¹ These quotations represent an anthology of Polybian remarks on Crete: iv 8.11; xi 46.2–3; xi 46.9; xi 47.5; ii 4.3. See Walbank, F.W., A historical commentary on Polybius i (Oxford 1957) 508.Google Scholar

² It is argued by some that the unification Polybios speaks of represents the initial foundation of the κοινόν; see Guarducci, , RFIC 142–7Google Scholar and Brulé, P., La piraterie crétoise hellénistique (Paris 1978) 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Muttelsee and van Effenterre argue for an earlier foundation date.

³ See Polybios xxix 10.6–7. For the most recent discussion of the evidence for the Cretan κοινόν see Willetts, Kadmos.

⁴ Van Effenterre 128–9 offers the following list of direct references to the κοινόν: IG xii. 5. 868A (end of the 3rd century BC); SIG ³ 560 (207/6); IMagM 20 (c. 207/6); IC ii. 16. 9 (beginning of the 2nd century); IC ii.5. 22 (beginning of the 2nd century); SIG ³ 653A (c. 165); ldeDélos 1517 (between 158 and 150); SIG ³ 654A (c. 151); AE 1925–26, 9f., no. 129 (c. 151); IC ii.3. 4C (date disputed; the reign of Attalos I or Attalos II); IC iii.4. 9 (date of inscription, 112/1; reference to κοινόν, mid-2nd century); IG xii.3. 254 (2nd century; see below on this inscription [= IC iv 197^*]); IC i.24. 2 (2nd century).

Willetts, , Kadmos 144–5Google Scholar discusses those testimonia which may refer to the κοινόν, even though this term is not employed: SIG ³ 535; SGDI 5157–5164; IC ii.3. 10A, iii.4. 9, iv 176; Polybios vii 11. 9; vii 14. 4; xxix 10. 6; xxxiii 16. 1; Livy xliii 7; D.S. xl 1. Willetts makes no reference to the article by Spyridakis, S. (Hermes 1970, 254–6)Google Scholar, in which the latter argues that the Delian inscription ldeDélos 1442 records a reference to the Cretan κοινόν. J. and L. Robert, however, argue against Spyridakis's interpretation (REG 1970 no. 413a); see also Lazzarini, M., RFIC cviii (1980) 141.Google Scholar Guarducci thinks IC ii.16. 9 to be a decree of the κοινόν.

It should be pointed out that the Hellenistic institution under discussion here is not the same as the Cretan κοινόν of the Roman period, for which there is ample evidence.

⁵ J.A.O. Larsen clearly did not consider the κοινόν of the Cretans to be analogous to other Hellenistic κοινά; he did not deal with it in Greek federal states (Oxford 1968).

⁶ In discussion of these matters at the Toronto seminar, the suggestion was made that the κοινόν, which (as discussed below) enjoyed a fluctuating existence, may have chosen to date its decrees by city-magistrates on the grounds that greater continuity could be achieved in this way. Nevertheless, it remains true that there is no evidence in the extant documents for federal magistrates in the Cretan κοινόν. It is possible that Philip V, as προστάτης of the island, fulfilled some such role for a time, but it seems likely that his position was uniquely tailored to the contemporary Macedonian relationship with Crete.

⁷ Brulé (n. 2) 85f., following Swoboda and Muttelsee, argues in favour of a Cretan κοινοπολιτεία, but the evidence is inconclusive.

⁸ This interpretation is in part based on the comment made by Strabo regarding the states of Knossos and Gortyn: συμπράττουσαί τε γὰρ άλλήλαις ἄπαντας ὺπηκόους εἶχον αὑται τοὺς ἄλλους, στασιάσασαί τε διέστησαν τὰ κατὰ τὴν νῆσον (x 478). See also Polybios iv 53.4.

⁹ See van Effenterre 151, and see below for further discussion.

¹⁰ See van der Mijnsbrugge chapter 3; van Effenterre 131; Willetts, AS 229 and Kadmos 145.

¹¹ Van Effenterre 141–2.

¹² IC iv 197^* (= IG xii.3. 254) and IC iii.3. 4.

¹³ Polybios xxii 15. 4. It was Boeckh who suggested the emendation to κοινοδίκιον, in his commentary on CIG 2556 (= IC iii.3. 4).

