THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND

HELLENISTIC RHODES: AN EPIGRAPHIC

COMPARISON

Vincent Gabrielsen

Few scholars have treated the military institutions of ancient states with the diligence
and acumen of Professor Pierre Ducrey. It is to honour his invaluable contribution to
the field that the present paper is offered. It undertakes a comparison of the surviving
epigraphic record of two major naval establishments, the navy of classical Athens and that
of Hellenistic Rhodes, two among the best inscriptionally attested military organisations
of the Greek-speaking world1. However, as it will appear, the epigraphic dossiers of these
two poleis differ considerably between them. The differences, I argue, were not accidental;
they are connected to, and so reflect, quite distinct naval organisations. A comparison of a
sample of inscriptions from either polis bring this out. I start with Athens.

ATHENS

In 1834, Ludwig Ross discovered in the Piraeus a number of inscribed stelai that
had been used as water-channels in a late-Roman or Byzantine portico. These were
the inscriptions now known as the Athenian naval records, or navy lists, i.e. the yearly
accounts of the epimeletai ton neorion, the board of ten officials responsible for Athens
three naval bases in the Piraeus: Mounichia, Zea and Kantharos. In 1840, the texts
were published by August Böckh in his Urkunden über das Seewesen des attischen
Staates. Subsequently, following further work on the texts by Kyriakos S.  Pittakis
(in volumes of AE), Ulrich Köhler and Walther Kolbe, in volumes of MDAI(A), they
were incorporated by Johannes Kirchner in IG, II2 as nos. 1604 to 1632. A few more
fragments found in the Athenian Agora have been published in individual volumes of
Hesperia2. This series of inscriptions, including the Agora fragments, originally stood

1.  A shorter version of this paper was presented at the XIVth  Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy,
Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 27-31 August  2012. I  would like to thank the directors and staff of the
Epigraphical Museum of Athens, of the Archaeological Institute of the Dodecanese, Rhodes, and of the
National Museum of Denmark for their generous help and co-operation.
2.  (i) Agora Inv. nos. I  2012a-c, I  2542 and I  3277: these were all discovered in secondary (i.e.  modern
disturbed) contexts; the lettering of I 2542 (fr. E of E. Schweigert, “Greek Inscriptions, no. 5. Fragments of the
Naval Record of 357/6 BC”, Hesperia, 8, 1936, pp. 17-25) differs from that of the other fragments. Otherwise
in contents and lettering they are similar to, but not identical with, IG, II2, 1611 (EM 10393). According to
E. Schweigert, “Greek Inscriptions…”, cit. (n. 2) these fragments belong to a copy of 1611 that had been set
up in the Agora. (ii) Agora Inv. no. I 5419 (= E. Schweigert, Hesperia, 9, 1940, pp. 342-345, no. 43), see now
D.R. Laing Jr., “A Reconstruction of IG, II2, 1628”, Hesperia, 37, 1968, pp. 244-254. This fragment joins the base
of cols. b and c of IG, II2, 1628 (EM 10384). Also 1630 (EM 10384a) joins the bottom of I 5419, continuing and
concluding col. b of 1628: D.R. Laing Jr., “A Reconstruction…”, cit. (n. 2), p. 245. (iii) Agora Inv. nos. I 7316
and I 7450, discovered in the early 1970s in Section PP, belong to the 350s: ed. pr. J.L. Shear, “Fragments of

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 63 10/10/2013 10:18:33

 64 / Vincent Gabrielsen

by one of the Piraeus’ harbours, presumably that of Zea3; they are traditionally dated
to the period from 378-377 to 223-222 BC. Yet, three small fragments additional to
the above (IG, I3, 498, 499, 500) remind us that similar records were also kept in the
fifth century. In 1968, Donald Laing Jr. established that most of these free standing,
independent stelai were opisthographic: when more space was needed after the back
face was filled, the right lateral side (of the back face) was inscribed first; if this side is
partially inscribed, it probably means that no text appeared in the left lateral side (D.R.
Laing Jr., “A Reconstruction of IG, II2, 1628”, Hesperia, 37, 1968, p. 253).
Since discussion of even a number of these texts would exceed the limits of this
paper, I use one specimen to illustrate their main features. It is a fragment of the record
of 357-356 BC (IG, II2, 1611), which is now at the Epigraphical Museum of Athens
(EM 10393), fig. 14.
Like its counterparts, this fragment is of Hymettian marble; its measurements are:
H. 0.592 m; W. 0.560 m; Th. 0.130-0.135 m. What we now have is the upper left-hand part
of a stele estimated to have been about 2 m high, 1 m broad and 13,5 cent. thick5. These
dimensions are quite characteristic of most of the naval records from the 350s onwards.
Characteristic, too, is their non-stoichedon style and the small size of their letters: those
of our inscription are 0.004 m high6. The text of our stele continued on the right lateral
face of the reverse face, fig. 2. The strongest indication about the date of the inscription
is the statement of the epimeletai who drew it up that they had received a half-built ship
from the epimeletai of 358-357. Almost certainly, our record is that of 357-3567.
Essential for using these inscriptions is an understanding of the arrangement of
their text. That of our specimen is arranged in columns, each of which (including the
space separating it from the next column) has a maximum width of about 0.09  m.
Thus, an original stele 1  m wide would have contained a theoretical maximum of
eleven columns on the obverse face, eleven columns on the reverse face plus one
column on its left lateral face, that is, a total of 23 columns, or, on a rough calculation,
approximately 5,000 lines of text8. From the stele IG, II2, 1611 only parts of seven

