The New Order of Time and Cult in Synoecized Poleis
|November 1, 2016||Posted by Sven Schipporeit under Art/Archaeology, E-journal, Mythology/Religion, Research Symposium|
Citation with persistent identifier:
Schipporeit, Sven. “The New Order of Time and Cult in Synoecized Poleis.” CHS Research Bulletin 4, no. 2 (2016). http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:SchipporeitS.The_New_Order_of_Time_and_Cult.2016
1§1 In 408/7 BCE the old Rhodian city states of Ialysus, Camirus and Lindus united to form one polis and create a joint capital called Rhodes at the northern tip of the island (Figure 1). Diodorus and Strabo put this process under the common label metoikismos respectively synoikismos, whereas Konon tags it with the uncommon yet equally applicable term apokleisthesis. Cos, Cnidus, and other oligarchic or democratic communities hitherto only partially affiliated followed the Rhodian example more or less successfully in the course of the 4th century. They gave up their independence in favor of a superior and more distant sovereignty, sent out citizens to build up a new urban center, and therefore endangered the existence and identity of their old settlements for a prospective greater common goal.
1§2 My study explores the means by which the citizens from different ‘political’ affiliations assemble these new unified poleis in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE. In order to build a sustainable union out of poleis that have at times cooperated and at others competed, their citizens need to establish a collective space and order of time in which to move and live. These issues have to be negotiated immediately after signing the contract of unity and during the planning phase of the urban layout of the new capital. Following this assumption we will survey the archaeological and the written sources on the early years of Rhodian unification process.
2§1 The first important challenge is to provide sufficient public space for the citizens to gather, dispute and make terms: market places, theaters, courts and other buildings for political, administrative, economical, and juridical interaction. In the case of Rhodes the historical and archaeological evidence is patchy. The options for research and field work in the ancient layers of the city were restricted by the wide-scale medieval and modern overbuilding and by the insufficiently-documented intensive construction and reconstruction work after the earthquake of 1933. Many public structures, places, and buildings are yet not identified and their localization remains contested. Nonetheless, we know the overall design of Rhodes with its orthogonal grid (Figure 1). Spaciously laid out, the city was praised by ancient authors for its theatrical (θεατροειδής) form and pleasing appearance. Some shorter stretches of the original late-classical enclosure have been uncovered, though the greater parts of the walls visible today belong to the reconstruction phase after Demetrius’ siege of Rhodes in 305/4 BCE. Making the harbors and ports useable was a matter of urgency, too, as everyone involved in the final stages of the Peloponnesian War and its aftermath was only too aware. As early as 395 BCE, according to the Oxyrhynchus Historian and to Diodorus, the ports of the new capital could accommodate large fleets. The former reports that in the same year a democratic revolt against the oligarchic system broke out in the agora. Thus, Rhodians at that time already used the central market and meeting place for political assemblies and some of them may have lived in the middle of the big building site called Capital (ἄστυ). The most probable place for the agora is the flat area amidst the city, marked by surrounding main streets and a passing monumental sewer. How quickly the construction of the state buildings, the bouleuterion, dikasterion, ekklesiasterion, or the prytaneion in the ἄστυ of Rhodes progressed was secondary in the beginning as long as the members of the council, the court, the assembly, and the government met and performed their tasks regularly at the agora. The theater, presumably lying in the southern part of the city, served the pan-Rhodian Demos as assembly place too. Perhaps it was included in the original city map, like the gymnasium, also not localized, mentioned by Vitruvius with regard to the philosopher Aristippus of Cyrene. Aristippus, a contemporary of the Rhodian synoecism, died in the middle of the fourth century BCE, but the date of construction is still unknown for both institutions.
3§1 Second, the citizens have to define and lay out sacred space where they will share religious experience: places, streets as well as sanctuaries, of all kinds and for various needs serve as venues to celebrate and venerate together the same gods and heroes. Civic activities in cult practice include performance and participation in festivals, processions, sacrifices, and offerings.
3§2 Sacred space can be traced in Rhodes at several places. At the northern end of the city wall a humble, but nevertheless important sanctuary of Demeter Thesmophoros with several small cult buildings has come to light (Figure 1: “Demeterheiligtum”). Early classical votive figurines indicate that the temenos was already in use before the founding of Rhodes, probably belonging to an older harbor settlement of Ialysus. Female citizens regularly met in Thesmophoria to honor the divine protectress of women, agriculture, and household.