¹⁴ Muttelsee 56f. believed that this court must have been drawn from the Hierapytnian and Priansian populations. Against this view, see Guarducci, , Epigraphica 159f.Google Scholar, who believes the court to be the same as the tribunal from a third city mentioned in lines 65f.

¹⁵ The nature of this δικαστήριον is also not defined.

¹⁶ Generally agreed to refer to a common regulatory code shared by the Cretan states (Guarducci). It may have formed an extensive body of common law or regulations; but van Effenterre (143f.) believed it to be limited to a simple code of (financial) penalties for specific infractions. For a recent discussion of the term see Vélissaropoulos, J., RHDF liii (1975) 36–47.Google Scholar The διάγραμμα appears in a few other inscriptions: IC iv 197^* (discussed below); SEG xiii 589; IC iv 174; and IC i.16. 1.

The existence of the διάγραμμα does not appear to have promoted political harmony or unity within the κοινόν to any degree. A traditional code might be relatively simple to maintain for reference even at a time when the κοινόν had lapsed. Scholars have argued that the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty itself implies that this was the case.

¹⁷ Guarducci, , Epigraphica 159f.Google Scholar believes this δικαστήριον to be the same as that mentioned in lines 49–50; cf. van der Mijnsbrugge 44.

¹⁸ Van der Mijnsbrugge 43–4, who believes that the arbitration referred to was required by the διάγραμμα, and would find expression through the δικαστήριον.

¹⁹ Van Effenterre 145; Guarducci, , Epigraphica 161.Google Scholar

²⁰ This term creates its own problems. Is it the tribunal itself (Muttelsee 60; Petropoulou, A., Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte Kretas in hellenistischer Zeit [Frankfurt 1985] 95)Google Scholar? Or is it the final judgement (Guarducci, , IC iii. 3.4Google Scholar; van Effenterre 145³)?

²¹ This would be the three-way agreement between Gortyn, Hierapytna and Priansos, a treaty which also survives (IC iv 174). Both Muttelsee and van der Mijnsbrugge argued (on no perceptible grounds; see criticism, Guarducci's, Epigraphica 164–5)Google Scholar that the κοινοδίκιον, which is said to have ceased in the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty, was still in effect at the time of the conclusion of the Gortyn-Hierapytna-Priansos σύμβολον.

²² Σύμβολον-treaties generally were intended to provide for judicial regulation of disputes between the citizens of different states, particularly financial disputes. See Gauthier, P., Symbola (Nancy 1972).Google Scholar Gauthier, however, comes to the opposite conclusion from that expressed above; he supports the view of Hitzig, H.F. (‘Altgriechische Staatsverträge über Rechtshilfe’ Festgabe F. Regelsberger [Zürich 1907] 1–70)Google Scholar, that the preponderant rôle of the κόσμοι in this treaty suggests that the disputes envisioned were public ones. Gauthier believes that the reference to the σύμβολον merely emphasizes the fact that the present treaty is not a σύμβολον, but rather a συνθήκη (316f.). But this argument is not wholly persuasive. There is no reason to think of the second treaty as opposed in all points to the first; it may simply amplify, clarify or supplement the σύμβολον in certain ways.

²³ Cf. van Effenterre 144². Certainly the specific regulations regarding infractions of the treaty (lines 47–53) seem to envision both private and public actions. Guarducci, (IC iii. 3.4Google Scholar) argued that the κοινοδίκιον (and, in its absence, the arrangements made in lines 58–64) dealt with private disputes, while the δικαστήριον of lines 47–53 and lines 65f. dealt with public disputes. Vélissaropoulos (n. 16) 39 argued the opposite. Both scholars appear to be making a false distinction between private and public where the treaty was making only a temporal distinction.

²⁴ See Scrinzi, A., AIV lv 2 (1897–98) 1572¹⁹⁶.Google ScholarGuarducci, , Epigraphica 150f.Google Scholar argues, in dating the Hierapytna-Priansos inscription, that the reference to the cessation of the κοινοδίκιον should be connected to one of the temporary dissolutions of the κοινόν. The best date for this inscription would then be between the end of the 3rd century and the year 184, when it is assumed the κοινόν was restored (on the evidence of Polybios xxii 15, discussed below).

