DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.45246#0015
PRIENE.
the exact boundaries between the Samian and
Prienian lands: of this survey only the beginning
is preserved (lines 158-170). Of the recital of the
pleadings many lines have been lost. But enough
remains for us to see clearly the precise questions at
issue, the chief arguments urged by Samos and
Priene, and the final award of Rhodes. Incidentally
also this inscription does more. For it recovers
from oblivion a curious history of the Prienian
people, and its vicissitudes during the struggles of
the kings of Asia, Egypt, Thrace, and Macedon.
The question at issue was the ownership of Karion
and its neighbourhood, the Samians asserting that
the Prienian occupation of them was a modern en-
croachment. The arguments on either side were
based partly on inscriptions, partly on written
histories, and also on the circumstances of previ-
ous arbitrations. It is probable that the Samian
arguments are recited first, inasmuch as it was the
Samians who had raised the discussion, and they
are mentioned first in lines 8, 10, 11, 14, 29. If so,
the Samian delegates must have begun by tracing
back their occupation of the disputed lands to early
times. Although only a few words here and there
can be recovered of g, h, i, k, yet we can conjecture
the bearing of these fragments upon the argument,
by comparing them with the completer parts of the
document. Thus, in line 45, the reference to Ba-
tinetos is probably made in order to show how very
early Samos had held possessions on the coast.
They had argued in this way in the appeal before
Lysimachos (C. I. 2254; Greek Historical Inscrip-
tions, No. 152). For the same purpose they refer
to the partition of the land of ol /MeXiet? (lines 47 foil.),
—an event quite unknown to us, but evidently fami-
liar to the historians of those districts, and frequently
alluded to in this award (compare lines 55, 103, 108,
119). It appears that the Karion and its adjoining
land Dryussa originally belonged to Melia, a Karian
town mentioned by Hekatseos (as quoted by Stepha-
nus Byzantinus, s. v.). It was probably a native
Karian town, with which the Prienian colony at first
was glad to unite itself (lines 47, 48); but when the
Greek colony grew stronger, Melia was destroyed
and its territory divided amongst its Grecian neigh-
bours. Apparently this took place in the sixth
century b.c., for in lines 105 foil, it is spoken of as
earlier than the defeat at Δρυς. In this partition
the Samians affirmed that Karion and Dryussa were
allotted to Samos. We may suppose that in Λ the
Samian advocates brought down their claims to a
later date, but their arguments are lost. In z we
reach (as it seems) the arguments of the Prienians.
They begin their reply with a reference to the
‘ Histories of Maeandrios* of Miletos,’ endeavouring
to show that the Samian account of the partition of
Melia was incorrect (lines 53 foil.). Their allusion
to the Pan-Ionian festival reminds us that the Prie-
nians had been granted the privilege of appointing
a priest of Poseidon at that celebration (Strabo, viii,
p. 384 ; xiv, p. 639 ; compare No. ccccxxvi post}. In
lines 58 and 60 two minor towns of this coast, ΛΙαρα-
θησων and L4 rata, are said to have been acquired (by
the Samians ?), the one from the Milesians, the other
from the Kdlophonians. This curious bit of informa-
tion is confirmed by what we know from other
sources. Strabo (xiv, p. 639) says that Marathesion
at one time belonged to Samos, but the Samians
exchanged it away to the Ephesians for Neapolis
which was nearer to them. At a still earlier date
Marathesion had, it seems, belonged to Miletos.
That Anaea belonged to Samos in historical times
we know from Thucydides (iv, 75 ; iii, 19, 32 ; viii,
19) who tells us how the exiled oligarchs of Samos
established themselves at Ansea, and did serious
injury to the Athenian cause therefrom; (compare a
similar story of Ano, in earlier days, recounted by
Pausanias, vii, 4, § 3). In 5 we shall find a further re-
ference to Maeandrios, and to the Samian possession
of Pygela (or Phygela), a little town close by Marathe-
sion and Anaea. The fragmentary state of this part of
the award is the less to be regretted, as it dealt merely
with antiquarian arguments like those in i, which the
Rhodian arbitrators review later on in r and s.