Naval Inventories from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia, 64, 1995, pp. 179-224. See also M. Clark, The Economy
of the Athenian Navy in the Fourth Century BC, DPhil. diss., University of Oxford, 1993.
3.  The fact that the Agora fragments have been found in secondary contexts, alongside the fact that I 5419
joins 1628, one of the stelai found in the Piraeus in 1834, indicates that the entire series originally stood in
the Piraeus.
4.  IG, II, 793; A. Böckh, Urkunden über das Seewesen des attischen Staates, Berlin, 1840, pp. 311-332,
no. IV (commentary on pp. 297-311). See also U. Köhler, MDAI(A), 6, 1881, p. 29; W. Kolbe, MDAI(A), 26,
1901, p. 383, 384.
5.  Estimated dimensions of original: H. ca. 1.8-1,90 m; W. ca. 1.0 m; Th. ca. 0.135 m. Original dimensions
of other specimens of this series, e.g. IG, II2, 1628: H. ca. 2.13  m; W. ca. 1.07 m; Th. ca. 0.09/0.10 m.
Similar are the dimensions of 1627, 1629, 1632, but we should note that their original thickness varied:
D.R. Laing Jr., “A Reconstruction…”, cit. (n. 2).
6.  Letter height in most specimens of this series: 0.003-0.005 m.
7.  The epimeletai state that they had taken over from their predecessors the trireme Boetheia, the
construction of which had started in 358-357, but which had not been completed by the end of their term
in office. D.M. Lewis, “Notes on Attics Inscriptions”, ABSA, 49, 1954, p. 44 combined 1611, ll. 119-120
with Dem. 22.89, 11-20, to argue that the Council which failed to build triremes, and of which Androtion
was a member, was that of 359-358. However, Lewis assumed that what we have in 1611, ll. 106-133, is
the complete list all the exairetoi triremes built each year in the period 363/362-358/357. This is not the
case: this part of the record lists only those newly built exairetoi that had been allocated to one harbour, Zea.
8.  IG, II2, 1928 (of which only the reverse face is preserved) carried seven columns on each of its main
faces. IG, II2, 1623 (parts of the obverse and reverse preserved) carried eight columns. See D.R. Laing Jr.,

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 64 10/10/2013 10:18:33

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 65

columns survive on the obverse face (cols. a-g), and one column on the (looking from
the front) left lateral face (col. h).
The administrative context is that of paradosis and paralabe of all naval matters
from the outgoing board of dockyard officials to their successors. The account that
follows is a remarkably detailed and systematic list of warship hulls and equipment.
Two main principles of accounting appear to have been followed. The first consists
of drawing up a complete register of all naval materiel which is a/ in the dockyards
(neoria)9, b/ in an adjacent storehouse (skeuotheke)10, c/ at sea (ton ekpepleukeion);
and, as a separate category, d/  all materiel which is owed (ton opheilomenon) by
trierarchs and dockyard officials. The second principle concerns the way this huge
catalogue is organised: the overall pattern followed is to list everything in accordance
with the harbour it belonged – the official order being Mounichia, Zea and Kantharos;
and then for each harbour to report on each matter by taking the ships’ ratings (or
classes) as the basic unit of accounting – the official order here being the ship ratings:
protai (“firsts”), deuterai (“seconds”), tritai (“thirds”) and exairetoi (“select”).
The introductory section of the whole account consists, however, of the so-called
arithmos-formula, which gives a/ the total number of ships possessed by Athens in
357-356 as 283 triremes; and b/ the total number of ships to be equipped with the
equipment at hand, specifying each item separately and in the canonical order, that
is, first the “wooden” equipment (oars, masts, ladders, etc.) and then the “hanging”
equipment (ropes, sails, anchors, etc.). For example, ll. 19-27 read:
ταρρῶν ἀριθμὸς ἐπὶ Number of complete sets of oars for
20 ναῦς ΗΗΔΔΔΙΙΙ· 233 ships
οὗτοι ἐνέλειπον Oars missing:
κωπῶν  𐅅ΗΗΗ𐅄ΔΔΔΙ· 881.
[π]ηδαλίων ἀριθμὸς Number of rudders
   ΗΗΗΗ𐅄Δ𐅃ΙΙΙ 468.
25 ταῦτα γίγνεται ἐπὶ These are sufficient to equip
ναῦς ΗΗΔΔΔΙΙΙΙ 234 ships,
καὶ ἓν πηδάλιον· with one rudder over.

Provided that the relevant part of the text is preserved, it is thus possible to calculate
the number of ships which Athens was able to fit out with public equipment in that
year (see below). Moreover, because the epimeletai organised their account according
to a definite sequenced structure (whose main components they specify in their intro-
ductory statement, ll. 1-18), we are able to gain a fairly good idea about the matters
that the missing (and largest) part of their account recorded and also approximately
where they were recorded11. Here, I offer only a summary.

“A Reconstruction…”, cit. (n. 2).
9.  This is again divided between ships in the ship sheds (neosoikoi) and ships “in the open” (hypaithrioi):
1611, ll. 4-6.
10.  This skeuoetheke is different from the skeuoetheke of Philon, which was built in 347-346: IG, II2, 505
and add. 661; IG, II2, 1627, ll. 288, 292, 301-302, 407, 420.
11.  For example, of the lost part of 1611, col. a contained the names of Mounichias’ protai, deuterai, tritai
and exairetoi ships. Immediately after (still in col. a) followed Zea’s protai the list of which continues in
the now extant upper part of col. b. As can be seen, they are immediately followed (from l. 73) by Zeas’
deuterai (the names of 46 ships are preserved), then (from l. 97) the tritai (8 ships names) and finally (from
l. 106) the exairetoi (theoretical maximum 31 ships). The rest of col. b (which is not preserved) continued
with a list of Kantharos’ protai, deuterai, tritai and exairetoi. Etc.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 65 10/10/2013 10:18:33

 66 / Vincent Gabrielsen

After a complete lists of ships, there follows an analytical account of each item
of equipment belonging to each ship and which is actually lying in the dockyads
(parakeimenoi: ll. 145-146). This account runs to col. f, l. 28112. Following this (from
l. 282 onwards) the epimeletai listed the ships that were already at sea when they took
office, giving in each case the names of the trierarchs in charge of these ships13.
When the text which breaks off in col. g (l. 373) is resumed in col. h (l. 374) we
are in the part of the inventory that records debts owed by trierarchs. The main unit of
accounting here is the name of the trierarch followed by the name of the ship or ships
which he has had in his charge in previous years, and then the items of wooden or
hanging equipment that he owed (i.e. he had failed to surrender to the dockyards) on each
ship. According to the introductory statement of the epimeletai (ll. 2, 15-16), the list of
ships at sea is to be followed by a list of naval debts. Since the extant entries listing debts
make their appearance in col. h (which is the penultimate column of the inscription),
and since the list of the ships at sea would, at most, have taken up the remaining space of
the obverse (after l. 373) and perhaps some of the reverse face of the stele, we can infer
with certainty that the largest part of the reverse face listed debtor trierarchs; and before
them, debtor officials (see l. 17). It follows that no less than some nine to ten columns,
or approximately 2,000-2,500 lines of text were devoted to the section of the account
that the epimeletai referred to as ta opheilomena (l. 16): “Debts”.
One significant feature which all this allows us to appreciate is the extraordinarily
large amount of naval materiel owed by trierarchs and dockyard officials in 357-356. This
is confirmed by the record of a later year (342-341), which lists naval debts stemming
from previous years, the earliest of which is 378-377 (1622). Part of the evidence illus-
trating this feature is presented in Tables 1 and 2. The first table shows how many of the
283 triremes of 357-356 could in fact be equipped with various items of public equipment.

