J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 233-234. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 39 to Sigeion (and therefore could belong to them). Aristotle’s reference to the dispute occurring ἔναγχος could refer to any point in the second or third quarter of the 4th c. depending on when this passage of the Rhetoric was drafted, but in any case a decade or two before Achilleion was re-occupied at the very least. However, with the creation ca. 304-302 of Antigoneia Troas on the peraia’s southern border and the incorporation of Sigeion into Ilion soon after 301, it would not be so surprising if the Tenedians felt the need to reoccupy border sites like Achilleion in order to preserve the territorial integrity of their peraia.46 Unfortunately, given the current state of the evidence this must remain a speculative reconstruction of how events unfolded. In conclusion, it seems very unlikely that Achilleion could have minted the AX coins. For both the Archaic and Hellenistic periods the archaeology suggests that Achilleion only functioned as a fort. While Stephanus of Byzantium and Herodotus refer to it as a polis, Stephanus is probably just repeating what he read in Herodotus, and when read in context Herodotus is best understood as using polis in the sense of ‘stronghold’ here.47 This only leaves Demetrios, whose description of Achilleion as a κατοικία μικρά would appear to rule out any kind of polis status, even of a dependent kind. We may note, inally, that whereas a very large number of Sigean bronze coins have appeared in the excavations of Sigeion, no AX coins appeared in the excavations of Achilleion.48 Now that it has been established that all four of the bronze coinages catalogued above must have been produced by Achaiion, we can turn to the question of what this means for reconstructing the city’s history. 46. For the synoikism of Antigoneia Troas probably dating to ca. 304-302 rather than ca. 311-306 as previously assumed see A. meadows, «The earliest coinage of Alexandria Troas», NC 164, 2004, p. 53-55, in particular the evidence of the Neandreian bronze countermarked with ΑΛΕΞΑΝ (D. sestini, Descrizione delle medaglie antiche greche del Museo Hedervariano, Florence 1828-1830, 2:139 no. 2). The incorporation of Sigeion into Ilion very soon after ca. 300 can be inferred from the Ottoman strata being directly above the ancient strata, the complete lack of Hellenistic ceramic wares in the ancient strata, and the circumstantial evidence of coin inds from mints other than Sigeion dating no later than the second half of the 4th c.: T. schäfer, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 32.2, 2010, p. 409-411; Id. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33.2, 2011, p. 248-249. 47. See D. whitehead, «Site-classiication and reliability in Stephanus of Byzantium» in D. whitehead ed., From Political Architecture to Stephanus Byzantius: Sources for the Ancient Greek Polis, Stuttgart 1994, p. 99-124, esp. p. 110-111 on his use of Herodotus. 48. Sigeion: T. schäfer, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33.2, 2011, p. 246, 249. Achilleion: M. korfmann et al., AA, 1985, p. 182: these included 1 AR (Price 2542), 7 AE (x1 Ptolemy IV; x1 Prousias I; x1 Abydos; x2 Ilion; x2 not securely identiied). 40 aneurin ellis-evans 3. – ACHAIION AND TENEDOS Strabo’s references to Achaiion clearly indicate that it was located on the mainland opposite Tenedos.49 We should therefore seek its location somewhere in the area which, roughly speaking, is bordered by the low hills to the north (around Üvecik and Mahmudiye) and south (around Dalyan – ancient Alexandreia Troas –, Kemallı, and Aladağ) and to the east by the heights of Karadağ which mark the transition to the middle Skamander valley (see igure 7).50 Within this area, Cook suggested that Achaiion should be located on the hill known in recent times as Liman Tepe (‘harbour hill’) or, more commonly, Han Tepe (‘caravanserai hill’) which lies 4 km west of Geyikli, the main village at the centre of this plain.51 Han Tepe is located on a small promontory about halfway between Geyikli’s current ferry terminal just to the north and the village’s former iskele (quay) of Odunluk (‘woodshed’) a short distance to the south which had previously provided ferry services to Bozcaada (ancient Tenedos). Presumably, this is why it was called ‘harbour’ or ‘caravanserai’ hill, just as the placename ‘woodshed’ likely refers to the type of building