The Prienians next endeavour to show (k, Z, in,
n, 0} their uninterrupted occupation of Karion and
Dryussa. They make mention of a στάσίς which
had occurred at Priene; a ‘Tyranny’ had been set
up, whereupon the δήμος, flying to the Karion under
the command of an irregularly appointed φρούραρχος,
took possession of the fort and murdered the gar-
rison as being partisans of the Tyrant (lines 65 foil.).
The point of their argument seems to be that this
forcible occupation of the Karion was not to wrest
it for the first time from the Samians, who never
had any claim to it, but was an act of self-defence
on the part of the democrats. We may conjecture
perhaps that the Tyrant at Priene and his partisans
in the Karion were in correspondence with Samos,
and that Samos endeavoured to take advantage of
the dissensions of Priene to strengthen her own
footing on the mainland. The Τυραννίς lasted two
or three years: then the δήμος returned, but the
possession of the Karion and its environs still re-
mained in their hands. They had even sold thirty-
seven allotments of the disputed land, and, later
on, five more lots. Documentary evidence was pro-
duced for the facts thus stated : and from these
the date of this revolution can be pretty closely
determined. The flight of the δήμος to Karion was
€7Γί στεφανηφόρου Μακαρίως (No. CCCCIII, lines 65, I 25).
They were restored in the third year from this, ίπϊ
στζφανηφόρου Λύκου (line 82). The appeal to Lysima-
chos concerning Batinetos was in the fifteenth year
from Lykos (lines 125, 126). But among the docu-
mentary evidence cited by the Prienians concerning
their triennium of exile were decrees sent by them
at that time, ποτι τούς βασιλέας Δη^μήτριον καί Λυσί-
μαχον (lines jp). This could not be earlier than
b. c. 306, when Lysimachos assumed the title of
. * This writer is named by Strabo, xii, p. 552; Athenaeos x, p. 454 B; Macrobius, Saturn, i, 17, § 21. His date is doubtful,
but he is probably not earlier than Alexander.
the exact boundaries between the Samian and
Prienian lands: of this survey only the beginning
is preserved (lines 158-170). Of the recital of the
pleadings many lines have been lost. But enough
remains for us to see clearly the precise questions at
issue, the chief arguments urged by Samos and
Priene, and the final award of Rhodes. Incidentally
also this inscription does more. For it recovers
from oblivion a curious history of the Prienian
people, and its vicissitudes during the struggles of
the kings of Asia, Egypt, Thrace, and Macedon.
The question at issue was the ownership of Karion
and its neighbourhood, the Samians asserting that
the Prienian occupation of them was a modern en-
croachment. The arguments on either side were
based partly on inscriptions, partly on written
histories, and also on the circumstances of previ-
ous arbitrations. It is probable that the Samian
arguments are recited first, inasmuch as it was the
Samians who had raised the discussion, and they
are mentioned first in lines 8, 10, 11, 14, 29. If so,
the Samian delegates must have begun by tracing
back their occupation of the disputed lands to early
times. Although only a few words here and there
can be recovered of g, h, i, k, yet we can conjecture
the bearing of these fragments upon the argument,
by comparing them with the completer parts of the
document. Thus, in line 45, the reference to Ba-
tinetos is probably made in order to show how very
early Samos had held possessions on the coast.
They had argued in this way in the appeal before
Lysimachos (C. I. 2254; Greek Historical Inscrip-
tions, No. 152). For the same purpose they refer
to the partition of the land of ol /MeXiet? (lines 47 foil.),
—an event quite unknown to us, but evidently fami-
liar to the historians of those districts, and frequently
alluded to in this award (compare lines 55, 103, 108,
119). It appears that the Karion and its adjoining
land Dryussa originally belonged to Melia, a Karian
town mentioned by Hekatseos (as quoted by Stepha-
nus Byzantinus, s. v.). It was probably a native
Karian town, with which the Prienian colony at first
was glad to unite itself (lines 47, 48); but when the
Greek colony grew stronger, Melia was destroyed
and its territory divided amongst its Grecian neigh-
bours. Apparently this took place in the sixth
century b.c., for in lines 105 foil, it is spoken of as
earlier than the defeat at Δρυς. In this partition
the Samians affirmed that Karion and Dryussa were
allotted to Samos. We may suppose that in Λ the
Samian advocates brought down their claims to a
later date, but their arguments are lost. In z we
reach (as it seems) the arguments of the Prienians.