Table 1: Ship’s equipment in the dockyards, 357-356 BC

Wooden Items No. of ships that could be equipped
Sets of oars (200 to a ship): 233
Rudders (2 to a ship): 234
Ladders (2 to a ship): 232
Poles (3 to a ship): 225
Parastatai (2 to a ship): 227
Large masts (1 to a ship): 185 (or 235)14
(Figures for Large keraiai, Boat masts and Boat keraiai are not preserved)
Hanging Items No. of ships that could be equipped
(Figures for Hypozomata and Sails are not preserved)
Topeia (sets of ropes): 89
Hypoblemata (2 to a ship): 91
Katablemata (2 to a ship): 91
(Figures for Pararrhymata leuka, Pararrhymata trichina, Schoinia (ropes), Anchors and
Askomata are not preserved)

12.  There, the epimeletai give the total for the items always mentioned last (“hanging” equipment, anchors)
for the ships of the harbour always mentioned last, Kantharos.
13.  Active ships, too, are listed by harbour, beginning with Mounichia (col. f, l. 285-326) and continuing
with Zea (col. f, l. 327). Probably, the ships listed in col. g, ll. 351-373, are also those of Zea.
14.  IG has [H𐅄]ΔΔΔ𐅃, but [ΗΗ]ΔΔΔ𐅃 is equally possible.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 66 10/10/2013 10:18:33

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 67

As can be seen, the situation was especially critical with “hanging” equipment.
On the whole, however, one can conclude that about one fourth of the Athenian fleet
could not be equipped with public equipment because crucial items were simply
missing15. The second table presents data indicating that the public equipment listed
as “missing” in 357-356 was actually in the possession of trierarchs, and also that it
continued being so (indeed, in rather large quantities) for quite a long time.

Table 2: Naval debts in IG, II2, 1611 and 1622

Archestratos Kritonos Halopekethen (APF, 8823)

357-356 342-341
(1611, col. h, ll. 400-408) (1622, col. b, ll. 249ff.)
DEBTS ON SAME DEBTS ON
Polynike Polynike
Lampas Lampas
Pandia Pandia
Kratiste Kratiste

Demophanes Halopekethen (APF, 3655)

(1611, ll. 434-441) (1622, ll. 331-350)
DEBTS ON SAME DEBTS ON
Hegeso Hegeso
Nea Nea
Hygeia Hygeia
(cleared by another person)

Syntrierarchs Polykles Anagyrasios (APF, 11988)

and Hegias Marathonios (APF, 6366)

(1611, col. g, ll. 370-373) (1622, col. b, ll. 236-247)

Active on Hebe in 357-356 Still owing equipment
from Hebe in 342-341.
The share owed by Hegesias
was cleared by Philokrates Porhios.

The debts owed in 357-356 by Archestratos and Demophanes – since they relate to
four and three ships, respectively – most probably stemmed from services performed
in previous years; they were all still owing in 342-341. The debts of the syntrierarchs
Polykles and Hegias were incurred from their service in 357-356; these, too, remained
uncleared until 342-341. The record of 342-341 (IG, II2, 1622) confirms (see Table 3)
that what has just been said about the long-standing debts of trierarchs applies also
to naval officials (bearing, of course, in mind that there were far fewer officials than
trierarchs in a year)16.

15.  Eneleipon means “missing”, or “wanting” (cf. also col. e, l. 235: endei), and not that the equipment
in question was currently on ships in commission. Note also that the totals in col. a vary greatly (e.g. sets
of oars for 233 ships, screens [katablemata] for 91 ships). Therefore the number of ships from which such
equipment is “missing” (50 and  192, respectively) cannot possibly correspond to the number of ships
currently at sea.
16.  V. Gabrielsen, Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and Social Relations, Baltimore-London,
1994, pp. 149-153.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 67 10/10/2013 10:18:34

 68 / Vincent Gabrielsen

Table 3: Naval debts owed by officials 378/377-359/358

Year Number of debtors Lines in IG, II2, 1622
378/7 1 (493-96)
377/6 1 (435-43)
375/4 1 (489-92)
374/3 1 (536-39)
373/2 1 (532-35)
370/1 2 (398-41, 540-43)
369/8 1 (483-88)
368/7 1 (552-56)
367/6 1 (498-501)
366/5 1 (506-12)
363/2 1 (564-72)
362/1 2 (432-34, 502-5)
360/59 3 (413-16, 520-30, 558-63)
359/8 1 (573-79)

It has been said that these impressively large and densily inscribed stelai are a
monument over the Second Athenian League17. This may well be so. But our stelai
are definitely also –  indeed, perhaps even more so  – a monument over a fiercely
bureaucratic system erected by a state that, as well as enforcing strict controls on its
public officials, jealously guarded its nautikon (Navy). At Athens this was a military
establishment which belonged entirely to the sphere of the demosion. It was the State
– represented by the supreme political authorities (Assembly and Council) – which
formally had the sole right to make decisions regarding its organisation and operation,
an affirmation of the State’s absolute power monopoly in this field. Using technical
language (and a rather dry style), these inscriptions register transactions and financial
obligations. Certainly, their publication was connected to the customary euthynai
undergone by all public officials, though whether it preceded or immediately followed
the rendering of accounts by the epimeletai remains a moot point. Anyhow, once the
individual stelai were erected, they broadly served the purpose of “administrative”
display, being accessible for consultation as “archival” documents within their parti-
cular field of responsibility18.