3§3 A temple for Aphrodite, dated to early Hellenistic times, stands close to the northeastern harbors (Figure 1: “Tempel”). In Cos, there is a Hellenistic temple for Aphrodite Pandamos in a similar position outside the city wall facing the inner harbor. Her cult seemed to be associated not only with the well-being and the harmony of the civic body, but also with the synoecism of citizens. Apollodorus (FGrHist 244 F 113) and Pausanias (1, 22, 3) link the Athenian cult of Aphrodite Pandamos with the unification of Attica by Theseus, who assembled the people near her temple at the so-called Old Agora in Athens. It is therefore quite conceivable that this specific cult of Aphrodite was established in Rhodes and in Cos early in the course of the unification processes after 408/7 BCE and after 366/5 BCE respectively.
3§4 A tall, late Classical temple of the Doric order probably stood at the agora. Several large-size column drums were unearthed without proper documentation in the vicinity of the supposed market place site. In the same area some experts suggest a sanctuary of Dionysus might have stood. Then again we might expect the god at the Rhodian theater as well. In the light of certain finds, a sanctuary of Asclepius should be located between the southwestern parts of the medieval town of Rhodes and the ancient acropolis. The cult of the healing god enjoyed a greater popularity in the Dodecanese already in the 4th century BCE; soon becoming the patron deity of Cos. One has to wait for more detailed reports on both cults and sanctuaries in Rhodes.
3§5 Moving to the western parts of the city, there are certain grottoes, enigmatic and difficult to date, on the gentle north slope of the acropolis, mostly designated as Nymphaia. Above them lies the ruin of the monumental Doric of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus (Figure 1: “Zeustempel”). The Hellenistic building had a late Classical predecessor, according to the Italian excavators. With a view to Athena’s and Zeus’ epithet, defining them as guardians of the city, one might expect the temple to be built in the early 4th century, however, not Athena but Helios has been chosen as the patron deity of the unified island. A time of construction in the late century is more plausible for the temple, when the combined cult of Athena Polias and Zeus Polieus gained more prominence in the old three city-states of Rhodes, as inscriptions suggest. To the south, a second impressive Doric peripteral temple dominates the central plateau of the acropolis above the ancient and the modern city (Figure 1). Reconstructed by Italian architects in the 1930s, the corner of the northern front porch belongs to a Hellenistic restoration of the late Classical temple. Likewise the stadium and maybe the odeon beneath, which stem from late Hellenistic-Imperial times in their present, heavily restored appearance, can be traced back to the 4th century BCE. Apollo Pythios is widely regarded as the divine owner of the whole site, but a recent attack on the communis opinio replaced him with Helios. First, the decisive Hellenistic votive base with the plain dedication of the Athenian politician Glaukon, son of Eteokles, to Apollo Pythios has been found without archaeological context on the Acropolis and there is no further supporting proof for the traditional attribution. Second, the Pythian Apollo does not appear to have taken a decisive role in the Rhodian pantheon, unlike Helios. It is more reasonable to expect the new poliadic god on the Acropolis. One more thought on the size, capacity and function of the area could be added. The public festival of the Halieia constituted an integral part of the cult of the Helios, and they were certainly established simultaneously to its introduction in the late 5th century BCE. The ambition for the Halieia was to compete someday with the Panhellenic games at Delphi, Isthmia, Nemea and Olympia, but for the start at least with the Eleusinia and the Panathenaia. It included musical and gymnic agones with diverse foot races and chariot races for boys and adults. And apart from white poplar wreaths, vessels imitating black-figured Panathenaic prize amphoras were offered as awards. The only known site offering a suitable place is on top of the Acropolis with a proper stadium for the athletic competitions and an odeon for the musical rehearsals. In addition, to the south of the temple and stadium, there seems to be sufficient space for a hippodrome. This temenos is by far the more likely contender for the sanctuary of Helios than the other suggested candidates, which include a spot near the Grandmaster Palace, in the northeastern center of the late Classical city, or an area in the western city region at a large Hellenistic insula which sheltered a comparatively small sanctuary of the Haliastai, a private cult association caring for Helios and his cult officials (Figure 1: “Heiligtum”).