found at scalas throughout the Troad littoral in the 19th century.52 Surface surveys by Blegen’s team in the 1930s and by Cook and his companions in the 1950s found small amounts of pottery dating to the 3rd and 2nd millenium and to the Classical and Roman periods.53 While Han Tepe is currently the most likely candidate for being the site of Achaiion, only future excavations will be able to establish the correctness of this identiication. On all four occasions that Strabo mentions Achaiion he speciies that it was located in the Tenedian peraia. We do not know when Tenedos irst acquired this mainland territory, but Aristotle’s reference to a territorial dispute with Sigeion implies its existence by at least the mid-4th c. Perhaps, therefore, Tenedos irst secured the land in the 7th c. during the scramble for the Troad littoral that led to Athens seizing Sigeion and to Mytilene establishing its extensive peraia. It is assumed that Tenedos still held onto this territory until its incorporation into Alexandreia Troas in the Augustan period, but beyond Strabo’s testimony there is no irm evidence.54 The peraia’s territorial boundaries were probably roughly co-terminous with those of the area described above: to the north, the tumulus of Achilles may have marked the boundary with Sigeion and later Ilion; to the east, Karadağ may have separated the peraia from 49. μικρὸν δὲ προελθοῦσιν ἀπὸ τῆς παραλίας ταύτης ἐστὶ τὸ Ἀχαίιον ἤδη τῆς Τενεδίων περαίας ὑπάρχον (13.1.32); Κάρησος δ᾽ ἀπὸ Μαλοῦντος ῥεῖ, τόπου τινὸς κειμένου μεταξὺ Παλαισκήψεως καὶ Ἀχαιίου τῆς Τενεδίων περαίας (13.1.44); ἔστι δὴ μετὰ τὴν Σιγειάδα ἄκραν καὶ τὸ Ἀχίλλειον ἡ Τενεδίων περαία τὸ Ἀχαίιον (13.1.46). For the textual problem with the reference to Achaiion at 13.1.47 see below. 50. J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 189-191. 51. J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 195-196; R. aslan, G. bieg, op. cit. n. 28, p. 181-183. 52. Descriptions in H. schliemann, Troja, London 1884, p. 320-321 and W. leaf, Troy, A Study in Homeric Geography, London 1912, p. 202-203. Strabo 13.1.51 describes Aspaneus functioning in this way for Antandros: ὁ Ἀσπανεὺς τὸ ὑλοτόμιον τῆς Ἰδαίας ὕλης· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ διατίθενται κατάγοντες τοῖς δεομένοις. 53. J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 193-194. 54. For the Augustan date of Tenedos’ incorporation into Alexandreia Troas see RPC I 2319. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 41 the territory of Skamandria and later Ilion; and, despite a corrupt passage of Strabo seeming to suggest otherwise, to the south the boundary was probably with Kolonai until the foundation of Antigoneia Troas, and thereafter not far north of this.55 While this territory was hardly vast (16 x 8 km on a generous estimate), it was both larger and more fertile than what was available on Tenedos itself, and on its own at least equal in size, if not bigger, than the territories of many other cities along the Troad littoral. The structure of the Tenedian peraia (a fertile plain administered from a settlement on its edges for the beneit of an offshore island) most closely resembles the Samian peraia centred on Anaia, which is of comparable size.56 In the case of Anaia, the rich epigraphy of Samos reveals that both Samian citizens and the sanctuary of Hera on Samos owned substantial estates in the peraia.57 Just as for the citizens of Samos the land around Anaia was an important source not only of wealth, but also of social capital because of the prestige attached to land-owning, so we may imagine that the territory around Achaiion served a similar purpose for the citizens of Tenedos. In addition to agricultural wealth, Christopher Barnes has drawn attention to Aristotle’s statement in the Politics that a signiicant part of the Tenedian demos earned its living from πορθμευτικόν.58 He argues that this should be taken to refer not just to the ferrying of goods and people between Tenedos and the mainland, but also to a much broader spectrum of activities to do with maritime transportation. Tenedos was an important harbour and therefore a regular stop for ships in the north Aegean and, in particular, for ships sailing through the Hellespont. This created all the kinds of business opportunities which one would expect at an important harbour. These are illustrated, for example, in Apollodoros’ speech Against Polykles (delivered ca. 360-358) where he describes stopping at Tenedos, having to pay the sailors on his trireme so that they can purchase supplies in the town, and, because he lacks the funds to do this, taking out a loan from two Tenedians who are friends of his father.59 In addition to services such as these, Tenedians could also have made a living repairing ships and providing 55. For the synoikism of Skamandria see I. Ilion 63 (ca. 100 BC). The corrupt passage is Strabo 13.1.47: Λάρισα καὶ Κολωναὶ τῆς ... 