17.  D.R. Laing Jr., “A Reconstruction…”, cit. (n. 2), p. 244.

18.  The naval records can perhaps make a modest contribution to the broader discussion about the use
of archives in the ancient world, see generally: D. Knoepfler (ed.), Comptes et inventaires dans la cité
grecque. Actes du colloque international d’épigraphie, 23-26 septembre 1986, en l’honneur de Jacques
Tréheux, Neuchâtel-Genève, Faculté des Lettres, Neuchâtel & Libraire Droz, 1988; J.P.  Sickinger,
Public Records and Archives in Classical Athens, Chapel Hill-London, The University of North
Carolina Press, 1999; M. Faraguna (ed.), Archives and Archival Documents in Ancient Societies, Trieste
30 September-1er October 2011 (Legal Documents in Ancient Societies, IV, Graeca Tergestina, Storia e
Civiltà, 1), Trieste, EUT-Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2013, esp. S. Epstein, “Attic Building Accounts
from Eythyna to Stelae”, pp. 127-141. In a sense, our inscriptions represent what may be termed “the
central archive” of the Athenian navy. However, the question is whether they give a complete picture of
the matters they are supposed to report. For there are some indications that more detailed, day-to-day
accounts were kept, most probably on perishable materials, which accounts our stelai summarised.
For instance, on several occasions, the epimeletai, as documentation of certain transactions, refer to a
diagramma. In most cases, they do this with transactions concerning ship’s equipment (IG, II2, 1623,
ll. 106-109, 136-138, 215-217; 1629, ll. 512, 626-627, 653-654, 663; 1631, ll. 417-418, 649-650); there,
it is made clear that the diagramma was a document in possession of the epimeletai, which specified
the kind and value (time) of equipment they had issued on a particular ship. Literary evidence suggests

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 68 10/10/2013 10:18:34

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 69

Characteristically, in their thousands of lines of text the naval records –  this

crown-jewel of Athenian naval epigraphy  – contain not even a single mention of
naval crews, the life-blood of the whole organisation. Indeed, our knowledge about
the composition of the Athenian crews comes from evidence that is external to
the naval records: chiefly, the catalogue IG,  II2, 1951 (cf.  D.R. Laing Jr., A New
Interpretation of the Athenian Naval Catalogue IG, II2, 1951, PhD. diss., University
of Cincinnati, 1965), perhaps a casualty list; and a few casual remarks in the works
of ancient authors: e.g.  Thucydides (6.43.1), the Old Oligarch (Ath.Pol. 1.2) and
an early fourth-century speech attributed to Demosthenes ([Dem.] 50). Remarkably,
the principal, if not the only, persona on display in the naval records, the trierarch,
stands out less for his qualities or achievements as ho machomenos and more for his
obligations as of ho opheilon, a public debtor. The contrast to Hellenistic Rhodes is
therefore all the more striking.

RHODES

An impressive monument discovered by Danish archaeologists on its original site,

the acropolis of Lindos, Rhodes, is that seen in fig. 3. Four layers of blocks of the
light-gray Lartian marble form the prow of a warship on which a statue, perhaps
of Nike, once stood. It measures 1.64 m in height, 1.80 in length and 1.30 in width.
Several parallels of such statue bases exist from Rhodes and elsewhere; one of them
is the famous Nike of Samothrace (now in the Louvre)19; akin to all these is, of course,
the monumental rock-cut relief of a ship stern on the base of the ascend to the Lindian
acropolis20. On the right side of the uppermost block of our ship monument there is a
non-stoichedon inscription, a text now published as I.Lindos 88. A few lines of text
are also found on the block beneath the one that represents the ship’s oarbox (fig. 4).
The ship-monument, especially its right side that carries the inscription, was visible to
anyone entering the sanctuary of Athana Lindia.

that also the trierarch himself was in possession of a corresponding diagramma (a copy of the official)
regarding the equipment he had received: [Dem.]  47.35: ἀπῄτουν αὐτὸν (scil.  from the trierarch) τὸ
διάγραμμα τῶν σκευῶν (cf. ibid. 42-3); Dem. 14.21: τῶν σκευῶν ἐπὶ τὰς τριήρεις τιμήσαντας ἅπαντ᾽
ἐκ τοῦ διαγράμματος probably refers to the one kept by the epimeletai. However, in other instances the
diagramma refers to a hull and its “worth” (time): IG, II2, 1623, ll. 150-159, 1629, ll. 500-508, with
V. Gabrielsen, “A Naval Debt and the Appointment of a Syntrierarch in IG, II2, 1623”, C&M, 39, 1988,
pp.  63-87. The exact relationship of the diagrammata to the published accounts (i.e.  the preserved
stelai) and to the euthynai undergone by the epimeletai is difficult to establish. Possibly, the only
documents accessible to a citizen (for e.g. use in a legal context) were not the diagrammata, but the
published stelai themselves, see [Dem.] 47.22: γεγραμμένους οὖν αὐτοὺς ἀμφοτέρους (scil. trierarchs)
ἐν τῇ στήλῃ, ὀφείλοντας τὰ σκεύη τῇ πόλει ἡ ἀρχῆς παραλαβούσα παρὰ τῆς προτέρας ἀρχῆς, κτλ.
19.  For parallels, see the publication, by M. Filimonos-Tsopotou, “Warship prow”, in N.Chr. Stambolidis,
Y. Tassoulas, M. Filimonos-Tsopotou (eds.), Islands off the Beaten Track... An Archaeological journey to
the Greek islands of Kastellorizo, Symi, Halki, Tilos and Nisyros, Athens, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, 2011, of a warship prow recently found on Nisyros, an island which in Hellenistic times belonged
to the Rhodian state.
20.  I.Lindos, cols. 891-892.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 69 10/10/2013 10:18:34