Order of Time
4§1 This brief survey suggests that the Rhodians had established and outlined the common public and sacred space of their capital from its early beginning, even if the archaeological picture is still sketchy. Both fields are the object of intense research in classical studies on the Greek polis whereas much less attention has been paid to time itself as an important factor or component in this processing. To reach a consensus on the order and sequence of time is a vital prerequisite for a polity: not only to organize the individual agendas of daily life but to develop a collective identity. This is true not only for synoecized poleis, but for every community. Citizens have to know the days to meet for worship, war, trade, jurisdiction, celebration, joy and grief; whether on the level of the polis or on the interior personal and regional levels of the phylai, demes, patrai and further subdivisions like the specific Camirian ktoinai. Therefore the introduction of the combined Rhodian calendar and its related new order of cults and festivals, discussed and introduced in 408/407 BCE or shortly thereafter is worthwhile studying.
The Rhodian Calendar
5§1 The Greek calendar system, based on the lunar phase, is very unique. Not one case is documented where two poleis, if not a metropolis and its apoikia, used an identical calendar. Neither the names nor the sequence of the months nor the official start of the year followed a generally accepted rule, even though one can state similarities within regional groups of poleis. And, despite noticing that the lunar year is with 354 days eleven to twelve days too short, Greek cities didn’t respond with a more accurate solar-based calendar, until Julius Caesar and his heir Augustus introduced the Egyptian calendar model operating on the solar year of 365 days. Up to that change, the Greek cities stuck to the remedy of the intercalary month, which had to be inserted from time to time to keep up with the seasons and the solstices. From classical times on some cities seemed to insert these months by a shifted 4- and 8-year interval system, like Rhodes probably did with the Panamos Deuteros. On the other hand, in the 3rd century BCE, the Samians had to insert at least three months, each called ἐμβόλιμος, in a single year to get back on track. Generally, studies on Greek calendars are tricky as the number of ancient testimonies is small and scattered.
5§2 For Rhodes, 13 months of the post-synoecism calendar are testified: we have Dalios, Karneios, Thesmophorios, Diosthyos, Theudaisios, Pedageitnios, Badromios, Sminthios, Artamitios, Agrianios, Hyakinthios, Panamos and Panamos Deuteros. But their sequence is still open to discussion. Their chronological distribution over the year is testified in parts by inscriptions and assured only for spring and early summer. Therefore Mommsen, Paton and Hicks, Hiller von Gärtringen, Nilsson, Börker, Trümpy and Badoud looked at the month names which were stamped into thousands and thousands of Rhodian wine amphora handles together with an emblem, often a rose, and the names of the eponymous priest of Helios and the maker from the 3rd century BCE onwards (Figure 2). Taking into consideration the impact of weather on the pottery production, they assembled the monthly output figures to a smooth distribution curve. That is, from a low in the humid and cold winter months, production of amphoras accelerated to a high in the dry summer months, reaching its peak in Panamos, in July/August, then went down again in the fall.
5§3 As persuasive as graphs and diagrams always appear today, they derive from an assumption. This model, for example, doesn’t take into account the impact of the greater public festivals on production and trade. The chronological order of the calendar depending on this premise is not really secured for winter and even less for late summer/early fall with the debated placement of Karneios and Thesmophorios. The prevalent sequence, established by Börker, and refined by Trümpy and Bahoud, of Thesmophorios in September/October and Karneios in October/November (Figure 2) would fit into the fragmented month sequences in the inscriptions, but by no means to the traditional placement of both months and their eponymous festivals. The Karneia were celebrated by the Lacedaemonians as one of their most important festivals for nine days from 7th to 15th Karneios, a month approximately equivalent to August or September. But the Karneia surely were also of greater meaning in other cities like Argos, Cos, Cnidus, Cyrene, Epidaurus, Megara, Syracus, Thera and Thurioi. They were linked to the present and the past city by processions traversing each urban area, by references to the myth of the Herakleidai and the founding histories of Sparta, Thera and Cyrene. They acknowledged the social and military organization of each city by drawing adolescent representatives from the tribes who had to live in a camp of tents in the country and to hunt down a chosen runner decked with garlands, while they themselves held grapes. During these festival days, Sparta avoided or interrupted any military action. Furthermore, agrarian and piacular aspects may be detected as well. Karneios was placed in the summer around August/September not only in Sparta, but also in other Dorian poleis with shared affiliations to Rhodes like Argos, Cos, Epidaurus and Megara. The widespread assumption that the inhabitants of Cyrene gathered for the festival in spring is based on a very strained reading of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo, set by the poet in his home town, and should be reconsidered. One would be reluctant to shift a festival of such importance so early in spring for the Dorians and so deep into late fall for the Rhodians.