They begin their reply with a reference to the
‘ Histories of Maeandrios* of Miletos,’ endeavouring
to show that the Samian account of the partition of
Melia was incorrect (lines 53 foil.). Their allusion
to the Pan-Ionian festival reminds us that the Prie-
nians had been granted the privilege of appointing
a priest of Poseidon at that celebration (Strabo, viii,
p. 384 ; xiv, p. 639 ; compare No. ccccxxvi post}. In
lines 58 and 60 two minor towns of this coast, ΛΙαρα-
θησων and L4 rata, are said to have been acquired (by
the Samians ?), the one from the Milesians, the other
from the Kdlophonians. This curious bit of informa-
tion is confirmed by what we know from other
sources. Strabo (xiv, p. 639) says that Marathesion
at one time belonged to Samos, but the Samians
exchanged it away to the Ephesians for Neapolis
which was nearer to them. At a still earlier date
Marathesion had, it seems, belonged to Miletos.
That Anaea belonged to Samos in historical times
we know from Thucydides (iv, 75 ; iii, 19, 32 ; viii,
19) who tells us how the exiled oligarchs of Samos
established themselves at Ansea, and did serious
injury to the Athenian cause therefrom; (compare a
similar story of Ano, in earlier days, recounted by
Pausanias, vii, 4, § 3). In 5 we shall find a further re-
ference to Maeandrios, and to the Samian possession
of Pygela (or Phygela), a little town close by Marathe-
sion and Anaea. The fragmentary state of this part of
the award is the less to be regretted, as it dealt merely
with antiquarian arguments like those in i, which the
Rhodian arbitrators review later on in r and s.
The Prienians next endeavour to show (k, Z, in,
n, 0} their uninterrupted occupation of Karion and
Dryussa. They make mention of a στάσίς which
had occurred at Priene; a ‘Tyranny’ had been set
up, whereupon the δήμος, flying to the Karion under
the command of an irregularly appointed φρούραρχος,
took possession of the fort and murdered the gar-
rison as being partisans of the Tyrant (lines 65 foil.).
The point of their argument seems to be that this
forcible occupation of the Karion was not to wrest
it for the first time from the Samians, who never
had any claim to it, but was an act of self-defence
on the part of the democrats. We may conjecture
perhaps that the Tyrant at Priene and his partisans
in the Karion were in correspondence with Samos,
and that Samos endeavoured to take advantage of
the dissensions of Priene to strengthen her own
footing on the mainland. The Τυραννίς lasted two
or three years: then the δήμος returned, but the
possession of the Karion and its environs still re-
mained in their hands. They had even sold thirty-
seven allotments of the disputed land, and, later
on, five more lots. Documentary evidence was pro-
duced for the facts thus stated : and from these
the date of this revolution can be pretty closely
determined. The flight of the δήμος to Karion was
€7Γί στεφανηφόρου Μακαρίως (No. CCCCIII, lines 65, I 25).
They were restored in the third year from this, ίπϊ
στζφανηφόρου Λύκου (line 82). The appeal to Lysima-
chos concerning Batinetos was in the fifteenth year
from Lykos (lines 125, 126). But among the docu-
mentary evidence cited by the Prienians concerning
their triennium of exile were decrees sent by them
at that time, ποτι τούς βασιλέας Δη^μήτριον καί Λυσί-
μαχον (lines jp). This could not be earlier than
b. c. 306, when Lysimachos assumed the title of
. * This writer is named by Strabo, xii, p. 552; Athenaeos x, p. 454 B; Macrobius, Saturn, i, 17, § 21. His date is doubtful,
but he is probably not earlier than Alexander.