 70 / Vincent Gabrielsen

The inscription consists partly of a two-line dedicatory heading, which runs

across the inscribed surface and is in letters 11 millimetres high; and partly of a list
of dedicants in letters 9 millimetres high21. I.Lindos 88 gives the heading as follows:
Line 1 [῎Αρχοντες ἀφράκτων ναυαρχεῦντος - - - - - τοῦ Ν]ικασύλου καὶ
τριηραρχεύντων ᾽Αγαθοστράτου τοῦ Πολυαράτου Γόργωνος τοῦ Ἀρχέλα καὶ τοὶ σὺν
Line 2 [αὐτοῖς ποτὶ Τυρρανοὺς στρατευσάμενοι οὓς καὶ ὁ δᾶ]μος ἐστεφάνωσε
πλεύσαντας ἐν ταῖς τριημιολίαις ἀπαρχὰν ἀπὸ τῶν λαφύρων ᾽Αθάναι Λινδίαι.
The squeeze (fig. 5) reveals that what survives now is the upper right-hand side
of the text and that the names of the dedicants are arranged in columns. Blinkenberg
estimated that there were originally seven columns listing a total of 288 names22.
Probably these represented the crews of three ships23, but they do not necessarily
list all the crew members of these ships: we should not automatically equate a list of
dedicants with a complete crew list. The surviving part of the text starts from the third
column and contains (partly or wholly) 65 of the original names. From the letter forms
and prosopographical data Blinkenberg suggested that the inscription perhaps dates
from between 265 and 260 BC24.
In several respects, I.Lindos  88 is representative of a larger dossier of Rhodian
inscriptions, the majority of them dedicatory monuments, which list naval
complements25. Pride of place amongst them – because it is completely preserved – is
taken by an early first century dedication found in 1934 (reused) in the Palazzo del Gran
Maestro in the city of Rhodes. In this text, Alexidamos son of Alexion is honoured by
his synstrateusamenoi, a group of forty-three named individuals, all described by their
occupational titles, plus three commanders. The inscription is carved on a block of Lartian
stone that originally supported a statue, no doubt that of the honorand26. The presence of

21.  The letters of line 1 are larger (H. 0,011 m) than those in line 2 (H. 0,009 m); in both lines the letter
width is ca. 0,008 m. Names of the dedicants: H. 0,007; W. 0,005.
22.  See also C. Blinkenberg, Triemiolia. Étude sur un type de navire rhodien (Lindiaka, VII), Copenhagen,
Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 1938.
23.  C. Blinkenberg, Triemiolia…, cit. (n. 22), p. 44 and I.Lindos col. 307 proposed that the inscription
listed the crews of six trihemioliai (48 men to a ship) but this can be questioned, as can also be Morrison’s
surmise (1980) that it lists the crews of two ships, 144 men in each. The heading of I.Lindos 88 origi-
nally mentioned three commanders: a supreme officer (whose title is not preserved) and two trierarchs,
Agathostratos son of Polyaratos and Gorgon son of Archelas. This is in accordance with the circum-
stance that the Rhodians often operated in naval units consisting of three ships: V. Gabrielsen, The Naval
Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes, Aarhus, Aarhus UP, 1997, pp. 97-100. Moreover, Blinkenberg’s resto-
ration of the title of the supreme officer in l. 1 as a nauarchos is uncertain: usually, a squadron of three
ships was in the charge either of an archon and two trierarchs (e.g. IG, XII, 5, 913; M. Segre, “Dedica
votiva dell’equipaggio di una nave rodia”, Clara Rhodos, 8, 1936, p. 229) or of a hegemon and two trier-
archs (e.g. IG, XII Suppl., 317, ll. 9-13, with V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. [n. 23], p. 98).
More plausibly, the title of the supreme officer in l. 1 is to be restored as ἄρχοντος (+ personal name) or
ἁγησαμένου (+ personal name).
24.  Additionally, adoptions, which after ca. 240 BC become a dominant feature in Rhodian epigraphy, are
absent from this text.
25.  AE, 1915, 128 no. 1; ASAA, 2, 1916, p. 136, no. 2; NS 5; Clara Rhodos, 2, 1932, p. 176, no. 5; ASAA,
n.s. 48-49, 1986-1987, p. 280, no. 16; ASAA, 30-32, 1952-1954, [Suppl. Epigr. Rodio] p. 286, no. 62; ASAA,
33-34, 1955-1956, [N. Suppl. Epigr. Rhodio] p. 56, no. 4; V. Kontorini, Inscriptions inédites relatives à
l’histoire et aux cultes de Rhodes aux iie et ier s. av. J.-C. (Rhodiaka, I, Archaeologia Transantlantica, 6),
Louvain-la Neuve and Providence, RI, 1983, p. 65, no. 6; Syll.3 1225 (= C. Binkenberg, Triemiolia…, cit.
[n. 22], p. 14, no. 29); IC, I. xvi 35 (Lato, Crete).
26.  M. Segre, “Dedica votiva…”, cit. (n. 22), p. 228. The stele is now in the Archaeological Museum of
Rhodes. It is rectangular block of Lartian stone: H. 0,93 m, W. 0,465 m, Th. 0,35 m. The upper surface is
dressed to support a statue. Letters: H. 0,006-0,01 m. Probably, ll. 1-3 list the names of the commanders

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 70 10/10/2013 10:18:34

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 71

two catapult operators (katapeltaphetai) and nineteen marines (epibatai) suggests that
this was the complement of a larger ship denomination, probably the tetreres (“four”)
mentioned in l. 7. Two functions unattested in classical naval complements are those of
the “olive-oil user” (elaichrestas) and the ship doctor (iatros). All in all, the monumental
way in which Rhodian crews publicized their naval pride –  using, as we have seen,
large-size-letter, assertive epigraphy – stands in sharp contrast to the quietism of their
classical Athenian counterparts, whose doings are mostly known through the medium of
small-letter, bookkeeping epigraphy.
To return to I.Lindos 88, the preserved part of its heading informs us of the
background of this dedication. At some early/mid-third-century date, the commanders
and crews of a squadron of (probably three) trihemioliai had been crowned by the damos
(either of the federal polis of Rhodes or, more probably, of the city of Lindos)27 for their
success in a naval expedition. Upon being crowned, the crews dedicated the monument
to Lindos’ principal deity, Athana Lindia, as a tithe (aparcha) from the booty (laphyra)
they had captured. According to Blinkenberg’s restoration of the text, this booty-yielding
expedition was against Tyrrhenian pirates. This might well be so28, since there is corro-
borative evidence of a strong Rhodian concern with combating pirates, and particularly
Tyrrhenian pirates29.
What is even more interesting, however, is the indication in the preserved part of
the text that the booty from which the dedication was made had become the private
possession of the crews who had captured it; the fact that they themselves, rather than
the state, dedicated a “tithe from the booty” makes this sufficiently clear. Now, such a
practice was simply illegal in the military organization of several states, particularly in
that of Classical Athens. There (as also in other places) all booty (laphyra, leia) by law
instantly became state property, from which then the gods received their share as a tithe30.