5§4 Nor would September/October correspond to the regular position of the Thesmophoria in months corresponding with October/November, like the Pyanopsion in Athens and Attica, where the women celebrated in the demes. The most prominent female and agricultural festival in ancient Greece anchored the farming cycle of the year at its end after the last harvest and its beginning, in the weeks of plowing and sowing in mid fall. These are strong reasons for the sequence Karneios – Thesmophorios favored by Nilsson and Hiller (Figure 2), if we take into account the context of social, agricultural and religious needs and traditions.
5§5 But irrespective of the preferred month sequence it is worth noting that all these things had to be negotiated by the Rhodians in the unification process. This probably went easily with Karneios regarding his name, as he was certainly already established in all three poleis, but perhaps more difficult with his placement in the calendar. The month Thesmophorios is interesting, as Demeter’s corresponding cult and festival of the Thesmophoria, despite their eminence, were of no significance for the name-giving of months in Greek calendars. Only Rhodes, and some Karian cities in the Rhodian area of influence with the Ionian spelling Θεσμοφοριών, had this month, although there are late testimonies for Lato on Crete, Skepsis in the Troad and Termessos in Pisidia as well. By choosing the name Thesmophorios the Rhodians were perhaps the first to underline the importance of a prospering agricultural sector for the welfare and future of their common venture; maybe for this reason they deleted the names of the three old related months.
5§6 Similar thoughts on tendencies to rationalize time and religion arise when we look on the twin months Panamos and Panamos Deuteros and the enigmatic festival Dipanamia. Panamos, a month without a proper ending in -ίος or -ιών and without a related god or festival Panamia, was the intercalary month in many calendars. So the Rhodians upgraded Panamos to a regular month then, in need of a intercalary month, just doubled its name and added to the “second Panamos” a festival called Dipanamia that was meant to take place in its shifted 4- and 8-year intercalary rhythm.
5§7 With regard to these questions of how to create, change and rationalize a common time, let us briefly consider the installation of Helios as the principal god of the pan-Rhodian state, and the placement of the Halieia, his agonistic festival, in the calendar. Recent studies put the Halieia into the month Dalios and proclaimed it the first month of the eponymous year. The eponymous official was the priest of Helios, the most prestigious position for a Rhodian. Thus the civic body had the names recorded in an inscribed stele, whose upper part was found near the Grandmaster Palace, without archaeological context. We may assume that the list, recording Euphragoras, son of Pyrgalos, as the first of these priests in 407 BCE, was put on public display in an easily accessible location, for instance at the agora. It is remarkable that the Rhodians declined to create a dependent month name, such as Helios. Dalios, mentioned above, is a solitary month name with a very similar sound, but still the name alludes more to Apollo Delios in a Dorian spelling than to Helios.
Order of Time and Cult
6§1 In some cases the Rhodians would synchronize the date and duration of their sacrifices and festivals of public interest, in others not. Some gods and cults would be promoted to pan-Rhodian level, others would stay local. In all cases the citizens must be informed, in order to avoid schedule conflicts in their religious, public, economic, and military interests. Hence the public display of the related calendar is crucial. Certainly Rhodes generated a cult calendar in the very early years of the unified polis, as Cos did after its synoecism in 366/5 BCE. At present, five fragmented stelae, dated by epigraphic arguments to the middle of the 4th century BCE, are known, each of them covering one month. In the same time frame we see a similar phenomenon recurring in Athens, but under different terms. Amidst a deep state crisis at the end of the Peloponnesian War the Assembly commissioned Nicomachus and a board twice, in 410/9 and 403/2 BCE, to lay down a revised and very detailed version of the Solonian cult calendar with all public sacrifices. After 10 years work, interruptions included, the inscribed version was set up in stone easily accessible at the Stoa Basileios in the agora. It immediately provoked discontent. Nicomachus was accused of asebeia and in the heated situation of 400/399 BCE faced the death penalty like Socrates. His crime was to change the set, acting against κάτα τὰ πάτρια by omitting and adding sacrifices. In the end he survived, but historians still argue whether his issue of the calendar was sanctioned or, at least in parts, dismissed or even erased, as surviving parts of the calendar might possibly indicate. The incident shows what could happen if sufficient public consensus wasn’t reached. People took these issues seriously. To create and form by mutual consent an order of collective schedule, experience, and notion of time in general, and in particular for cults as well, was indispensable and integral for the present and the future commonwealth of Rhodes and of other synoecized poleis.