²⁵ IC iv 197^*. The edition of Guarducci, cited here, is the commonly accepted one.

²⁶ It is believed that Knossos was more dominant in the κοινόν after about 150. See Guarducci, , RFIC 149²; IC iv 197^*Google Scholar; van Effenterre 158.

²⁷ That this άσυλία-decree amounts to an anti-piracy measure is the accepted view.

²⁸ Cf. IC iv 175 (a treaty between Gortyn and Knossos) lines 8–9: [δίκαν] άπρόδικον κ᾿ άπάρβολον. On the severity of the procedure, see Guarducci, , RFIC 151Google Scholar, and IC iv 246.

²⁹ One might suppose that the article had been lost when the stone was damaged; but Guarducci, in her discussion of this very question, defended her restoration with vigour, and argued furthermore that the absence of the article was of little significance (RFIC). In her view, the absence of the article simply echoes the (apparent) absence of the article before Ἀναφαίοις (line 22; see also lines 12–13). But the lack of article before the name of a people (‘among Anaphaians’) seems natural enough, while its absence before the name of a recognized body or institution is more unexpected. Van Effenterre believed the absence of the article to be of great significance; for further discussion, see below.

³⁰ See van der Mijnsbrugge 36⁵, who points to the Cretan variant of ϝέρκσιεν for ϝέρκσαιεν (SGDI 4982). Van Effenterre 147–8 argued against this, but see note 31.

³¹ See Walbank, F.W., A historical commentary on Polybios iii (Oxford 1979) 202Google Scholar, who supports the notion of a scribal error, and thus believes van Effenterre's arguments against κοινοδίκιον being a Cretan dialectal form to be irrelevant.

³² Van Effenterre 147–8; Guarducci, , RFIC 153–4Google Scholar (but in the Epigraphica article from 1940 Guarducci had argued that κοινοδίκιον was simply a Cretan form of κοινοδίκιον; evidently her mind was subsequently changed by van Effenterre). Cf. ardinali, G., RFIC xxxv (1907) 17²Google Scholar; S. Waszynski, , Archiv für Papyrusforschung v (1913) 5.Google Scholar

³³ The resolution of conflict between Knossos and Gortyn at this time may suggest that the κοινόν would now be formally restored. Support for this view is found in the treaty from the following year (183) between Eumenes II of Pergamon and some thirty Cretan states, including Gortyn and Knossos (IC iv 179); see Walbank, , Commentary iii (n. 31) 201–2.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Welles, RC 234^18a. The word is singular enough in itself to suggest some connection.

³⁵ N.G. Pappadakis, in his discussion of a fragmentary inscription from southern Crete, which he dated to the end of the 4th century BC, believed he might have found an early reference to the Cretan κοινοδίκιον (Ἀφιέρωμα εἰς Γ.Ν. Χατζιδάκην [Athens 1921] 72–7; see IC ii.30 1). But the word does not appear in the extant fragment, which seems simply to be an agreement between two states to use a δικαστήριον, the kind of agreement for which there are numerous examples on Crete.

³⁶ Guéraud, O., ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ (Cairo 1931) nos. 11, 44, 65, and 70.Google Scholar

³⁷ The example quoted is from Guéraud, ΕΝΤΕΥΞΕΙΣ (n. 36) no. 11. The other three papyri, which survive in varying degrees of preservation, record exactly the same wording, except for a minor variation in no. 65, which reads μάλιστα μὲν διάλυσον. It is also no. 65 which establishes that κοινοδίκιον is the correct restoration of the word, abbreviated as κοινοδι- on the other three papyri.

³⁸ The composition of this court, however, remains unclear. See Waszynski (n. 32), and Seidl, E., Ptolemäische Rechtsgeschichte (Erlangen 1947) 74.Google Scholar Preisigke (RE xi, 1 [1921] s.v. κοινοδικαστήριον) suggests that the judges would have been drawn from both Greeks and Egyptians, as does Zepos, P.J., American Journal of Comparative Law xxii (1974) 223.Google Scholar The Ptolemaic κοινοδίκιον is attested only for the year 221 BC. By 118 BC it was probably no longer in use, at least for the settlement of contract disputes. A regulation of Ptolemy VIII from that year (PTeb 5) called for contract disputes between Greeks and Egyptians to go before the λαοκρίται if the contract itself was in Egyptian, before the χρηματισταί if it was in Greek.