10 ... δίας οὖσαι πρότερον. In his 1833 edition, groskurd saw that the Δ must be an Α, and so restored [Τενεδίων περ]αίας. However, this is 11 letters not 10, and so cook’s restoration of [Λεσβίων περ] αίας, which also agrees with the epigraphic evidence placing Larisa and Kolonai in the Mytilenaean peraia, is now generally accepted: J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 197-198; C. carusi, Isole e peree in Asia Minore: contributi allo studio dei rapporti tra poleis insulari e territori continentali dipendenti, Pisa 2003, p. 36; S. radt, Strabons Geographika: mit Übersetzung und Kommentar, vol. 7, Göttingen 2008, p. 497. Thus, in the 4th c. the Tenedian peraia’s border would have been with Kolonai and not Hamaxitos as the corrupt passage would otherwise imply. 56. Evidence for Anaia is collected in I. Ephesos VII.1:128-37 and G. shipley, A History of Samos, 800-188 BC, Oxford 1987, p. 267-268, nos. 4611, 4910. For the Classical period see U. fantasia, «Samo e Anaia», Serta Historica Antiqua, 1986, p. 114-123 and C. carusi, op. cit., p. 155-168 and for its status in Late Antiquity see pleket’s comments on SEG XLIX 1479.10-11. 57. IG XII (6) 11.5-20 (243 BC), 172A.20-37 (250s BC). 58. Arist. Pol. 1291b. 59. Ps-Dem. 50.53-6. 42 aneurin ellis-evans additional crew (and perhaps in particular pilots who knew how to navigate the entrance to the Hellespont), and merchants will of course have ofloaded cargo in the agora and purchased new consignments there.60 However, as Barnes notes, the factor which greatly increased the proitability of all these activities was the dificult sailing conditions around the Hellespont and the long delays at Tenedos which this entailed.61 In particular, he notes that a wait of days or weeks at the entrance to the Hellespont could be very costly for ships hoping to do more than one run in a sailing season. The solution to this problem found in the reign of Justinian was to build large granaries on Tenedos. Grain ships sailing from Egypt could thus do several runs to Tenedos in a single season without being delayed by the weather, and the grain stored there could then be brought through the Hellespont by other ships when the winds became favourable.62 Obviously, the particular arrangement Procopius describes required the massive resources of the Byzantine state in order to work. However, we can easily imagine a private-enterprise alternative to this being practiced in earlier periods, with the Tenedians themselves offering warehousing and transportation services for a fee for any number of goods (not just grain).63 For those willing to pay a premium to keep to schedule, the dificulty of entering the Hellespont could also have been circumvented by transporting the goods the 20 km by land from Achaiion to Ilion and then loading them onto ships waiting at the other end.64 Another aspect to the peraia’s value was therefore that it provided a land corridor, via the territory of Ilion, around the Hellespont’s entrance. In this connection, an honoriic decree passed by Ilion ca. 300 for four brothers from Tenedos is particularly suggestive.65 The brothers, who are already proxenoi and benefactors of Ilion, are granted a series of further rights and protections. Some of these are typical features of proxeny decrees (e.g. exemption from taxes on all goods, immunity from seizure of property in war and peace, the right to own property at Ilion, the option to become an Ilian citizen), but 60. C. barnes, «The ferries of Tenedos», Historia 55.2, 2006, p. 175. 61. Ibid, p. 169-170. 62. Procop. Aed. 5.1.15-16 with C. barnes, op. cit., p. 171-172. 63. C. barnes, op. cit., p. 174-175. 