Ashton, R. H. J. 2001. “The Coinage of Rhodes 408–c.190 BC.” In Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, ed. A. Meadows and K. Shipton, 79–115. Oxford.
Badoud, N. 2015. Le temps de Rhodes. Une chronologie des inscriptions de la cité fondée sur l’étude des ses institutions. Vestigia 63. Munich.
Börker, Chr. 1978. “Der rhodische Kalender.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 31:193–218.
Brown, M. K. 2002. The Narratives of Konon. Text, Transition and Commentary of the Diegesis. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 163. Munich.
Carawan, E. 2010. “The Case against Nikomachos.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 140:71–95.
Carbon, J.-M. 2015. “Ritual Cycles: Calendars and Festivals.” In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, ed. E. Eidinow and J. Kindt, 537–550. Oxford.
Davidson, J. 2007. “Time and Greek Religion.” In A Companion to Greek Religion, ed. D. Ogden, 204–218. Oxford.
Dietz, S. and I. Papachristodoulou, eds. 1988. Archaeology in the Dodecanese. Symposium, Copenhagen April 7th to 9th, 1986. Copenhagen.
Dignas, B. 2003. “Rhodian Priests after the Synoecism.” Ancient Society 33:35–51.
Dillon, M. P. J. 1999. “Post-nuptial Sacrifices on Kos (Segre, ED 178) and Ancient Greek Marriage Rites.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 124:63–80.
Ehrhardt, W. 2014. “Inklusion und Exklusion. Die Temene innerhalb des Westsektors in Knidos.” In Stadtkultur im Hellenismus. Hellenistische Polis als Lebensform 4, ed. A. Matthaei and M. Zimmermann, 9–51. Mainz.
Gabrielsen, V. 2000. “The Synoikized Polis of Rhodes.” In Polis and Politics. Studies in Ancient Greek History. Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on his Sixtieth Birthday, August 20, 2000, ed. P. Flenstedt-Jensen et al., 177–205. Copenhagen.
Gabrielsen, V. and T. H. Nielsen “Rhodes.” In Hansen and Nielsen 2004:1196–1210.
van Gelder, H. 1900. Geschichte der alten Rhodier. The Hague.
Graf, F. 2011. Apollo. New York.
Hannah, R. 2005. Greek & Roman Calendars. Construction of Time in the Classical World. London.
Hannah, R. 2009. Time in Antiquity. London.
Hansen, M. H. and T. H. Nielsen, eds. 2004. An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation. Oxford.
Head, B. V. 1897. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Caria, Rhodes etc. A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum 18. London.
Hiller von Gärtringen, Fr. 1931. “Rhodos” RE Suppl. 5:731–840.
Hoepfner, W. and E.-L. Schwandner, eds. 1994. Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland. Munich.
Hoepfner, W. 2003. Der Koloss von Rhodos und die Bauten des Helios. Neue Forschungen zu einem der sieben Weltwunder. Mainz.
Jacopi, G. 1932. “Nuove epigrafi delle Sporadi meridionali (Parte Seconda).” Clara Rhodos 2:169–255.
Kondis, I. D. 1956. “Ανασκαφικαί έρευναι εις την πόλιν της Ρόδου.” Praktika:214–222.
Konstantinopoulos, G. 1990. “Städtebau im hellenistischen Rhodos.” In Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, ed. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 207–213. Mainz.
Kontorini, V. 1989. Aνέκδoτες επιγραφές Ρόδoυ, 2. Inscriptions inédites de Rhodes, 2. Athens.
