women and dunasteia in caria

Women and Dunasteia in Caria

Carney, Elizabeth Donnelly, 1947-

American Journal of Philology, Volume 126, Number 1 (Whole Number501), Spring 2005, pp. 65-91 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/ajp.2005.0016

For additional information about this article

Access provided by The Ohio State University (15 Mar 2013 16:04 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v126/126.1carney.html

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ajp/summary/v126/126.1carney.html

65WOMEN AND DUNASTEIA IN CARIA

American Journal of Philology 126 (2005) 65–91 © 2005 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

WOMEN AND DUNASTEIA IN CARIA

E. D. CARNEY

�

Abstract. This article considers the role of Hecatomnid women in the publicpresentation of the dynasty. It examines the rule and co-rule of women in Caria,the reasons for the dynasty’s practice of sibling marriage, the dynasty’s apparentindifference to the creation of heirs, and the impact of the role of Hecatomnidwomen on the Hellenistic dynasties. It argues that the position of women in theHecatomnid dynasty was a function of a family dynamic and image shaped bythe precarious nature of rule in the region, particularly by the dynasty’ssubordination to its Persian overlords.

WOMEN PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE in the public presentation of theHecatomnid dynasty, particularly in the formation of a dynastic identity.Their role in the rule of Caria, in itself unusual, certainly deserves morescholarly attention than it has so far received.1 While the Hecatomnidrulers of Caria served as forerunners as well as models for Hellenisticrulers (particularly in terms of the formation of the public image of theindividual ruler and the ruler’s dynasty), the situation of Hecatomnidwomen has relevance in any consideration of the position of women inlater fourth-century Macedonian and Hellenistic dynasties.

I

The Hecatomnid family, initially based at Cindya and later at Mylasa,2

first became prominent in the early fifth century B.C.E. They were but oneof many local dynasties that characterized the region. Hyssaldomus, thefather of Hecatomnus,3 may have served as satrap of Caria;4 it is certain

1 Studies of the Hecatomnids (Bockisch 1970; Hornblower 1982; Ruzicka 1992) dealwith the women of the dynasty only in passing, excepting Hornblower’s appendix (1982,358–63) on Hecatomnid brother-sister marriage. See also Nourse 2002, 73–123.

2 Ruzicka 1992, 15; Hdt. 5.118.2; Strab. 14.2.23.3 SEG 19.653; SEG 12.470; Labraunda 3.2, no. 27.4 Robert 1937, 574, followed by Bean 1980, 6, and Hornblower 1982, 36 (who sug-

gests father and son may have co-ruled; so also Bockisch 1970, 134–36) contra Ruzicka1992, 168, n. 11.

66 E. D. CARNEY

that his son Hecatomnus did (392/1–377/6).5 Hecatomnus had five chil-dren (Mausolus, Artemisia, Idrieus, Ada, Pixodarus; Strab.14.2.17), all ofwhom ruled Caria at one time or another. A statue of Hecatomnus’ sisterAba probably once existed, suggesting that even early in the fourthcentury, the women of the dynasty played some sort of public role inCaria (Robert 1945, 100). Certainly decades would pass before similarpractices developed outside Anatolia.6

Upon Hecatomnus’ death, Mausolus, the eldest of his children andthe most famous member of the dynasty, succeeded him as satrap anddynast (377/6–353/2). Mausolus moved the center of government toHalicarnassus,7 pursued a policy of Hellenizing Caria,8 and became amajor figure in the politics of the Aegean world, although remaining,usually, a loyal satrap (Weiskopf 1989, 13–15). Mausolus was married tohis full sister, Artemisia. Their marriage was childless (Strab. 14.656).Although literary sources mention only Mausolus as ruler, inscriptionalevidence9 makes it likely that they shared rule10 and that Artemisiapossessed some degree of public authority. Whether they were equalpartners in rule is much less clear (see below).