64. C barnes, op. cit., p. 174, n. 37. A truncated version of this shortcut was taken by evliya Çelebi in October 1659: «The felicitous sultan [Mehmed IV] exerted his every effort towards the completion of this castle [Sultaniyye Castle at the mouth of the Skamander], although he occasionally went hunting. Upon receiving news of some greyhounds, hounds, and falcons, the head falconer Canpuladzade dispatched this humble servant [Evliya] to the commander of Bozcaada [Tenedos], Sührab Mehmed Pasha, with a irman from the sultan. We galloped southward along the seashore for an hour and reached a trading port [Yeniköy, half-way between Sigeion and Achilleion] across from Bozcaada at the foot of the Kaz Dağ [Mt. Ida]. Leaving the horses here, we boarded an eight-seater boat which was ready to sail off, proceeded cautiously through the Eşek Islands [Kalydnai Islands] and, after many dificulties, made it to Bozcaada» (Seyahatname 5.91b30 = trans. H. T. karateke, Evliyā Çelebī’s Journey from Bursa to the Dardanelles and Edirne: From the Fifth Book of the Seyāḥatnāme, Leiden 2013, p. 112-113). 65. Throughout the following discussion I draw on an unpublished paper by kaja harter-uibopuu which she was kind enough to share with me. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 43 others are more unusual and therefore appear to be tailored to the circumstances and interests of the brothers. For example, tax exemption (ἀτέλεια) is also granted to whoever buys from or sells to them, and if the tax is nevertheless collected then a ine ten times greater than the tax must be paid to the Tenedian brothers (and not to the city of Ilion, as would usually be the case) as compensation.66 In addition, not only are they protected from having their property seized in the territory of Ilion (ἀσυλία), they are also granted the right to seize property in reprisal (σύλη) within this territory and are offered the assistance of the Ilians in doing so.67 Finally, it is curious that they are offered the opportunity to own property at Ilion tax free (ἐπ’ ἀτελείαι), since this was also available to them if they took up the offer of Ilian citizenship.68 However, the point of this seemingly superluous grant may have been to allow them to enjoy one of the principle beneits of Ilian citizenship without also having to perform the duties and pay the taxes which went along with it. While this package of honours would have beneitted any commercial venture, in light of the importance of maritime transportation to the Tenedian economy (as attested by Aristotle) it is tempting to see them as being designed speciically to lower the costs and risks involved in the kind of transportation business sketched out above, e.g. strong legal protections for the property being transported, a cost-effective means of owning warehouses in the territory of Ilion (perhaps at the scala of Aianteion speciically), and tax exemption for customers which would make doing business with the brothers more attractive and offset some of the extra cost involved in employing their services.69 This enumeration of the beneits which accrued to Tenedos because of its control of the peraia can, from another perspective, be viewed as an argument for the viability of Achaiion as an independent polis. Instead of Tenedians drawing on the peraia to supplement the limited agricultural land available to them on the island, it could have been land-owning Achaitai exporting this produce to them. And rather than Tenedian families receiving honours at Ilion, it could have been Achaitai forming such relationships in order to make their business ventures more proitable. Simply contrasting the fates of Achaiion and Tenedos – the one a footnote in Strabo, the other a renowned and prosperous city – might lead us to conclude that Achaiion’s geographical location put it at some sort of insuperable disadvantage. However, that is not the case. As we have seen, Achaiion was just as well placed as Tenedos to proit from shipping moving through the Hellespont, but in addition had the advantage of a larger and more fertile territory than Tenedos. 66. I. Ilion 24.5-9: καὶ ὃς ἂν ὠνῆται παρὰ τούτων ἢ πωλῆι πρὸς τούτους, ἀτελὴς ἔστω τοῦ τέλους· ἐὰν δέ τις πράξηται, δεκαπλοῦν ἀποδότω τὸ τέλος τοῖς προξένοις. 67. I. Ilion 24.14-17: καὶ ἂν ὑπό τοῦ ἀδικῶνται ξένων, ἐξεῖναι συλᾶν ἐκ τῆς Ἰλιάδος, συνλανβάνειν δὲ καὶ τὸ κοινὸν τὸ Ἰλιέων. 68. I. Ilion 24.11-12: ἔνκτησιν καὶ γῆς καὶ οἰκιῶν καὶ ἄλλου ὅτου ἂν θέλωσιν ἐπ’ ἀτελείαι. 69. Aianteion: J. M. cook, op. cit., p. 86-87. 