Maiuri, M. and G. Jacopich, eds. 1928. Rapporto generale sul servizio archeologico a Rodi e nelle isole dipendenti dell’anno 1912 all’anno 1927. Primo Convegno archeologico internazionale di Rodi, Maggio 1928, Clara Rhodos 1. Bergamo.
Mommsen, A. 1889. “Jahresbericht über die griechischen Sakralaltertümer. 5. Artikel: Rhodos.” Bursians Jahresberichte 60:409–437.
Morelli, D. 1959. “I culti in Rodi.” Studi classici e orientali 8:1–184.
Morricone, L. 1949–1951. “I sacerdoti di Halios. Frammento di catalogo rinvenuto a Rodi.” Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene 11–13:351–380.
Nilsson, M. P., ed. 1909/1910. Timbres amphoriques de Lindos. Exploration archéologique de Rhodes 5:121–137. Copenhagen.
Nilsson, M. P. 1962. Die Entstehung und religiöse Bedeutung des griechischen Kalenders. Lund.
Papachristodoulou, I. C. 1999. “The Rhodian Demes within the Framework of the Function of the Rhodian State.” In Hellenistic Rhodes. Politics, Culture, and Society. Conference held at Fuglsang Manor on 29 August – 1 September 1994. Studies in Hellenistic Civilisation 9, ed. V. Gabrielsen and P. Bide, 27–44. Aarhus.
Parker, R. 2009. “Subjection, Synoecism and Religious Life.” In The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, ed. P. Funke and N. Luraghi, 183–214. Washington, DC.
Paul, S. 2015. “Local Pantheons in Motion: Synoecism and Patron Deities in Hellenistic Rhodes.” CHS Research Bulletin 3 no. 2.
Paton, R. W. and E. L. Hicks. 1891. The Inscriptions of Cos. Oxford.
Rice, E. E. 1995. “Grottoes on the Acropolis of Hellenistic Rhodes.” Annual of the British School at Athens 90:383–404.
Riethmüller, J. W. 2005. Asklepios. Heiligtümer und Kulte 1–2. Studien zu antiken Heiligtümern 2, 1–2. Heidelberg.
Ringwood, A. I. 1936. “Festivals of Rhodes.” American Journal of Archaeology 40:432–436.
Rhodes, P. J. 1991. “The Athenian Code of Laws, 410–399 BC.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 111:87–100.
Rocco, G. and M. Livadiotti, eds. 1996. La presenza italiana nel Dodecaneso tra il 1912 e il 1948. La ricerca archeologica. La conservazione. Le scelte progettuali. Catania.
Rocco, G. 2004. “Coo. Il complesso sacro a est dei quartieri del porto.” In Χάρις χαίρε. Mελέτες στη μνήμη της Χάρης Kάντζια. Studi in memoria di Charis Kantzia, ed. A. Giannikouri, 175–194. Athens.
Rosenzweig, R. 2004. Worshipping Aphrodite. Art and Cult in Classical Athens. Ann Arbor.
Schipporeit, S. T. 2013. Kulte und Heiligtümer der Demeter und Kore in Ionien. Byzas 16. Istanbul.
Sokolowski, F. 1962. Lois sacrées des cités grecques, Supplément. Paris.
Trümpy, C. 1997. Untersuchungen zu den altgriechischen Monatsnamen und Monatsfolgen. Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft: Reihe 2 N. F. 98. Heidelberg.
Vedder, U. 2015. Der Koloss von Rhodos. Archäologie, Herstellung und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines antiken Weltwunders. Mainz.
Wiemer, H.-U. 2002. Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos, Klio Beih. N. F. 6. Berlin.
Zervoudaki, E. 1975. “Ἥλιος και Ἁλίεια.” Archaiologikon Deltion 30:1–20.
 Diod. 13, 75, 1; Strab. 14, 2, 10 (unification); 14, 2, 5–13 (Rhodes in general); Konon FGrHist 26 F 1, 47, 6 (‘to shut in/join/enclose’ deriving from the main meaning of ἀποκλείω, as in Hdt. 4, 100, 2; 7, 129, 1; see Brown 2002:321–327 esp. 327 on lines 25–27); van Gelder 1900, esp. 82–83 with further ancient references; Hiller von Gärtringen 1931:763–772; Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:51–52; Gabrielsen 2000; Wiemer 2002:53–66; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004; Parker 2009; Vedder 2015:33.
