² Of these inscriptions thirteen were still unpublished. Full indices are provided by Hatzopoulos.

³ Inst. 375–80 gave an excellent summary of the views which were expressed before the publication of Epigr…AD iii and the latest volume of AEMTh (mine were expressed in MS 393 4). There is no need to recapitulate them, as Hatzopoulos has done so; for as he wrote in Inst. 380, ‘the quantity and quality of the new discoveries of the last decades are such that they call for the reconsideration of the whole set of evidence’. I am most grateful to Dr Hatzopoulos for his friendship and his generosity in sending me so many of his works. His colleagues in the National Research Foundation have been equally kind. When in this article I disagree with his views, it is only after thorough study of the new evidence, most of which he has provided.

⁴ The need for this was apparent to me when I attended a seminar in Cambridge on the subject of the institutions in the Seleucid cities. It was introduced by R. J. van der Spek, who adduced important information from the Astronomical Diaries of Babylon.

⁵ Inst. 389 and 390 with further references. For excavations at Argilus see AEMTh 7 (1993 [1997]), 466–73Google Scholar.

⁶ Inst. 388 with further references.

⁷ Inst. 389. See also his Actes de vente de la Chalcidique centrale (Meletemata 6: Athens 1988), 62 and 68Google Scholar.

⁸ Inst. 390. His full discussion had been published in Actes de vente d'Amphipolis (Melelemata 14; Athens 1991), 24–8 and 74–7Google Scholar.

⁹ Inst. 153.

¹⁰ Inst. 156 n. 15, 373 n. 8. and 385 n. 7.

¹¹ See Hammond MS 157: and for epimeletes id., ‘Some Macedonian offices in 336 309 BC’, JHS 105 (1985), 156–60 = Coll. Stud. ii (1993), 303–7Google Scholar, to which add Ann. Ep. 1995, 424.

¹² Published by Vokotopoulou, I. in Ancient Macedonia, iv (1986), 87ff.Google Scholar See now Epigr. 62 with a full bibliography.

¹³ The word ἐπιστάτας came probably from the sources followed by Plutarch and Diodorus. which were certainly different and on my interpretation were Cleitarchus and Diyllus. My arguments are in Historia, 39 (1990), 276Google Scholar = Coll. Stud. ii (1993), 164Google Scholar. and Three Historians of Alexander the Great (Cambridge, 1983), 72Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Similarly when Alexander selected boys suitable for training in the newly founded cities and the rest ol the spearwon territory (Plut., Alex. 47, 6Google Scholar ἐπιλεξάμενος), he must have done so through epistatai in the cities and the countryside of Asia (including Egypt).

¹⁵ As Gruen, E. S. wrote in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson (Thessaloniki, 1981), 180Google Scholar. ‘Polybius’ history is overwhelmingly hostile to the Macedonian king' (Philip V). So too in HM iii. 485, ‘the personality of Philip was painted in the blackest colours by Polybius and Livy’. On the other hand the statements made by Polybius (and by Livy following Polybius) about the financial organization of Macedonia and the activities of the ‘prineipes Macedonum’ are accepted as accurate even by Hatzopoulos (Inst. 325–7 and 433–5). This is true also of the detailed accounts of the Roman settlements of Illyricum. Macedonia and Epirus.

¹⁶ The word βασιλικός was used regularly for the King's Own Squadron, the King's Own Finances (regia pecunia) and so on in contrast to the troops and the finances of the Macedones and of the Macedonian cities. So here οἱ βασιλικοί are the King's Own Men in contrast to the city's own officers. For the meaning of ἐπί with the genitive see LSJ s.v. πάσσω II. t and Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius Oxford, (1979), iii. 231Google Scholar. In Ktema. ii (1986), S. Le Bohec translated ‘à la tête des cités’.

¹⁷ The verb χειρίζω was also associated with financial dealings: (LSJ s.v. II. 1 ‘especially of public funds’). As Hatzopoulos remarked in Inst. 373. the χειρισταί acted in matters of commissariat together with οἱ οἰκόνομοι, whom Philip addressed in Epigr. 13 l. 1 and 9; but there is no reason to suppose that this was the only area of activity for these financial officers. On the οἰκόνομοι Ptolemaic Egypt see Austin 256.

¹⁸ Antigonus and Philip continued to strength Brachylles with supplies (? of money), so that he and his family overcame the opposition in Thebes and compelled the city to ‘Macedonise’ (Plb. xx. 5. 13 χορηϒοῦντες καὶ συνεπισ–χύοντες… ἠνάϒκασαν μακεδονίζειν.