After Mausolus died, his widow-sister, Artemisia, briefly succeededhim (353/2–351/0).11 She organized impressive funeral celebrations forhim (Gell.10.18.5–7).12 Whatever her role in the planning of his funerarymonument, the famous Mausoleum, she undoubtedly supervised muchof its construction. Greek literature made her grief for her husbandfamous,13 possibly conflating the biography of this particular Carian widowwith a dynastic and regional type, the image of the mourning woman.14

5 Isoc. 4.162, c. 380, refers to Hecatomnus as an epistathmos, a term generally re-garded as a Greek substitute for the Persian “satrap.” (See Ruzicka 1992, 16; LSJ 658.)

6 Carney 2000a, 214, and 2000b, 26–27.7 Ruzicka 1992, 32–34.8 Mausolus was unique only in the degree and extent of his Hellenizing. Ruzicka

1992, 29.9 Labraunda 3.2, no.40; Staatsverträge 260; I Erythrai 8=SIG 168= GHI 2:155.10 Hornblower 1982, 40, concludes that they “shared satrapal rule, for a time at

least.”11 Diod. 16.36.2; Strab. 14.2.16.12 Jeppesen 1986, 103–4; Ruzicka 1992, 103.13 Theopompus FGrH 115 F 297; Aul. Gell. 10.18.3. See also Hornblower 1982, 259.14 Carian women had a reputation as professional dirge singers. Female statues,

probably Hecatomnids, of the “mourning type” appeared on the Mausoleum (Hornblower1982, 269). Waywell (1989, 29) has suggested that they were the model for the mourningtype found around the ancient world in later periods. A figure of the “mourning type” alsoappears on the votive from Tegea (where the figure is presumably Ada). See also Robertson1975, 458–59.


Vitruvius (2.14–15) claims that Artemisia dealt handily with a sur-prise raid on Halicarnassus by the Rhodian navy and that she installed astatue group at Rhodes to commemorate her victory. The veracity ofVitruvius’ testimony, once generally accepted,15 has been challenged(Berthold 1978, 129–34) because no other source mentions the inci-dent,16 because it assumes an unattested military and political situationin both Rhodes and Halicarnassus,17 and because the topography ofHalicarnassus appears to conflict with details of Vitruvius’ narrative.18

Nonetheless, it remains likely that some military incident at Halicarnassusinvolving Artemisia and the Rhodians did occur.19 Vitruvius’ assump-tions about the political and military situation at Rhodes are not neces-sarily implausible. 20 He (or his source) may have exaggerated21 or misun-derstood the motivation of the attack,22 but it is telling that no goodreason has been suggested for the wholesale invention of the incident.23

15 Bockisch 1970,162; Bean 1980, 88.16 Berthold (1978, 133) stressed Polyaenus’ omission of the tale. Polyaenus does

relate tricks of Mausolus but also contains doublets and omits other tales of trickery.17 Mausolus had installed an oligarchic government there, supported by a Carian

garrison on the island (see references in Berthold 1978, 130, n. 6). Berthold (1978, 130–32)argued that, if Vitruvius was correct, there had to have been a change in this situation andthat, even if such a change had occurred, the Rhodians would not have dared to attack thestrong citadel of Halicarnassus with their smaller navy.

18 Berthold 1978,133, n. 23, complains that there should be archaeological traces ofthe artificial harbor Artemisia supposedly used, citing Bean, but Bean (1980, 88) acceptsthe historicity of the attack.

19 Though Hornblower 1982, 129, was persuaded by Berthold’s arguments, Jeppesen1986, 94–100, and Ruzicka 1992, 109–10, were not. However, though Ruzicka seems to haveread Jeppesen (Ruzicka 1992, 200, n. 42, cites him), he introduces somewhat differentarguments of his own. Neither confronts all of the points advanced by Berthold.

20 Jeppesen (1986, 94–95) suggests that the Rhodians were acting in collaborationwith a male Hecatomnid and possibly the Persians, and thus did not expect general oppo-sition from the citizens and may have expected some support. Ruzicka 1992, 109–11, makesa similar suggestion.

21 Jeppesen (1986, 96) plausibly suggests that Vitruvius’ source was Halicarnassianand that the tale had been exaggerated by local patriots. Both Jeppesen 1986, 94, andRuzicka 1992, 110, picture a Rhodian expedition with more modest goals than thoseVitruvius described.