under whom Alexidamos and this group of comrades had served (one of these is specified as a deputy-tri-
erarch, epiplous) as an indication of the date of their service, e.g.: 1 [ἐπὶ τριηράρχων?] / 2 Θευ... [τ]οῦ
Εὐκλείδα / 3 Πυθοκρίτου τοῦ Πυθοκρίτου καὶ / 4 ἐπίπλου Χρυσοστράτου (τοῦ) Θερσάνδρου.
27.  The restoration in l. 2: [...]οὓς καὶ ὁ δᾶ]μος ἐστεφάνωσε seems reasonable. C. Binkenberg, Triemiolia…,
cit. (n. 22) (I.Lindos, Index 8 s.u.) took damos here to refer to the People (i.e. the Assembly) of Rhodes.
But in inscriptions published in Lindos, ὁ δᾶμος Ῥοδίων or σύμπας δᾶμος is customarily used when the
reference is to the Rhodian People.
28.  H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen
Rhodos, Klio Beihefte, Neue Folge 6, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 2002, p. 134 doubts Blinkenberg’s resto-
ration of Tyrrhenians in I.Lindos 88 and proposes a different context for the dedication. See my remarks
in note 32 below.
29.  Piracy: e.g. Diod. 20.81; Strabo 14.2.5 (C 562-3); Syll.3 581; IC,  I,  vii.1, ll.  51-59, 79-83; see
V.  Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. (n.  23), pp.  91, 108-111; V.  Gabrielsen, “Rhodes and the
Ptolemaic Kingdom: The Commercial Infrastructure”, in K. Buraselis, M. Stefanou, D.J. Thompson (eds.),
The Ptolemies, the Sea and the Nile: Studies in Waterborne Power, Cambridge, Cambridge  UP, 2013,
pp.  66-81; H.-U.  Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie…, cit.  (n.  28), pp.  130-137. Tyrrenian pirates:
SGDI,  3835 (Syll.3  1225); IG,  XI, 2, 148, ll.  73-74 (with V.  Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit.
[n. 23], p. 59); Ael. Arist. 43.540 (Dindorf); see A. Bresson, “Rhodes, Rome et les pirates Tyrrhéniens”,
in P. Brun (ed.), Scripta Anatolica. Hommages à Pierre Debord (Études, 18), Paris-Bordeaux, Ausonius,
2007, pp. 145-164.
30.  E.g. Dem. 24.11-14, esp. 12 (referring to the law): τῆς πόλεως γίγνεται τὰ χρήματα. See generally:
P.  Ducrey, Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique, des origines à la conquête
romaine, Paris, 1968, chap.  7 and “Aspects juridiques de la victoire et du traitement des vaincus”, in
J.-P. Vernant (ed.), Problèmes de la guerre en Grèce ancienne, Paris, Mouton, 1968, pp. 231-243; W.K.
Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Part. II, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, California UP, 1974, pp. 34-58,
126-132, and esp. W.K.  Pritchett, The Greek State at War, Part.  I, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London,
California UP, 1974, pp. 53-92, 93-100 (the dekate from booty).

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 71 10/10/2013 10:18:34

 72 / Vincent Gabrielsen

This, of course, is not to say that no booty ever accrued to the Rhodian state31, but only
that Rhodes in certain cases (of which that in I.Lindos 88 is one) allowed the material
proceeds from organised violence to remain the private property of the persons who had
thus appropriated them. The instances in question definitely counted privately organised
and conducted campaigns32. Two particular features support this and, more generally,
the idea that the Rhodian military establishment, unlike other such establishments, made
ample use of private arrangements.
The first feature is that, in contrast to classical Athens – where all warships were
publicly owned and controlled, where their use for private purposes was strictly prohi-
bited33 and where all booty was considered public property – Hellenistic Rhodes tradi-
tionally allowed the private possession of war vessels; these complemented the publicly
owned craft in fleets dispatched to state-organised naval expeditions34. When Aristotle,
in giving one of the causes of an early fourth-century oligarchic revolution in Rhodes,
says that “the demagogues [...] obstructed the payment (by the state) of debts owed to
the trierarchs”35, he probably refers to sums of public monies which warship-owners
customarily received for putting their craft into “national” service. Thus, whereas the
dominant image of the Athenian trierarch in classical Attic epigraphy is that of ho
opheilon, the image of his Rhodian counterpart seems to be quite the opposite.
The second feature is that the Rhodians permitted (and used) private modes of
manpower recruitment and remuneration. A fifth-century decree of Lindos orders all
soldiers to offer part of their pay (misthos) to the god Enyalios. One of its provisions
specifies that the obligation is to be met both by those who take service (strateuontai)
publicly and those who do so privately36. Since this regulation applies to all, including
men who served in the same campaign and under the same commanders, the
distinction it draws is between two officially recognized modes of recruitment and
payment: public and private. Evidently, this tradition persisted. A federal decree of
Rhodes honours the crews of an expeditionary force that had been sent to Aigila (mod.
Antikythera). Lines 1-2, read: “Resolved by the damos. Since they have been enlisted
publicly (tachthentes damosiai) in the expedition to Aigila [...]”37. The need to specify
this implies the existence of the alternative mode tachthentes idiai.
31.  In the treaty between Rhodes and Hierapytna (ca. 200 BC), for instance, due provision is made for the
division between the two states of booty to be captured in connection with joint anti-pirate expeditions:
Syll.3 581; IC, I, vii.1, ll. 56-59.
32.  For this very reason, the expedition mentioned in I.Lindos 88 (pace A. Bresson, “Rhodes, Rome…”,
cit. [n. 29], pp. 153-154, who refers to H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, Handel und Piraterie…, cit. [n. 28], p. 134),
cannot be connected to the victory of the Rhodians over the Ptolemaic fleet in the battle of Ephesos: the
laphyra from that victory would have been state property. Moreover, while there can be no doubt that
Agathostratos son of Polyaratos, who appears as trierarch in I.Lindos 88, is to be identified with the
Agathostratos who was honoured with a statue on Delos by the League of the islanders (IG, XI, 4, 1128),
it is not certain that the commander Agathostratos, who defeated the Ptolemaic forces in the battle of
Ephesos (Polyaen. Strat. 5.18), is the same man: V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. (n.  23),
pp. 59-60 with n. 131.
33.  Xen. Vect. 3.14 (ὥσπερ τριήρεις δημοσίας ἡ πόλις κέκτηται). Use of public warships for private
purposes prohibited: Hell.Oxy. 1 (Grenfeld-Hunt)/A1-2 (p. 13 Chambers); Isae. 11.48.
34.  The evidence is discussed in V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. (n. 23), pp. 101-104.
35.  Arist. Pol. 1304b27-31: οἱ δημαγωγοὶ [...] ἐκώλυον ἀποδιδόναι τὰ ὀφειλόμενα τοῖς τριηράρχοις.
36.  IK, 38 251 (found in the Rhodian Peraia, ca. 440-420 BC), ll. 5-7: στρατε[ύω]νται . . . [ἢ] δ[α]μ[οσ]­ίαι
ἢ ἰδίαι.
37.  Clara Rhodos, 2, 1932, p. 169, no. 1; M. Segre, “Due nuovi testi storici”, RIFIC, n.s. 10, 1932, p. 453,
ll. 1-4: ἔδοξε τῶι δάμωι. ἐπειδὴ τα/χθέντες δαμοσίαι ποτὶ / τὰν στρατείαν τὰν ἐς Αἴ/γιλα [...]. The inscription