 On the successful cases of Halicarnassus and Cos see Flenstedt-Jensen, P. 2004. “Karia.” In Hansen and Nielsen 2004:1115–1116 No. 886; 1123–1125 No. 903; Parker 2009; on Cnidus see Reger, G. 2004. “The Aegean.” In Hansen and Nielsen 2004:752–755 No. 497–500. See Hansen and Nielsen 2004 and other studies of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, the bulk of it published between 1993 and 2007, on synoecized cities.
 Other components, like the issue of a common currency, may help the unification effort, too, but are not essential at the outset. As close neighbors, the Rhodian states certainly had proven exchange rates for a long period; nevertheless, soon after their unification they started to bring a common coinage on the market struck on the Chian-Rhodian standard – with the head of the sun god Helios obverse and the nymph Rhodos or the rose flower incused reverse. The legend ΡΟΔΙΟΝ is explicit enough for all users; see Ashton 2001:79–82 pl. 6 with the botanical description of the Rhodian rose variety of dog rose; Head 1897:230–234 pl. 36 (223–229 pl. 34. 35 on the coinage of the old three poleis); compare Gabrielsen 2000:187–188; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1208.
 My thanks go to the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut and the Center for Hellenic Studies. Their joint fellowship allowed me to work intensively in Berlin and Washington on the urban and cultic constitution of synoecized poleis in late classical and early Hellenistic times.
 Maiuri and Jacopich 1928 published their studies with L. Laurenzi, M. Segre and other Italian scholars mainly in the Clara Rhodos-Series from 1928 (vol. I) until 1941 (vol. X) during the Italian rule over the Dodecanese between 1912 and 1943; Kondis 1956 (and successive reports in the following issues of Praktika); Zervoudaki 1975; Dietz and Papachristodoulou 1988; Kontorini 1989; Konstantinopoulos 1990; Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:51–67; Rocco and Livadiotti 1996; Hoepfner 2003; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1205–1208; Parker 2009; Badoud 2015; Vedder 2015 and others followed after the war.
 see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:51–67; Hoepfner 2003; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; Ehrhardt 2014:20–24 (with references), add Ael. Arist. or. 25, 50 (Behr) for the beauty of old Rhodes.
 see Diod. 20, 86, 2; Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:52–57; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; on the siege see Wiemer 2002: 66–96.
 Hell. Oxy. 18, 2 (Chambers); Diod. 14, 79, 4–7; 20, 85, 4; 20, 86, 2; centuries later, Ael. Arist. or. 25, 50–56 (Behr) still stresses the importance of the harbors when he encourages the Rhodians to rebuild their old city after the devastating earthquake of 142 CE. On the ports and harbors see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:64; Hoepfner 2003; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1205. 1207.
 Hell. Oxy. 18, 2 (Chambers); Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:59–64; Gabrielsen 2000:192–195; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1205. 1206. 1207.
 See Diod. Sic. 20, 98, 6; 20, 100, 4 (theater); Vitruv 6, praefatio 1 (gymnasium); Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:64–65; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207.
 see Zervoudaki, E., 1988. “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Terrakotten aus dem Demeter-Heiligtum der Stadt Rhodos.” In Dietz and Papachristodoulou 1988:129–137; Schipporeit 2013:216. 217–238; on Demeter in Rhodes see Morelli 1959:36–37. 119–121. – For convenience I will use the more common Ionian spelling of the gods names in Dorian Rhodes.
 see Rocco and Livadiotti 1996, 31–33; Morelli 1959:34–35. 117–118. Cos: Rocco and Livadiotti 1996:112–116; Rocco 2004; Dillon 1999 and IG XII 4, 1 Nos. 302. 319 on the inscriptions.
 On the installation of her cult during the Coan synoecism see Sokolowski 1962:74 No. 39; 301 No. 172 (LSCG); Dillon 1999: 68–70 (with a short, thorough discussion); Parker 2009; on Athens see Rosenzweig 2004.
 see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:63–64.
 see Diod. 19, 45; Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:65–66; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; Vedder 2015:30n109.
 see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:65–66; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; Riethmüller 2005:2,350–351 Cat.-No. 184; Vedder 2015:30n112 on Rhodes; see Riethmüller 2005:1,206–219; 2,349–350 Cat.-No. 179 on Asclepius in Cos.
 see Hoepfner and Schwandner 1994:65–66; Rice 1995; Rocco and Livadiotti 1996:12–26; Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; Ehrhardt 2014:23; Vedder 2015:29n101; on the cult see Morelli 1959:12; Paul 2015.
 see Rocco and Livadiotti 1996:12–26; Hoepfner 2003 (with references); Gabrielsen and Nielsen 2004:1207; Ehrhardt 2014:23–24; Vedder 2015:29–40.
