IG XII.4.1 152 (= Tit.Cal. XII = StV 545). Agreement and Civic Oath for the Restoration of Homopoliteia between Cos and Calymna (201-200 BC)

Between 215 and 205 BC, the island of Calymna, which was under the influence of the Ptolemaic monarchy, lost its political independence and joined the nearby island of Cos. This transition began at least with the outbreak of the First Cretan War in 205 BC, the date of a decree honouring the Calymnian Lysandros as the commander (archon) of a naval squadron from Cos (IG XII.4.5 4022). However, Habicht demonstrated that as early as 208/7 BC new-borns in Calymna were recorded in civic lists referring to the year of the eponymous magistrate of Cos.

While the text of the original treaty that bound Cos and Calymna under a regime of homopoliteia (a term indicating ‘shared citizenship’) has not survived, we know of its existence through an inscription dated to 201 or 200 BC. It confirms the restoration (apokatastasis) of the previous homopoliteia agreement, tied to an oath taken by citizens from both communities. Essentially, this involved the unilateral incorporation of Calymna into the territory of Cos, reducing it to the status of a deme (see the expression δῆμος δὲ Κάλυμν[α], Κῶι δὲ πάτρα in the funerary epigram for Xenokles, IG XII.4.5 4215, ll. 9-10, 2nd century BC). According to the homopoliteia agreement, the citizens of Calymna were registered in the civic records of Cos (Tit.Cal. 88-96), Calymna ceased to issue independent decrees, and used Cos currency for commercial transactions. The revitalisation of the cult of Asclepius in Calymna also reinforced the homopoliteia, serving as a means to crafting a new collective community identity (Bosnakis).

The reasons behind this decision, likened to the synoecism of Rhodes, are unclear. It is reasonable to hypothesise that homopoliteia represented an attempt by the two islands to strengthen their alliance against the threats posed by Cretan pirates and Philip V, with the Ptolemaic monarchy playing a central role in this political manoeuvre; both the original treaty under Ptolemy IV Philopator and its restoration under Ptolemy V Epiphanes would have been formulated under its auspices (Sherwin-White). Evidence for this notion is found in the clause regarding the demonstration of friendship and alliance towards King Ptolemy (ll. 18-19); this clause, along with references to laws and regulations, could represent the ‘local translation’ of a royal diagrapha (Bencivenni 2008). However, it is difficult to substantiate the hypothesis that the agreement promoted mixed marriages to strengthen the cohesion of the new civic community, overcoming the challenges of settlement across two distinct islands (as suggested by Saba based on comparisons with the sympoliteia treaty between Miletus and Pidasa, Milet I.3 149).

The temporary abolition of the agreement could be due to Philip V’s actions after the Battle of Lade, following a pattern also observed for the island of Samos, which Philip took in 201 BC and returned to Ptolemaic control in 200 BC (IG XII.6.1 12). There is debate over whether the agreement expressed the mutual will of both parties (Grieb) or if it was an imposition by Cos upon its struggling neighbours (Walser). Supporting the latter interpretation is the text of the oath, which binds the parties not only to the provisions regarding homopoliteia but also to democracy and the ancestral laws of Cos (ll. 14-18).

Stasilas, son of Lykophron, proposed that two horkotai be chosen from each tribe to administer the oath for citizens in the agora, in front of the designated areas for magistrates. Additionally, a secretary should be selected from each tribe, along with a person to recite the oath. One horkotes should also be chosen from each tribe for Calymna, along with a secretary for them. The oath should be administered wherever the general appointed by the people directs; the poletai should contract twice to provide sacrificial animals for the citizens both here and in Calymna. The sacrifices should include a bull, a boar, and a ram, all unblemished.

All citizens of Cos, starting from the youth, should take the oath: first the prostatai and the strategoi, while the others residing here should swear before the horkotai chosen locally, and the remaining citizens should swear before those sent to Calymna. The oath should be as follows: ‘I will be faithful to the current democracy, to the restoration of the homopoliteia, to the ancestral laws of Cos, to the decisions of the Assembly, and to the provisions concerning the homopoliteia. I will also be loyal to the friendship and alliance with King Ptolemy and to the agreements ratified by the people with our allies. I will not establish, under any pretext, an oligarchy, a tyranny, or any form of government outside of democracy; nor will I allow anyone to attempt to establish such a regime, but I will oppose it with all my strength. I will not occupy any fortress or heights, either by taking them for myself or by assisting another under any pretext. I will not permit the territory of Cos to be diminished, but I will strive to expand it with all possible strength. I will be a just judge and an impartial citizen, casting my vote in the Assembly and in court without bias, as I see fit for the benefit of the people. I make this oath before Zeus, Hera, and Poseidon. May I receive blessings if I uphold this oath, and the opposite if I swear falsely… Let the horkotai take their oaths immediately on the sacrificial victims during each assembly, according to the decisions of the Assembly itself…’

• P. Baker, Cos et Calymna, 205-200 a.C.: Esprit civique et défense nationale, Québec 1991
• A. Bencivenni, I Tolemei e l’homopoliteia di Cos e Calimna, Simblos 5, 2008, 185‐208
• L. Boffo, M. Faraguna, Le poleis e i loro archivi. Studi su pratiche documentarie, istituzioni e società nell’antichità greca, Trieste 2021
• D. Bosnakis, Sculpture in Religious Context: Reconstructing the Cult of Asklepios on Kalymnos, in M.I. Stefanakis, G. Mavroudis, F.K. Seroglou (eds.), Religion and Cult in the Dodecanese during the First Millennium BC, Oxford 2023, 115-125
• S. Carlsson, Hellenistic Democracies. Freedom, Independence and Political Procedure in Some East Greek City-States, Stuttgart 2010
• V. Grieb, Hellenistische Demokratie. Politische Organisation und Struktur in freien griechischen Poleis nach Alexander dem Großen, Stuttgart 2008
• C. Habicht, Neues zur hellenistischen Geschichte von Kos, Chiron 37, 2007, 123–152
• E. Krob, Serments et institutions civiques à Cos à l’époque hellénistique, REG 110, 1997, 434-453
• S. Saba, Cittadinanza e archivi nel Mediterraneo antico: qualche postilla esegetica, Historika 11, 83-94
• S. Scharff, Eid und Außenpolitik. Studien zur religiösen Fundierung der Akzeptanz zwischenstaatlicher Vereinbarungen im vorrömischen Griechenland, Stuttgart 2016
• A. Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Period, Göttingen 1978
• V.E. Stefanaki, A. Giannikouri, La circulation monétaire dans le Dodécanèse de l’époque archaïque à l’époque hellénistique: les exemples de Cos at Calymna, in T. Faucher, M.-C. Marcellesi, O. Picard (eds.), Nomisma. La circulation monétaire dans le monde grec antique. Actes du colloque international, Athènes 14-17 avril 2010 (BCH suppl. 53), Athènes 2011, 343-366
• A.V. Walser, Sympolitien und Siedlungsentwicklung, in A. Matthaei, M. Zimmermann (eds.), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus, Berlin 2009, 135-155