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 72 10/10/2013 10:18:35

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 73

The importance of the private sphere in the naval organization of Rhodes is further
suggested by several lists of crews. We have already presented two of them: I.Lindos 88
(ca. 265-260 BC) and M. Segre, “Dedica votiva dell’equipaggio di una nave rodia”,
Clara Rhodos, 8, 1936, p. 228 (early first century BC). Closer examination reveals not
only that Rhodian citizens dominate, but also that there is a remarkably high frequency
of close relatives. In the first-century document, for instance, there are two pairs of
“father and son” and three pairs of brothers. Likewise, of the 65  extant names in
I.Lindos 88 (which was inscribed on the ship-prow monument) we can identify seven
pairs of bothers. This feature, which is attested in most of the preserved crew lists38,
adds to the indications of a strong private initiative in manpower recruitment. Family
or kinship ties are in this case the basic kinds of relationship. In other cases, however,
the networks sustaining private initiative in the performance of public functions are
of a rather different kind. It is this circumstance that the final class of documents to be
mentioned here demonstrates.
In 1950, Marcel Launey called Rhodes “cette patrie des associations”39. His
description is to some degree justified by the sheer number of associations (koina)
attested there epigraphically in Hellenistic times40. Of particular interest for our
purposes are those which exhibit an intimate link to the Rhodian military/naval
organization. Primarily in four ways: a/ by honouring high-ranking naval officers;
b/  by taking their name (or part thereof) from the name of known admirals and
other naval officers; c/  by having military branches; and d/  by wholly consisting
of soldiers or naval crews. The broader implications (economic and other) of
this phenomenon for the manpower requirements of the Rhodian fleet are treated
elsewhere41. Here only a particular aspect will be highlighted as is attested by a
fragmentary dedicatory inscription.
This text is inscribed on a rectangular marble statue-base executed by a pair of
artists (Epicharmos from Soli and his son Epicharmos Rhodios) whose joint activity
can be dated with some confidence to the end of the second-beginning of the first

is traditionally dated to mid-third century, but A. Bresson, “Rhodes, Rome…”, cit. (n. 29), pp. 155, 160
proposes ca. 320-306 BC.
38.  V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. (n. 23), pp. 104-105 with nn. 112, 115, 116. Another
example of a “naval family” is provided by Syll.3 1225; C. Binkenberg, Triemiolia…, cit. (n. 22), p. 14,
no. 29: two brothers, the sons of one Timakrates, died (perhaps on the same expedition) while fighting
Tyrrhenian pirates; one of them was prorates on one ship, the other one of the parakathemenoi on
another ship, line 7: a [φυλακ]ίς (so C. Binkenberg, Triemiolia…, cit. [n. 22], p. 14, no. 29 and I.Lindos
col. 312) rather than a [ναυαρχ]ίς (so L. Robert, Hellenica, vol. 2 [1946], p. 125). A third brother, too,
died fighting pirates as a syntagmatarchas on a ship. All three were honoured by their fellow demesmen,
the Kassareis.
39.  M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques. Réimpression avec addenda et mise à jour, en
postface par Y. Garlan, P. Gauthier, Cl. Orrieux, 2 vol., Paris, de Boccard, 1949-1950/1987, II, p. 1004.
40.  F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu
Leipzig, Historisch-Nationalökonomischen Sektion 38, Leipzig, 1909; G. Pugliese Carratelli, “Per la storia
delle associazioni in Rodi antica”, ASAA, n.s. 1-2, 1939-1940, pp. 147-200; V. Gabrielsen, “Brotherhoods of
Faith and Provident Planning: The Non-public Associations of the Greek World”, Mediterranean Historical
Review, 22, 2007, pp. 183-210.
41.  V. Gabrielsen, “The Rhodian Associations and Economic Activity”, in Z.H. Archibald, J.K. Davies,
V. Gabrielsen, G.J. Oliver (eds.), Hellenistic Economies, London-New York, Routledge, 2001, pp. 215-244,
where the evidence is presented. The “military associations” of the Hellenistic age (and their distinction
from ephemeral groups of co-soldiers) are discussed in M.  Launey, Recherches…, cit. (n.  39), II,
pp. 1001-1036, xix-xx.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 73 10/10/2013 10:18:35