¹⁹ D. Pandermalis reported in AEMTh 10A (1996), 205Google Scholar an inscription in which Antigonus Gonatas addressed a letter to the epistates at Dion.

²⁰ Two other documents were dated by epistates and priest in this century (Epigr. 41 and 91).

²¹ The chief magistrates at Calindoea and at Morrylus were three ‘archons’ (Worthington, I., Ventures into Greek History (Oxford, 1994), 180Google Scholar). Hatzopoulos has dated to the second half of the 4th c. BC an inscription found at Beroea. which recorded a dedication to ‘Heracles the Huntsman’, It reads ἡ πόλις 'Ηρακλεῖ Κυναϒίδαι ἐπισ. at which point the stone was broken off (Epigr. 73 with pl. 63 b). A. Andreiomenou restored to read ἐπισ[τάτηι], and Hatzopoulos to read ἐπιο[τατοῦντος τοῦ δεῖνος]. From his restoration Hatzopoulos concluded that ‘the epistates is not only the chief magistrate but also an eponymous official alongside or in lieu of a priest’ (Inst. 156). The restoration, however, is very insecure. As there were priests of Heracles the Huntsman at Beroea (e.g. in Ancient Macedonia, v. 78, providing a list of annually eponymous priests), a more probable restoration might beἐπὶ Σ[τράτωνος ἱερέως or κυνηϒοῦ] (there was a man of this name at Beroea in A. B. Tatakis. Ancient Beroici: Prosopography and Society (Meletemata, 8: Athens. 1988), 268), or Έπισ[τρόφου ἰερετεύοντος]. Datings on other inscriptions found at Beroea are by Huntsmen (Epigr. 8, dated to 248 BC). by a general (Epigr. 60 and Ancient Macedonia, v. 78). by a priest (Epigr. 93), and by politarchs (Ancient Macedonia, v. 78), but not as far as I am aware by an epistates.

²² For these officials see n. 10 above. Epigr. 16 1, 1 and Hatzopoulos, M. B., La loi gymnasiarchichque de Beroia (Meletemata, 16: Athens, 1993)Google Scholar. 150ff and 160ff. See also Inst. 410–11.

²³ Epigr. 17, lines 8–9. My interpretation of ‘epistasion’ was given in Festschrift to S. Dakaris (Ioannina, 1994), 61Google Scholar = Coll. Stud. 4 (1997), 271Google Scholar. For a different interpretation see Inst. 95–8 and 419–20. citing earlier views. Hatzopoulos suggested that the ‘epistasion’ in Euia was ‘the public office, the archeion, of the small community’. But if so, why was the common word archeion not used in the text? I prefer to keep the specialised meaning ‘the place of the epistates’, as at Delos.

²⁴ In AEMTh 10A (1996), 205Google Scholar Pandermalis reported the letter as being addressed πρὸς τὸν βασιλικὸ ἐπιστάτην but I assume that he added the word βασιλικὸ.

²⁵ Austin 209. He was praised by a resolution of the Council and the Demos for his conduct of public affairs and especially in dealing with lawsuits. The people had asked the King to continue him in office, and the honours were recorded by the city's magistrates—secretary, generals, and treasurer.

²⁶ The pulitanu of the text is translated as politai, and pahatu as epistates. The politai were the Greeks (i.e. the Greek-speakers) according to the comment by R. J. van der Spek, They alone had the full franchise.

²⁷ Austin 176 (Seleucia) and IGLS 1261 (Lattakia), the epistates was not himself an archon; for if he had been the expression would have been καὶ συναρχόντων. In these inscriptions the ‘archons’ were particular officials, as at Athens and elsewhere, and not ‘the magistrates’ in general, as the translation of Austin implies. There is a similar contrast between the epistates and the dikastai of Thessalonike in 186 BC in Epigr. 15 1. 23.

²⁸ The two alternative methods may not have been exclusive in some cases. The king might approve a short list of citizen candidates and the people elect one ol them. That a king and a people could agree on the choice of an epistates is clear from the case at Aegina in 11. 25 above.

²⁹ Our evidence comes from Asia, and from Aegina as part of the Attalid kingdom. As regards Thrace. G. Mihailov has published 2,353 Greek inscriptions found in Bulgaria. One of these, found in Plovdiv, the site of Philippopolis, dated the honouring of an athlete in Roman times by the name of an epistates (Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria Repertae, iii 1. 891, 1. 6: ὑπὸ ἐπιστάτην). This epistates was a citizen not of Philippopolis but of Cyme.