³⁹ Welles, RC no. 53 (=Fränkel, M., Die Inschriften von Pergamon [locBerlin 1890] no. 163Google Scholar). The reconstruction offered here is that of Welles.

⁴⁰ Welles, RC no. 231: ‘Legally [the guild] existed in or beside the city, but not of it.’ The degree of independence of the guild is illustrated by, for example, its receipt of grants of άσυλία and άσφάλεια from Delphi (SGDI 2675) and Aitolia (SIG ³ 563).

⁴¹ Suggested by Welles in his general speculations on the term (RC 345–6).

⁴² BCH cvi (1982) 444–6.

⁴³ Muttelsee 42 emphasized the connection between the κοινόν and the κοινοδίκιον, and the διάγραμμα, which he believed provided judicial regulations which the κοινοδίκιον would have followed.

⁴⁴ Guarducci, Epigraphica and RFIC, as well as IC iii.3. 4 and iv 197^*. For others who have accepted this view, often uncritically, see Hitzig (n. 22) and Raeder, A., L'arbitrage international chez les Hellènes (Kristiania 1912) 231.Google Scholar See Gauthier 316f. (who also adheres to the notion of a federal tribunal) for a more extensive discussion of the judicial regulations in the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty (though not of the κοινοδίκιον itself). Brulé's examination of this question (n. 2 above; 85f.) emphasizes his belief that the Cretan κοινόν could offer κοινοπολιτεία to a state like Anaphe, whose right of access to the κοινοδίκιον was a consequence of this grant.

⁴⁵ Scrinzi (n. 24) 1565f.¹⁸⁰. Scrinzi himself, however, was a proponent of a more cautious and conservative view of the term, a view expressed by those who have denied the permanent and universal application of κοινοδίκιον. In general, their interpretation of κοινοδίκιον is that it was indeed a tribunal; but not necessarily one connected with the κοινόν, and not one of a multilateral character. Scrinzi believed that it was a specialized arbitral tribunal, chosen from time to time by and from the cities in dispute, one of the options available, like the δικαστήρια mentioned in the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty. He did not believe that such a body had general application, and suggested that its cessation, as attested in the Hierapytna-Priansos inscription, might have been a normal rather than a traumatic occurrence.

⁴⁶ On the face of it, this is a persuasive argument; however, the Anaphe inscription does appear to call for a dual system of justice: trial among the Anaphaians and trial in κοινοδίκιον. Guarducci points out that with such an arrangement the Anaphaians would be satisfied (RFIC 148–54); but see below.

⁴⁷ Guarducci attempts to refute van Effenterre's observations regarding the absence of the article before κοινοδίκιον (RFIC 151–2); but see n. 29 and the comments there. It may be significant that the Polybios reference (xxii 15. 4) also makes no use of a definite article before the term (both Guarducci and van Effenterre are in agreement here, however, that Polybios is referring to something like ‘federal law’ or ‘federal justice’, not a lawcourt).

⁴⁸ Caillemer, E., in Daremberg-Saglio i 2 s.v. Cretensium Respublica 1563f.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ AS 232f.; Kadmos 146 (where Willetts offers the same views as those expressed in AS).

⁵⁰ Kadmos 146. Willetts clearly believes that the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty implies that some disputes could still be submitted to κοινοδίκιον; he was critical of van der Mijnsbrugge's attempt to correct Caillemer's misinterpretation of the κοινοδίκιον-clause (van der Mijnsbrugge 402). Willetts's view of κοινοδίκιον accords with his view of the κοινόν in general: that both were based on the archaic tribal traditions of the Cretans, and that it is possible to find antecedents for the Hellenistic developments in documents from the Crete of earlier centuries, such as the treaty between Knossos and Tylissos, arbitrated by Argos in the Classical Age (IC i.8. 4). Cf. also Pappadakis's suggestions (n. 35 above). Svoronos, J. (BCH xii [1888] 415Google Scholar) had also suggested that the κοινοδίκιον might be traced back to the Classical Age or even earlier. But in spite of such speculations there is no evidence for a Cretan κοινοδίκιον any earlier than the 2nd century BC.