22 Though Vitruvius reports (2.8.14) that the Rhodians wanted to attack because awoman ruled Caria, Ruzicka (1992, 109–10, esp. n. 39) observes that Vitruvius was probablyguessing. Jeppesen (1986, 94) suggests that the Rhodians preferred a Carian male.

23 Berthold 1978, 129–34, suggests reasons why the statue group might have beencreated, but this does not explain why Vitruvius would have encountered a story about anevent at Halicarnassus. Indeed, Berthold (1978, 130, 134) concedes that the tale could be a“gross exaggeration of some historical incident” rather than complete fiction but suggeststhat the story may refer to “some failed attempt of the Rhodians to overthrow the Carian-

68 E. D. CARNEY

If, as seems possible, Artemisia was involved in other military action,24

her role in the Rhodian incident would seem more believable.Upon the death of Artemisia, her brother Idrieus succeeded her

(351/0–344/3); Idrieus had also married their sister Ada.25 Once more, aswith the case of Mausolus and Artemisia, literary sources speak only ofthe rule of Idrieus (Diod. 16.42.6–9, 45.7), but epigraphical evidence26

demonstrates that Idrieus and Ada shared public authority.27 The dy-nasty continued to enjoy a reputation for wealth (Isoc. 5.103), just as itcontinued to employ major Greek artists (Ruzicka 1992, 104–5).

After the death of Idrieus, Ada became sole ruler of Caria in344/3.28 No extant evidence confirms that Ada was ever formally recog-nized as a Persian satrap, but it is generally easier to demonstrate thatHecatomnids ruled Caria than that they had been recognized as satraps.29

Even when such recognition is certain, we do not know whether it wasgranted simultaneously with the beginning of the individual Hecatom-nid’s rule of Caria.30

Ada did not rule Caria long. Her brother Pixodarus somehowdrove her from rule (c. 341/0)31 and forced her into isolation at Alinda,

supported oligarchs.” This does not explain an incident located at Halicarnassus. Hornblower(1982, 129, n. 188) suggests an origin in a “Rhodian patriotic source,” an unlikely parentagefor the tale of Artemisia’s humiliating defeat of the Rhodians.

24 Polyaenus recounts (8.53.4) a trick by which the elder Artemisia, daughter ofLygdamis, managed to capture Latmos. Ruzicka 1992, 42, n. 39, argued that Polyaenus hasconfused the elder Artemisia with the younger. Others (see references in Hornblower 1982,422, n. 243) have seen the Artemisia episode as a doublet for his account (7.23.2) ofMausolus’ seizure of Latmos.

25 Arr. 1.23.7; Strab. 14.656; Diod. 16.45.7, 69.2.26 Sinuri 1 no. 73, no. 75; GHI 161B=SIG 225; GHI 161A.27 Robert 1945, 96–97, concluded that inscriptions demonstrated co-rule.28 Arr. 1.23.7; Strab. 14.2.17; Diod. 16.69.2. On Ada, see Berve 1926, 2: 11–12; Judeich

RE 1, 339.29 Ruzicka 1992, 101, notes that literary sources do not attest Artemisia as satrãphw,

but adds that, since only Plutarch (Alex. 10.3) employs the term to refer to any Hecatomnid,the omission is unlikely to be significant. The same could be said of Ada.

30 Greek writers, though sometimes aware of the satrapal status of the Hecatomnids,more often spoke of them as dynasts or even as kings or queens (Bockisch 1970, 171;Weiskopf 1989, 73–74; Ruzicka 1992, 43, nn. 42–45). Greek cities’ inscriptions employedpatronymics to refer to individual Hecatomnids (as did the Hecatomnids themselves), nottitles (Robert 1945, 100–101).