44 aneurin ellis-evans As the traveller Aubry de la Motraye observed when he visited Tenedos in 1702, the island’s inhabitants chose to focus on wine production rather than growing grain or barley because it was a more proitable use of the limited land available to them, but this choice then left them completely reliant on the mainland for food and timber.70 We may contrast this evidence for Tenedian dependency on the mainland with the story behind the double-headed axe which featured as the reverse type on all coins of Tenedos. The axe celebrated a myth in which the island’s founder, Tenes, both literally and iguratively severed the island’s connection to the mainland: when his father, King Kyknos of Kolonai, attempted to sail from the mainland to Tenedos, Tenes severed the mooring ropes with a double-headed axe, setting himself and his island adrift from his father and the mainland.71 While the Tenedians may therefore have liked to imagine their prosperity as a home-grown phenomenon, in reality they were profoundly reliant on their mainland possessions. Had the roles been reversed, the same could not have been said for the importance of Tenedos to Achaiion. 4. – THE HISTORY OF ACHAIION Many important episodes in the political history of the Troad are only known to us from coins and inscriptions and are completely absent from our literary sources. For example, for over four centuries the cities of the Troad (and, on occasion, even cities beyond the Troad) ran the koinon of Athena Ilias which organized a major annual festival at Ilion’s sanctuary of Athena Ilias. Were it not for the koinon’s rich epigraphy and its handsome silver coinage of the 2nd and 1st c. we would be quite ignorant of its existence.72 Similarly, there are a number of small cities in the Troad which, like Achaiion, would be very shadowy presences were it not for their coinage (e.g. Birytis, Gentinos, Gergis, Skamandria, and Thymbra) or for leeting appearances in inscriptions (e.g. Kokkylion).73 Traditionally, it has been assumed that the right to mint coinage was a privilege reserved for poleis. If we accept this, then coinage can be viewed as a proxy for political status, and thus used to reconstruct the political history of communities which are otherwise poorly known to us. The question has recently been surveyed for the Classical period, and the conclusion 70. A. de la motraye, Travels through Europe, Asia, and into Part of Africa, London 1723-1732, 1:306: «Tenedos is hardly six Leagues round; it produces great Quantity of Muscadine and red Wines, which will keep when made without Mixture; the Soil is very proper for Wheat and Barley, but its Extent being but small, the Inhabitants ind that Vines turn to better Account; Asia, which is but little distant, furnishes it with Wood, which is there wanting, at a reasonable Rate; and they are always supply’d with Wheat very cheap from the Gulph of Caridia. Most Part of the Inhabitants of this Island are contain’d in one only Town, which is call’d by the same Name, and has a Fortress but little favour’d either by Nature or Art». 71. Aristotle fr. 593 Rose = Steph. Byz. s.v. Τένεδος, Paus. 10.14.1-4, Suda s.vv. Τένεδιος ἄνθρωπος, Τενέδιος ξυνήγορος. 72. See A. ellis-evans, «The koinon of Athena Ilias and its coinage» AJN 28, 2016, p. 105-58. 73. Kokkylion: SEG LVII 1264. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 45 that entities below the level of a polis did not mint their own coinage seems relatively certain.74 However, it remains to be seen whether this conclusion should also be extended to the Hellenistic period where the question has primarily been explored with regard to cities subordinate to kings, not cities subordinate to other cities – two very different relationships operating on very different scales. In the case of cities subordinate to kings, Meadows has pointed out the various shortcomings of the so-called lex Seyrig according to which no state issued coins in its own name if it was ruled by another state. In reality, kings were happy to leave cities to their own devices, viewing locally produced coinage neither as a sign of disloyalty nor as a threat to their tax base.75 Arguably, precisely the opposite was the case for cities subordinate to cities. Minting bronze coinage was a source of civic pride and a way for a community to turn a proit. This is made clear in a well-known passage of the decree for Menas son of Menes (ca. 133-120), which comes from nearby Sestos and dates to broadly the same era as Achaiion issues 3-4: When the people decided to use its own bronze coinage, so that the city’s coin type should be used as a current type and the people should receive the proit resulting from this source of revenue, and appointed men who would safeguard this position of trust