⁵¹ Van der Mijnsbrugge readily extends his interpretation of the Cretan κοινοδίκιον to cover other κοινοδίκια as well: ‘The [Teian] κοινοδίκιον then is mentioned in connection with a code regulating the settlement of private international offences. Hence it is the contract by which both contending parties accept the code of Eumenes.’ (52).

⁵² For example, he claims, with no evidence whatsoever, that the κοινοδίκιον mentioned in the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty was still in effect when the first σύμβολον between Gortyn, Hierapytna and Priansos was concluded (IC iv 174; cf. n. 21 above). He then uses this assumption to formulate his argument that the regulations of the subsequent Hierapytna-Priansos treaty must echo the procedures of the κοινοδίκιον, since these regulations were supposed to be carried out κατὰ τὸ δοχθὲν κοινᾶι σύμβολον.

⁵³ With respect to the missing article, it may be noted that the absence of the definite article before προδίκωι (in line 64 of the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty) is universally admitted to be significant, implying the general rule of use of arbitration when the need arose, rather than a commitment to turn to a specific individual or procedure.

⁵⁴ The Cretan members of the court might have been representatives of the various states which made up the κοινόν, or they might have been drawn only from the home state of the accused; they might also have been drawn from the συνέδριον of the κοινόν.

⁵⁵ Similarly, in the Polybios passage, the reference may be understood as something like ‘with respect to the practice of employing joint courts’. Again, it should be emphasized that it is by no means certain that Polybios is referring to κοινοδίκιον; many scholars, including Guarducci, think he is not.

⁵⁶ See n. 45 above.

⁵⁷ Polybios ii 37 mentions the Achaian federal judges; but their operation seems to have been limited, and the only evidence for their activity is the condemnation of an Achaian magistrate during the Achaian War (Polybios xxxviii 18). Disputes between the Achaian states were almost always referred to the judgement of a third state (or states); cf. SEG xi 377, 405, 972, xiii 278; IG iv².1. 70–72. The arbitrating state usually (although not always) was a member of the League.

⁵⁸ See IG ix².l. 3B, 177, 188.

⁵⁹ See SIG ³ 674; IG ix.2. 520; FDelphes iii.4. 355; Giannopoulos, N., AE (1927/8) 119–27.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Larsen (n. 5) 272–3 argues in favour of a federal court in the Akarnanian κοινόν (based on the evidence of IG ix².1. 583); but his belief that this court was capable of settling public inter-city disputes is based on conjecture. Thucydides iii 105 refers to a κοινόν δικαστήριον among the Akarnanians in 426, perhaps a court common to both the Akarnanians and Amphilochians (Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὄλπαι). Philip II is said to have established a κριτήριον in the League of Corinth for the settlement of disputes (Polybios ix 33.11–12); but the League of Corinth was not a κοινόν in the same sense as other Hellenistic federations, and the evidence for Philip's κριτήριον is ambiguous, perhaps referring only to the συνέδριοι acting as a court.

⁶¹ See the inscription edited by Pappadakis (n. 35 above), which refers only to the use of a δικαστήριον. See also SEG xiii 589 (an agreement between Gortyn and Kaudos to use arbitration, but not to employ the penalties as prescribed in the διάγραμμα); IC iv 174 (a σύμβολον between Gortyn, Hierapytna and Priansos, where the extremely fragmented judicial section refers to the terms έπικριτήριον and διάγραμμα); IC i. 16. 1 (a treaty between Gortyn and Lato, in which both sides agree to employ judges from the other side in case of disputes between their citizens, and to use the code of penalties as set down in the διάγραμμα). The references to the διάγραμμα have been understood to be references to the κοινόν, since the two are usually linked (Guarducci, IC i. 16. 1); but it is generally also argued, on the evidence of the Hierapytna-Priansos treaty, that the διάγραμμα remained in effect even when the κοινόν had ceased. Cf. n. 16 above.