31 The Great King did nothing to reverse this turn of events, but there is no evidencefor Ruzicka’s idea (1992, 124–25) that he supported it or was behind it. So long as thetribute appeared and there was not prolonged unrest, there is no sign that any Persian kingcared which Hecatomnid was on the throne, as Ruzicka himself notes (Ruzicka 1992, 101).


the strongest fortress in Caria.32 There she apparently maintained herselfas the same kind of local dynast that her ancestors had once been.33

Pixodarus was recognized as satrap.34 Perhaps because there were noother daughters of Hecatomnus available, Pixodarus had married Aphenis,a Cappadocian woman (Strab. 14.2.17); if she shared power with herhusband, there is no evidence of it.35 Probably not coincidentally, Pixodaruswas the only one of Hecatomnus’ children who had a child (or at least achild known to us), a daughter also named Ada (Strab.14.2.17). Afterdemonstrating initial loyalty to the Persian throne, when Philip II’s inva-sion of Asia Minor appeared imminent, Pixodarus apparently concludedthat the Macedonian king was a more serviceable overlord than theGreat King.36 He offered his daughter in marriage to Philip’s son,Arrhidaeus (Plut. Alex. 10.1).37 When Alexander’s anxieties about hissuccession led him to attempt to substitute himself for his half-brother asthe younger Ada’s prospective groom, which in turn prompted Philip’swrath and the collapse of the marriage alliance (Plut. Alex. 10.2–3),Pixodarus was forced to turn again to the Persians. His daughter marriedOrontobates, a member of the Persian elite, and Pixodarus somehowshared the rule of Caria with Orontobates.38 By the time Alexander’sexpedition arrived in Asia, Pixodarus had died (336/5), and literary sourcespicture Orontobates in sole control of Caria.39 However, the elder Adaremained in her stronghold in Alinda, and the younger Ada may haveretained some public role in the rule of Caria.40

32 See Bosworth 1980, 154, on Ada’s building at Alinda.33 Arr. 1.23.7–8; Strab. 14.2.17; Diod. 16.74.2.34 See Bosworth 1980, 153, for discussion and references to an inscription from

Xanthos that gives him this title (in Aramaic). Badian 1977, 40–50, followed by Bosworth1980 and Weiskopf 1989, 65, argue that the inscription should be dated to c. 337/6.

35 Ruzicka 1992, 126, observes that, since she was not born a member of the dynasty,she might not have been associated with rule. However, our only evidence for the co-ruleof Hecatomnid women is inscriptional, and we have no inscriptional reference to Aphenis.

36 On his motivation, see Ruzicka 1992, 126, contra Judeich 1892, 252; Bosworth1980, 153; Pedersen 1994, 33, n. 3.

37 On the historicity of this incident, see Carney 1992, 179. Granted Arrhidaeus’mental limitations (Carney 2001, 63–89), the proposed marriage alliance was probablyintended to create a child of Ada and Arrhidaeus who could succeed (contra Ruzicka 1992,131).

38 Arr. 1.23.8; Strab. 14.2.17; see Hornblower 1982, 49; Ruzicka 1992, 131–32.39 Strab. 14.2.17; Arr. 1.23.8.40 Hornblower 1982, 49, n. 92 (followed by Ruzicka 1992, 135) observes that the lack

of any inscriptional evidence about the younger Ada is critical since the joint rule ofMausolus and Artemisia was unattested until inscriptional evidence appeared. Strabo

70 E. D. CARNEY

Hecatomnus’ last surviving child saw her chance for a return towider rule in the approach of Alexander’s army in the summer of 334.Ada came to Alexander upon his arrival in Caria, surrendered Alinda tohim, and adopted him as her son (Arr. 1.23.8) 41 and presumably as herheir.42 Alexander chose to make Ada of Caria a substitute or secondarymother,43 just as he later would another royal Asian woman, Sisygambis,mother of Darius.44 Alexander returned Alinda to Ada’s control, con-signed (at least formally) the completion of the siege of Halicarnassus toher,45 and made her once more ruler of all of Caria.46 She held thisposition until her death at an unknown date but prior to Alexander’sown death in 323.47 After her death,48 Caria was ruled by a succession ofMacedonians.49

(14.2.17) says that the part of Caria Alexander did not control was ruled by Ada’s relatives,a possible allusion to both Orontobates and Ada.

41 Ruzicka 1992, 139, concludes that she was too old for marriage herself and had nodaughter.

42 Bosworth 1980, 154, attributes this decision to the “eastern tradition of descentthrough female line,” a scholarly myth going back to Bachoffen and long since exploded(see Pembroke 1965, 217–47). Numerous inscriptions demonstrate that male and femaleHecatomnids used patronymics, not matronymics, and were referred to by others by meansof patronymics. Indeed, we do not know the name of the mother of the children ofHecatomnus.