piously and justly, Menas was appointed and together with his colleague in ofice showed suitable care, as a result of which the people thanks to the justice and emulation of these men has the use of its own coinage.76 Le Rider noted that the use of μέν … δέ … in expressing the city’s two reasons for wanting to mint its own bronze coinage suggests that each was considered equally important.77 We should therefore not follow Martin in downplaying the role of civic pride and considering proit the only true motivation.78 The idea that civic identity is of equal importance here is supported by Robert’s observation that the use of the adverb εὐσεβῶς to describe how Menas should perform his role most likely relates to the choices he made in designing the types, in particular the representation of Demeter on the coins.79 In producing their own bronze coinage, therefore, the Achaitai would have understood themselves to be expressing a political and civic identity distinct from that of Tenedos. Moreover, since the mechanism by which they proited from this iduciary coinage involved enforcing its use within a territory, it could be argued that 74. m. h. hansen, t. h. nielsen eds, op. cit. n. 35, p. 144-149. 75. A. meadows, «Money, freedom, and empire in the Hellenistic world» in a. meadows, k. shipton eds., Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford 2001, p. 53-63. 76. I. Sestos 1.43-9: τοῦ τε δήμου προελομέ̣ν̣ου νομίσματι χαλκίνῳ χρῆσθαι ἰδίωι χάριν τοῦ νομειτεύεσθαι μὲν τὸν τῆς π[όλ]εως χαρακτῆρα, τὸ δὲ λυσιτελὲς τὸ περιγεινόμενον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης προσόδου̣ λαμβάνειν τὸν δῆμον, καὶ προχειρισαμένου τοὺς τὴν πίστιν εὐσεβῶς τε καὶ δ̣ικαίως τηρήσοντας, Μηνᾶς αἱρεθεὶς μετὰ τοῦ συναποδειχθέντος τὴν καθ̣ήκουσαν εἰσηνέγκατο ἐπιμέλειαν, ἐξ ὧν ὁ δῆμος διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀνδρῶν δικ̣αιοσύνην τε καὶ φιλοτιμίαν χρῆται τῶι ἰδίωι νομίσματι. 77. g. le rider, Monnayage et inances de Philippe II. Un état de la question, Athens 1996, p. 87-88. 78. t. r. martin, Sovereignty and Coinage in Classical Greece, Princeton 1995, p. 238-241. 79. L. robert, OMS 6:133. 46 aneurin ellis-evans they were also making a claim to not just political but also inancial and territorial sovereignty. As was argued in the previous section, loss of the peraia would have been a serious blow to the prosperity of Tenedos. Consequently, it seems unlikely that the Tenedians would have stood by and let Achaiion assert its political, inancial, and territorial independence in this way. Equally, given that producing one’s own bronze coinage could be considered a strong statement of autonomy, as the decree for Menas of Sestos suggests, it is a likely irst act for a newly independent Achaiion to have taken. If this interpretation of the coins is right, then we can interpret Achaiion’s bronze coinage as attesting periods of independence from Tenedos in the late 4th/early 3rd c. and again at some point in the 2nd c. The trajectory of Achaiion’s history was therefore very similar to that of many other cities in the Hellenistic Troad. In Études de numismatique grecque (1951), Louis Robert argued that the history of many small and medium-sized poleis in the Hellenistic Troad was characterized by a dynamic interaction between two countervailing forces: on the one hand, centripetal forces of political incorporation, usually exerted by Ilion or Alexandreia Troas via synoikisms and sympoliteias; on the other, centrifugal forces of political disintegration, fuelled by the particularist politics of these small cities.80 For example, Antigonos included Skepsis in the initial foundation of Antigoneia Troas ca. 304-302, but when Lysimachos re-named the city Alexandreia after 301 he also allowed the Skepsians to leave the synoikism and become an independent polis once more.81 Kebren and Larisa, likewise participants in this synoikism, later became royal foundations (Antiocheia and Ptolemais respectively) and subsequently independent cities before being reincorporated into Alexandreia in the early 2nd c. And, as Alain Bresson has recently demonstrated, it was probably only in the years after the Peace of Apameia that Hamaxitos joined Alexandreia.82 Tenedos (and by implication Achaiion) was the last community to be swallowed up, only becoming part of Alexandreia in the reign of Augustus. A similar history of piecemeal expansion can be reconstructed for Hellenistic Ilion (Sigeion and Kokkylion in the early 3rd c.; Gergis, Rhoiteion, and Ophryneion after the Peace 80. L. robert, OMS 1:327-44; Id., Études de numismatique grecque, p. 5-68 (esp. p. 34-36); Id., Documents d’Asie Mineure, Paris 1987, p. 319-333. The criticisms of J. M. cook, «Cities in and around the Troad», ABSA 83, 1988, p. 7-19 are ultimately unpersuasive, in particular because they are based on an over-conidence in the eficacy of his own ield surveys and an inexact understanding of the numismatic evidence. 