Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:04:10.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New ΝΙΣΥΡΙΟΙ from Physkos (Marmaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

E. E. Rice
E. E. Rice
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In April 1983, the inscription published below was seen outside a house among the cafes along the harbour quay in Marmaris, Turkey, near the Customs House. The block had disappeared in September 1983, and it seems therefore unlikely that the inscription will be published elsewhere.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 104 , November 1984 , pp. 184 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of this type of funerary monument, see Fraser, P. M., Rhodian Funerary Monuments (Oxford 1977) 25 ff.Google Scholar, figs 59 (c), 60 (a–c). The epigraphical publications mentioned in n. 5 below are explained ibid. 83.

2 Fraser 25.

3 Fraser 33. Fraser, ibid. and n. 183, mentions that neither he nor G. E. Bean was aware of any published examples of these cylindrical altars from the Peraea, and it is therefore particularly unfortunate that the altar belonging to the Marmaris base has disappeared.

4 One may safely suppose that this monument was set up in Physkos, the only Rhodian deme center in the vicinity of Marmaris. Amos, a few miles away across the Bay of Marmaris, is the nearest deme center to Physkos, but there is no reason to think that the altar and base had been moved from the lofty, inaccessible site of Amos to Physkos.

5 IG xii (3) 164; Cl. Rh. vi/vii (1932–3) 544, nn. 1–4; Peek, W., Griechische Versinschriften (Berlin 1955)Google Scholar i no. 925; id., Inschr. dor. Ins. nn. 72, 74; id., Inschr. Nis. 377, no. 4.

6 For a discussion of the dates and circumstances of the incorporation of the Rhodian islands, see Fraser, P. M. and Bean, G. E., The Rhodian Peraea and Islands (Oxford 1954) 138 ff.Google Scholar; see ibid. 53 for the definition of Subject and Incorporated Peraea and the explanation of the difference between them.

7 For the notoriously complex problem of Syme, which is an exception to this group in that it was undoubtedly Rhodian but evidently not a deme, see Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 139–41, and Cook, J. M., JHS lxxxi (1961) 59–60Google Scholar; cf. Hornblower, S., Mausolus (Oxford 1982) 128 n. 177Google Scholar.

8 Συμβολή στήν ἱστορική καί ἀρχαιολογική ἔρευνα τῶν δήμων τῆς ἀρχαίας ᾿Pοδιακῆς πολιτείας i: Ἰαλυσία (Diss. Ioannina 1983) 71.

9 Papachristodoulou (n. 8) 44, 68, 71.

10 Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 147 n. 1, 152.

11 For Chalke, see Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 144 ff.; for Telos, 147 n. 1.

12 The status of the island at the end of the third century is fully discussed at Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 147–52; see also Holleaux, M., REG xxx (1917) 95 ff.Google Scholar ( = Études iv 169 ff.).

13 Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 148–51.

14 Bean, G. E., JHS lxxiii (1953) 31Google Scholar; Kinch, K. F. and Blinkenberg, Chr., Fouilles de Lindos, Pt 2: Les Inscriptions (Berlin/Copenhagen 1941) i 54, no. 74Google Scholar.

15 This is the conclusion reached by Fraser and Bean, Rhod. Per. (n. 6) 151; for the dates of the nauarchs in question, see 148 and n. 6. Neither Holleaux (n. 12) nor, more recently, Thompson, W. E., TAPA cii (1971) 615–20Google Scholar, saw the force of the argument about the date of Epicharmos. On the other hand, Nisyros cannot have been Rhodian much before 200 BC, because Philip V wrote to the island as an independent community (Syll. 3 573, = IG xii (3) 91) shortly before that date; see Rhod. Per. 151–2.