43 Plutarch’s works (Alex. 22.4–5; Mor. 127b, 180a, 1099c–d) contain many versionsof an anecdote in which Ada offers Alexander luxurious sweets and he turns them downfor the hardships of military life. This anecdote is dubious because it is meant to demon-strate Alexander’s tough maleness against women’s tendencies to luxury (Plut. Alex. 22.5has Olympias acting in the same way). Abramenko 1992 argued that the “mother of theking” who (Diod. 17.32.1) warned Alexander to be on watch against Lyncestian Alexanderwas not Olympias, but Ada.

44 Bosworth 1988, 63–64. On Sisygambis, see Berve 1926, 2: 356–57.45 Bosworth 1980, 154, doubts that Ada was in actual charge of the siege since Arrian

(2.5.7) assigns the task to Ptolemy. Her role may, however, have been no more thannominal, granted the careers of the elder and younger Artemisia. Jeppesen 1986, 92–93,somewhat implausibly suggests, based on Strabo 14.2.17, that the elder Ada and youngerAda commanded opposing sides in the siege.

46 Strab. 14.2.17; Arr. 1.23.8; Diod. 17.24.2–3. Ptolemy was left behind with infantryand cavalry (Arr. 1.23.6). Ruzicka 1992, 144, concludes that Alexander had to appear toleave Ada in full military authority contra Bosworth 1988, 230, who assumes that her powerwas confined to “civil administration.”

47 Philoxenus brought an army from Caria to Babylon in 323 (Arr. 7.23.1, 24.1), soshe must have been dead by that date (Hornblower 1982, 51; Ruzicka 1992, 153).

48 See Özet 1994; Prag and Neave 1994; 1997 for the possibility that a burial discov-ered in Halicarnassus is that of Ada. No inscriptional evidence supports this identification.

49 See Billows 1989, 173–203.


II

Hecatomnid women ruled with their brothers and by themselves. What isdistinctive about Artemisia and her sister Ada is that several documentsdemonstrate that their power was not simply private—exercised behindthe scenes as was the case with so many royal women in other culturesand periods—but publicly acknowledged in official documents. Assess-ing the extent of their role in rule is difficult because of the nature of ourevidence. As we have seen, extant Greek literary sources, although awarethat both Artemisia and Ada ruled Caria as widows, seem ignorant of thefact that both sisters co-ruled with their husbands. We know about theirsharing of rule only from a handful of inscriptions whose evidence mustbe analyzed with care.

While there is good inscriptional evidence that these women sharedrule with their sibling spouses, some of those same inscriptions suggestthat their shares were hardly equal to those of their husbands. In aLabraunda inscription (Labraunda 3.2, no. 40), both Mausolus and Arte-misia decree privileges to the Cnossians, and the royal pair is mentionedagain in terms of safeguarding the privileges that the decree establishes.But the inscription specifies that Cnossian privileges will extend “in allthe land which Mausolus rules” (ıpÒshw MaÊssvllow êrxei),50 not “allthe land which both Mausolus and Artemisia rule.” While both she andMausolus swore the oath to honor the agreement with Phaselis (assum-ing her name has been correctly restored to the inscription),51 her nameis absent from the rest of the text of the agreement, and only that ofMausolus appears. Two Sinuri inscriptions show Ada and Idrieus makingjoint decrees, one a decree of syngeneia for an individual52 and the othera grant of tax exemption.53

Many public Hecatomnid acts, however, involve only males. Sev-eral inscriptions show Mausolus acting alone, sometimes specifically assatrap.54 Only the names of the male Hecatomnids appear on coins,surely suggestive of their dominance in rule, granted the association of

50 Translation of Hornblower 1982, 75.51 Staatsverträge 260. The restoration is not always accepted; see Hornblower 1982,

367, M 10. Ruzicka 1992, 42, apparently accepts the restoration.52 Sinuri 1, no. 73; Robert 1945, 94–98.53 Sinuri 1, no. 75. Robert 1945, 98. See discussion in Ray 1990, 129, 131–32, for the

possibility, based on an idea of Schürr’s and a restoration of the text, that Sinuri, D 10, theCarian text, is also a joint decree of Idrieus and Ada.