 74 / Vincent Gabrielsen

century BC42. The person honoured, whose name is not preserved, had a distinguished
naval career on a trireme, trihemioliai and other aphract and cataphract ships. The
persons honouring him identify themselves as his synstrateusamenoi. Additionally,
this larger group, or part thereof, consists of several associations. One of them is to
Samothraikiastan kai Lemniastan ton synstrateusamenon koinon (ll. 15-16). Another
one appears in lines 7-13 of the inscription:
( . . .)
καὶ στρατευσάμενον ὑπὸ ἄρχοντα
Ἀντίοχον καὶ τιμαθέντα ὑπὸ
Σαμοθραικιαστᾶν μεσονέων τοῦ
10 κοινοῦ χρυσέωι στεφάνωι ἀρετᾶς
ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας καὶ φιλοδοξίας
ἃν ἔχων διατελεῖ εἰς τὸ Σαμοθραικι-
αστᾶν μεσονέων κοινόν·
There is an obvious connection between the membership of to Samothraikiastan
mesoneon koinon and the initiates (mystai) of the Great Gods of Samothrace. However,
even though historically significant, this aspect will not receive further attention
here43; nor shall we attempt to establish the identity of the archon Antiochos, other
than mention the attestation of the association Apolloniastai Antiocheioi sysstra-
teusamenoi koinon in a near contemporary inscription that records the honours
awarded by a number of bodies (private and public) to Polykles son of Sosos, another
individual with a distinguished naval career44. Our immediate concern is with the
element mesoneoi in our inscription. Contrary to previous views45, this term does not
refer simply to oarsmen of a warship, but, as Aristotle explains in his Mechanical
Problems (4.850b10-29), particularly to those oarsmen who were situated midships,
i.e. where the distance between tholepin and oarsman is greatest46. Since the largest
part of their oar was thus within the ship, the mesoneoi oarsmen had a considerably
heavier pool and so contributed most to the ship’s movement. They were distin-
guished from their fellow oarsmen by their exceptional skill and superior physical
strength. How close was the link between naval organisation and the great number
of associations attested in Rhodes is an issue in need of further investigation, a
task to be undertaken by The Copenhagen Associations Project47. In the meantime,
we may safely draw the following conclusion: to Samothraikiastan mesoneon
koinon represents a specific variant of a larger assortment of private organisations

42.  IG, XII, 1, 43; ed. pr. P. Foucart, Rev. Arch., 11, 1865, pp. 218ff. Line 21 (καὶ ἄρξαντα ἀφράκτων)
is in larger letters. Mainly on the basis of the artists’ career, the inscription is traditionally assigned to
ca.  100-50  BC: E.  Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, Leipzig, 1885, pp.  150-151, no.  192.
However, a date closer to 100 BC may be preferred: V. Gabrielsen, “The Status of Rhodioi in Hellenistic
Rhodes”, C&M, 43, 1992, pp. 59-60, no. 17.
43.  S. Guettel-Cole, Theoi Megaloi. The Cult of the Great Gods of Samothrace, Leiden, Brill, 1984, p. 85,
pp. 155-158, nos. 33-39; N.M. Dimitrova, Theoroi and Initiates in Samothrace: The Epigraphical Evidence
(Hesperia Suppl., 37), Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2008.
44.  NS 18 (dated by the editor to ca. 88 BC), and p. 28 for the archon Antiochos and the koinon bearing
that name.
45.  M. Launey, Recherches…, cit. (n. 39), p. 1021; V. Gabrielsen, The Naval Aristocracy…, cit. (n. 23),
p. 124 n. 60.
46.  C.A. Thomsen, The Corporate Polis: The Politics of Association in Hellenistic Rhodes (323 BCE-64 CE),
PhD diss., University of Copenhagen, 2013, p. 106.
47.  See http://copenhagenassociations.saxo.ku.dk.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 74 10/10/2013 10:18:35

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 75

in Rhodes, which performed a public function by supplying the Rhodian fleet with a
resource of no less value in the Hellenistic age than both before and after it: highly
skilled and physically fit naval manpower.

To conclude, the Rhodian naval epigraphy of Hellenistic times depicts a world far
removed from the public accounts and compulsory obligations of Classical Athens.
The differences that we have noted between the epigraphic record of the two states
seem hardly accidental; they primarily owed to their different naval organisations.
One might be inclined to explain this in terms of a general historical development,
so that Athens would conveniently reflect the state of affairs in the classical period,
while Rhodes that in the Hellenistic age. However, not only is that a preconceived
and overly schematic inference. But the fifth-century decree of Lindos cited (in
n. 36) and Aristotle’s report about the fourth-century Rhodian trierarchs (n. 35 above)
are sobering reminders that at least some of the principal features of the Rhodian
organisation were, indeed, classical rather than Hellenistic in origin. Yet, the socio-
political trajectories followed by Rhodes in the post-Alexander period would, of
course, have accentuated existing differences. In this field, Athens stands out for her
statishness and power-monopolistic demosion, Rhodes for her allowance of private
action, taken by individuals and collective bodies such as associations, to shape and
represent the military establishment. While promoting the interests of a strong naval
state, the Rhodians used the medium of grandiose, honorific-dedicatory monuments
self-assertively, putting on display their personal naval accomplishments. Not only
is ho opheilon absent from the Rhodian epigraphic record, but the ships are manned
by complements proudly advertising their virtues as hoi machomenoi.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 75 10/10/2013 10:18:35

 76 / Vincent Gabrielsen

Fig. 1. IG, II2 1611 (EM 10393), front face. Photo by courtesy of the Epigraphical
Museum of Athens.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 76 10/10/2013 10:18:42

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 77

Fig. 2. IG, II2 1611 (EM 10393), left lateral

face. Photo by courtesy of the Epigraphical
Museum of Athens.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 77 10/10/2013 10:18:45

 78 / Vincent Gabrielsen

Fig. 3. The warship prow monument on the Acropolis of Lindos. Photo by courtesy of the
Archaeological Institute of the Dodecanese, Rhodes.

Fig. 4. The inscription I.Lindos 88 on the warship prow from Lindos. Photo by courtesy of the
Archaeological Institute of the Dodecanese, Rhodes.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 78 10/10/2013 10:19:05

 THE NAVIES OF CLASSICAL ATHENS AND HELLENISTIC RHODES... / 79

Fig. 5. Squeeze with the text of the upper left-hand part of I.Lindos 88. Photo by courtesy of the
National Museum of Denmark.

revue des études militaires anciennes no 6, 2013

08GabrielsenC3.indd 79 10/10/2013 10:19:10

08GabrielsenC3.indd 80 10/10/2013 10:19:10