The lack of references to κοινοδίκιον in the Gortyn-Kaudos treaty, and the presence in the latter of a reference to πρόδικος led Vélissaropoulos (n. 16) 42 to conclude (rather boldly) that in affairs relating to the competence of the κοινοδίκιον, the intervention of an arbitrator was excluded (she also compares the provisions of the Anaphe decree).

⁶² The Knossos-Tylissos arbitration: see n. 50 above; the Polyrhenia-Phalasarna treaty: IC ii.ll 1.

⁶³ IC ii.3. 20, iii.3. 1A.

⁶⁴ See van Effenterre 148, who does not rule out the notion of obligatory arbitration imposed by the κοινόν, but who makes the point that we often see foreigners acting in this rôle.

⁶⁵ Livy xxxvii 60. Labeo's mission was largely a failure. Willetts, Kadmos 144 argued that Aratos's ‘pacification of Crete’ in 216 took place within the context of the κοινόν (cf. van Effenterre); but Walbank (A historical commentary on Polybius ii [1967] 61 [on Polybios vii 14.4]) points out that there is no solid evidence for the involvement of Aratos in Crete.

⁶⁶ IMagM 46= SIG ³ 560 (lines 11–12), a decree of the Epidamnians (207/6 BC), inscribed at Magnesia.

⁶⁷ IC iv 181–182.

⁶⁸ See Guarducci, , IC iv 257f.Google Scholar, and Historia viii (1934) 67f.; see also van Effenterre 266.

⁶⁹ See Polybios xxix 10, 6 and SIG ³ 653A (cf. nn. 3–4 above), which show the κοινόν in existence in 168 and again c. 165.

⁷⁰ Cf. van Effenterre 151: ‘Le lien fédéral était suffisament souple pour s'accommoder de guerres entre les cités confédérées et pour résister le cas échéant à l'hostilité déclarée de Gortyne et de Cnossos.’

⁷¹ IMagM 65, 75–76 (= IC i.8. 9, iv 176).

⁷² IC i.8. 9 lines 19–20: [Γορτυνίων οἱ] σύμμαχοι καὶ Κνωσίω̣ν̣/ κο[ινᾶι διαδι]κα[ζό]ντων.

⁷³ It was once thought that these inscriptions should be dated to the late 3rd century, that perhaps the war that separated the Knossians and Gortynians was the war against Lyttos, and that there might be some connection with the Magnesian mediation mentioned in the Epidamnian decree discussed above (n. 66). Persuasive arguments have been made, however, to the effect that the context of Magnesia's offer to arbitrate should be found in Magnesia's own circumstances in the wake of her war with Miletos, a war which was thought to have been settled in 196 BC (Guarducci, , IC i 64–5).Google Scholar This war has been recently downdated to the latter part of the 180's, not the early 190's (Errington, R.M., Chiron xix [1989] 279–88).Google Scholar This in turn opens up the possibility of a later date for the Magnesian offer to arbitrate on Crete, a date of anywhere between about 180 and 168/167, when we find Ptolemy VI carrying out that arbitration instead, just as Gortyn had wanted.

⁷⁴ Willetts, Kadmos 144 points out that IC iv 176 (lines 11f.) may contain a reference to the κοινόν: --καὶ φι<λ>άνθρωπα περὶ τῶν [κοινᾶι συμφερ όντων]/ πᾶσιν Κρηταιεῦσιν διελέγ[ησαν ἐᾶν αὺτοὺσ]/ έλευθέρους ὅντας καὶ [άζαμίους ὲν τᾶι δα]/μοκρατίαι πολιτεύεσθαι--.

⁷⁵ IC iii.4. 9–10.

⁷⁶ See IC i.16. 3–4; van Effenterre, H., REA xliv (1942) 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Knossos's suggestion of a joint tribunal of allies; and the agreement between Hierapytna and Priansos to call on a third city to provide a δικαστήριον, a third city which would probably be Cretan.

⁷⁸ In spite of the claims of Vélissaropoulos (n. 16) 42 and Gauthier (n. 22) 324 that the issues under discussion in the Anaphe decree would have amounted to matters of public interest, it seems probable that what was envisioned here were private suits for damage laid by injured individuals. Cf. n. 23 above.