54 SIG 167, 169, 170.

72 E. D. CARNEY

coinage and sovereignty.55 Moreover, though each brother dedicated andinscribed structures in the sanctuary at Labraunda, neither sister-wife ismentioned in these dedications.56 Thus, on the basis of surviving materialgenerated by the Hecatomnids themselves, male Hecatomnid were thedominant partners.

Information generated outside the dynasty suggests a similar con-clusion. Despite the absence of literary evidence, inscriptions demon-strate that some Greeks and Greek cities recognized the public role ofboth royal sisters but stressed the role of the male Hecatomnids.57 AnErythraean inscription58 decrees that images of Mausolus and Artemisiabe erected.59 The erection of statues of women in public places wascomparatively rare, and a decree for joint statues seems to imply somesort of sharing of the prestige and authority that the Erythraeans pre-sumably hoped to cultivate. Nonetheless, though honoring both Mausolusand Artemisia, the inscription seems intent on nuancing those honors ina way to give greater importance to Mausolus. Mausolus alone is speci-fied as benefactor, and various other honors are given only to him (he isa citizen, proxenos, has the right to sail in and out of Erythrae, has theright to sit in front at public performances, and is free from taxation).Though the decree awards statues and crowns to both, the statue ofMausolus is to be made of bronze, placed in the agora, and costs fiftydarics, whereas the statue of Artemisia is to be made of marble, placed inthe temple of Athena, and costs only thirty darics.

Both the Tegean stele from the temple of Athena Alea, showingIdrieus and Ada worshiping Zeus Labraundeus and inscribed with theirnames (GHI 161A), and the statue base from Delphi, commemoratingthe dedication by the Milesians of large bronze statues of Idrieus andAda (GHI 162B), suggest an understanding of this Hecatomnid pair thatis more egalitarian60 than that of the Erythraean decree, but too little is

55 Joint rule for Hecatomnus and Mausolus has been hypothesized on the basis ofMilesian coins reading EKA and MA (BMC Caria p. lxxx; BMC Ionia p. xxxv–vi).Hornblower 1982, 38, n. 14, considers joint rule, on the basis of this evidence alone, possiblebut not certain.

56 See discussion and references in Hellström 1991, 297–308; 1996b, 165–67. Hellström1991, 299, attributes two buildings to Mausolus and five to Idrieus.

57 Although Greek construction of gender (see below) may have affected this pat-tern, it is similar to that seen in Caria itself.

58 I Erythrai 8=SIG 168=GHI 2:15559 Jeppesen 1986, 82–83, thinks there may have been a similar pair of statues in

Halicarnassus.60 For instance, in the Milesian dedication, Idrieus and Ada are both referred to by

patronymics; she is not described as his gune, and both receive bronze statues. In the


known about the circumstance leading to the creation of each inscriptionto determine whether this is a significant distinction.61 Portrait statues ofwomen, particularly at great shrines like Delphi, were rare; the image ofAda62 may have been the first on that site to commemorate a woman forwhat was, in effect, a public and political role.63 The statue of Artemisia atErythrae, earlier in date,64 is even more unusual.65

One must conclude that, though the royal couples shared rule andwere acknowledged to do so in some places, the brother-husbands had amuch greater portion of power and authority. It is difficult to assess,however, the degree of discrepancy in power between Hecatomnid malesand females. The small amount and randomness of surviving material66

or the prejudice toward women who played a public role found in somestrands of Greek literary tradition (see below) may exaggerate the ap-parent disproportion.67 Certainly, many more documents would need to

Tegean votive, their names alone are listed and their positions are comparatively parallel(the female figure does display the position of the “mourning woman” or “femina adorans”and so might be said to be gendered in a conventional way, but as Tod [1946, 179] notes, themale figure also appears to be shown in an attitude of worship and the figures are about thesame size).