81. Strabo 13.1.33: ἔχθραν δ᾽ ἀεὶ καὶ πόλεμον εἶναι τοῖς τε Κεβρηνοῖς καὶ τοῖς Σκηψίοις, ἕως Ἀντίγονος αὐτοὺς συνῴκισεν εἰς τὴν τότε μὲν Ἀντιγόνειαν νῦν δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν· τοὺς μὲν οὖν Κεβρηνιέας συμμεῖναι τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐν τῇ Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, τοὺς δὲ Σκηψίους ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπιτρέψαντος Λυσιμάχου. For the dating of the synoikism to ca. 304-302 see n. 46. 82. A. bresson, op. cit. n. 18. An important part of his argument is the dating of a series of bronze coins of Hamaxitos (Obv. laureate head of Apollo r. Rev. Apollo Smintheus r., <LF> ΑΜΑΞΙ) to the late 3rd/early 2nd c. A decisive argument in favour of this dating which he overlooks is that the die axes of these coins are invariably adjusted to 12h (of 26 examples currently known to me all are 12h except two at 11h, one at 1h, and one at 6h [SNG Turkey 9.557]). For the dating signiicance of die axes uniformly adjusted to 12h see n. 23. the coinage and history of achaiion in the troad 47 of Apameia; Skamandria ca. 100).83 To this long list of examples it would now seem that we can add Achaiion, whose strategic position in the geography of the Troad placed it at the conluence of Tenedian, Alexandreian, and Ilian interests. 83. Sigeion: see n. 46. Kokkylion: SEG LVII 1264. Gergis, Rhoiteion, Ophryneion: Liv. 38.39.10 with J. M. cook, op. cit., 77. Skamandria: I. Ilion 63. ISSN 0035-2004 REVUE DES ÉTUDES ANCIENNES TOME 119, 2017 N°1 SOMMAIRE ARTICLES : Thibaut castelli, La chronologie des éponymes rhodiens de la in du IIIe s. et du premier tiers du IIe s. Nouvelles hypothèses ....................................................................................................... 3 Aneurin ellis-evans, The Coinage and History of Achaiion in the Troad ......................................... 25 Denis rousset, Considérations sur la loi éphébarchique d’Amphipolis ...................................... 49 Joëlle napoli, La stèle des saccarii iuvenes de Dyrrachium: une nouvelle igure de docker .............. 85 Jónatan ortiz-garcía, Viejo, roto y descosido: nuevos datos sobre la manufactura y uso de ..... sudarios pintados en el egipto grecorromano .............................................................................. 99 Mª Ángeles alonso alonso, Proyección pública e integración ciudadana de los medici en la.. Italia romana................................................................................................................................ 113 Patrick robiano, Tous Tyriens ? Rélexions sur l’identité tyro-phénicienne dans l’œuvre de ..... Flavius Philostrate ........................................................................................................................ 141 Alain billault, Entre rhétorique et esthétique : la poésie dans le traité Du Sublime ................. 167 QUESTIONS ET PERSPECTIVES Claude azziza, L’image de Rome dans la bande dessinée (1946-2016) ...................................... 181 LECTURES CRITIQUES François lerouxel, L’Italie républicaine est-elle encore au centre de l’histoire économique .... romaine ? ...................................................................................................................................... 197 Martin galinier, Quelle colonne érigera le peuple romain… ? » 2013, l’Année Trajan ............. 209 Tiphaine moreau, L’Antiquité tardive sur le nuancier des couleurs ............................................ 223 Comptes rendus............................................................................................................................. 237 Notes de lecture............................................................................................................................. 381 Liste des ouvrages reçus ............................................................................................................... 383 48€ ISBN 979-10-300-0202-7