 Vedder 2015:29–40 with detailed discussion, esp. 30–32 on IG XII 1, No. 25; Hoepfner 2003:33–42 does not take a firm view, whereas Badoud 2015:113–116 fig. 48; 158 fig. 67 adheres to the traditional identification represented by authors mentioned in the two succeeding notes.
 see van Gelder 1900:290–294; Ringwood 1936; Morricone 1949–1951; Morelli 1959:15–20. 94–99; Zervoudaki 1975; Papachristodoulou 1999; Hoepfner 2003; Gabrielsen and Hansen 2004:1207; Ehrhardt 2014:23–24; Badoud 2015:99–109. 112–118. 153–203 (on the magistrates in the cults of Apollo and Helios); Vedder 2015:33–34.
 Favored first by Jacopi 1932:218 in a short note, and followed by many, at last partially also by Badoud 2015:158 fig. 67 (map with proposed localizations), who considers a primitive sanctuary; Hoepfner 2003:33–42 does not take a firm view.
 Favored by Kontorini 1989:178–184; and apparently by Badoud 2015:158 fig. 67 for a second location; on the sanctuary see Hoepfner 2003:33–42.
 compare from a different perspective Hannah 2005:16–70; Davidson 2007; Carbon 2015.
 on the political organization of the Rhodian civic body see Papachristodoulou 1999; Gabrielsen and Hansen 2004.
 see Nilsson 1962; Trümpy 1997; Hannah 2005; Hannah 2009; Carbon 2015 with further reading.
 see Badoud 2015:124–127. 138–140 on Rhodes; Trümpy 1997:78 on Samos.
 Mommsen 1889:425–437; Paton and Hicks 1891:329–330; Hiller von Gärtringen in 1895 in the IG XII 1, 206 to No. 4; Nilsson 1909/10; Hiller von Gärtringen 1931:745; Börker 1978; Trümpy 1997:167–186; Badoud 2015:11–35.
 Börker 1978; Trümpy 1997:172–179; Badoud 2015:11–35 esp. 30–34 fig. 19–21. Even though their argument is undoubtedly dense the sources demand further inquiry in this question.
 see Graf 2011:103–129; Ehrhardt 2014:29–38 on the cults and the festivals; see Trümpy 1997:126. 129–130 (position). 135–155 (Sparta, Argos, Epidaurus, Megara. Byzantium). 164–186 (Tauromenium, Rhodes, Cos and Calymnus). 192–193 (Gortyn). 193–194 (Cnossus) on the calendars.
 see Graf 2011:103–129 and others. This view needs more evidence.
 see Schipporeit 2013:277–306, contrary to Trümpy 1997:175–178 on the Thesmophoria and their position in the agricultural and festival year.
 Hiller von Gärtringen in IG XII 1, 206 to No. 4 with regard to the Athenian and Delian calendars.
 see Trümpy 1997:34-36. 175–178. 183; Schipporeit 2013:292–299 on the thesmophorian months.
 see Trümpy 1997:26–29; Badoud 2015:19 fig. 13.
 Gabrielsen 2000, esp. 187–188. 202 n. 49 with a late date for Euphragoras in the middle of the 4th century BC; Dignas 2003; Hoepfner 2003; and Badoud 2015, esp. 157–162. 308–310 No. 1 following Morricone 1949–1951 (ed.pr. of the priest list) with a early date in the inaugurational year of the synoecism.
 see Trümpy 1997:167–186 on the month Dalios.
 see Sokolowski 1962: No. 151A–D; IG XII 4, 1, 274–278.
 Lysias, Nicomachus (30); IG II2 1357; SEG 21, 540; 25, 162; Sokolowski 1962: No. 10 (LSCG); see for instance Rhodes 1991 or Carawan 2010 (Lysias’ case won).