61 See Hornblower 1982, 241, Ruzicka 1992, 105, n. 26, Waywell 1993 for discussionand references for the Tegean relief. Waywell 1993, 80, suggests that it may not have beena votive but a decree honoring their joint patronage of the temple. The Milesian dedicationwas probably erected during the co-rule of Ada and Idrieus (Hornblower 1982, 241); seealso Ruzicka 1992, 105, n. 20.

62 Carter 1983, 274, suggests that catalogue no. 85 from the sanctuary of AthenaPolias at Priene might be a portrait of Ada.

63 Carney 2000b, 26, states misleadingly that the female statues in the Philippeum“were probably the very first in mainland Greece to commemorate women for what was, ineffect, a political role.” There were earlier such images, but they were not images of Greekwomen but Carian: the statue of Artemisia at Delphi (see below) and one of the elderArtemisia at Sparta (Paus. 3.11.3).

64 See Hornblower 1982, 108, followed by Ruzicka 1992, 186, n. 55.65 Honorific statues of priestesses (e.g., Plin. H.N. 34.76) became common in the late

fifth century (Carney 2000b, 26, n. 27). It is significant that Artemisia’s statue at Miletus wasto be placed in the temple to Athena whereas her husband’s was to stand in the agora.Kron 1996, 139–82, noted the privileges of major Greek priestesses. Carney observed thatpriestesses honored with statues, like later royal women, were the unusual women whomoved between private and public roles. The Milesians may have understood Artemisia’srole as somehow similar to that of priestesses.

66 The chance survival of a few inscriptions has altered our understanding of the roleof Hecatomnid women; the discovery of a few more could alter it yet again.

67 Arguments from silence, particularly when the topic is women, are dubious.Pomeroy 1984, 18–19, warned that women tend to be a “muted group” whose influence isoften underestimated.

74 E. D. CARNEY

be available before one could reasonably attempt to delineate patternsin terms of what Hecatomnid males decided alone and what decisionswere shared with their spouses. Extant evidence documents that femaleHecatomnids made public decisions and did not simply receive honors.However modest their authority compared to that of their brothers, inHecatomnid Caria the decision-making power of the women of thedynasty was acknowledged, not only when they ruled alone but evenwhile their sibling spouses were alive.

We know of no evidence that the Carians themselves had difficul-ties with women rulers. Neither Mausolus nor Idrieus hesitated to leavetheir sister-wives to rule alone; one wonders whether these male rulerswould have been willing to entrust the future of the dynasty and rule ofCaria to their wives had these spouses only had nominal previous expe-rience in rule, as so many scholars have supposed. Several times thebroader Carian population indicated dissatisfaction with Mausolus andother male Hecatomnids (IM 1–3)68 but is not known to have demon-strated disapproval of its female rulers.69 True, the Carians did nothing toprevent Pixodarus from overthrowing Ada’s rule, so far as we know, butDiodorus (17.24.2–3) does report that as soon as Alexander connectedhimself to Ada, he won the good will of the Carians, and the remainingcities in opposition immediately went over to Alexander.

Moreover, too little has been made about possible connectionsbetween the Hecatomnids and that famous Artemisia, the ruler of thethen independent Greek city of Halicarnassus in the days of Xerxes, awoman who conducted herself in a naval battle with some success andcleverness (Hdt. 7.99, 8.87–88).70 This elder Artemisia was an ethnic mix:her mother was Cretan but her father Lygdomis was Halicarnassian(Hdt. 7.99).71 She may well have been a Hecatomnid ancestor.72 In anyevent, she was renowned, and Hecatomnus’ choice of name for his elder

68 For discussion, see Ruzicka 1992, 84, 98–99.69 The significance of this argument from silence is doubtful. Moreover, Hecatomnid

women may have generated less hostility because they ruled alone for much shorterperiods than the males or because they were less aggressive in their public policies.

70 See Weil 1976; Munson 1988; Tourraix 1990.71 Hornblower 1982, 349, n. 161, thinks that her father was probably part Carian

since about half the population of Halicarnassus was of mixed ethnicity.72 Bockisch 1970, 124–26, 137, suggests that the two dynasties were related, that

Pixodarus of Cindya, son of Mausolus (Herod. 5.118.2; probably a Hecatomnid; see Ruzicka1992, 15) was related to the elder Artemisia; Jeppesen 1986, 107, rightly points out thatwhether or not they were actually related, that claim could easily have been made by theHecatomnids. Nourse 2002, 78, thinks she may have been related to her husband by blood.


daughter may purposely allude to this earlier woman ruler. The elderArtemisia, like the two female Hecatomnid rulers when they ruled alone,was a widow and, as in their case, there was an adult male member of thedynasty available, in this case her son. Herodotus makes the point that,though there was no necessity (because of the son), she chose to com-mand in battle because of her desire to do so and her “manliness” (Hdt.7.99).

There may have been some tradition in Caria of shared rule bymarried pairs and a sense that a widow was a more direct heir to adeceased husband than either a son or a brother. Certainly Herodotus’choice of words implies that the obvious result of Artemisia’s husband’sdeath was that she held the sovereignty (7.99).73 Behind this view may liean understanding of the power to rule as dual, having male and femaleaspects.74 Paired images of Hecatomnid husbands and wives, the possibleinclusion of statues of female as well as male members of the dynasty inthe Mausoleum,75 as well as the inscriptions already discussed, could allbe indicators of just that. After all, although Carians, and particularly theHecatomnids, were noted Hellenizers, the presence of an overlay ofGreek culture need hardly mean that some peculiarly Carian customsdid not remain.

Non-Carians could have been another matter. Granted that theirown royal women played no such public role, the Persians could havefound the idea of female dynasts as satraps even more problematic thanthey did male dynasts. No evidence, however, exists that suggests that

73 Bockisch 1970, 126, 174, suggests something more dubious, that these Carianwomen had equality of rights. The evidence merely demonstrates that they shared powerand the ability to inherit it, but not that their share was equal. The rule of widows and theirability to take precedence over male claimants is distinctive but not necessarily tied todescent at all; the elder Artemisia’s husband was not, so far as we know, her brother nor herfather the previous ruler.

74 As happened in Egypt to some degree, particularly in the New Kingdom. SeeRobins 1993, 5; Morkot 1986, 2. See below for possible Egyptian influence on Caria.

75 Waywell 1978, 77–78, 105; 1989, 29 (followed by Hornblower 1982, 268–710), citingthe portrait-like quality of some female statues, their colossal size, and the past tradition ofstatues of female members of the dynasty. Waywell points to the proliferation of statuegroups of families in the late fourth century and argues that the Mausoleum was the modelfor the Philippeum (which included female members of the dynasty; Paus. 5.17.4, 20.9–10)and other structures. Granted the formal involvement of dynastic women in some aspectsof rule, it seems likely that they would have been included in a dynastic monument. LeBohec 1993, 239, believed that the sungenikon Antigonus Gonatas dedicated at Deloswould have included his female ancestors.

76 E. D. CARNEY

they objected to either Artemisia or Ada as satraps.76 Since Artemisiaruled two years and Ada four, the women had de facto approval. Had theGreat King really disapproved, the women would surely have been re-moved. On the other hand, the Persians were unlikely to have protestedif a Carian female dynast were replaced by a male Hecatomnid.77 SinceIdrieus made no objection and Artemisia caused no problems, naturallythe Persian king allowed her to remain in control of Caria. But whenPixodarus took advantage of Persian lack of interest to take rule awayfrom his sister, the Persians felt no need to intervene.

Greek views were not uniform and probably varied by period,individual, and perhaps place of origin. Though some recent scholarshiphas challenged the legitimacy of an analysis of Greek society based on anextreme separation between the private world of women and the publicworld of men,78 it is likely that many Greeks, especially Athenians, in theclassical period had narrow cultural expectations of women and a markedtendency to exclude them from public life. Thus they would have beenbothered by female rule, even in semi-barbarous Caria. Demosthenescertainly hoped to end it or at least exploit it.79 Not all Greeks, however,were classical Athenians. Herodotus, a native of Halicarnassus, treatedthe elder Artemisia in a very favorable manner, exaggerating, if anything,her role in the Persian expedition. Though his diction suggests that heconsidered her participation in a military campaign something that neededexplaining, he indicates no such surprise about the fact that she ruled.This also suggests that even in the “Greek” city of Halicarnassus, femalerule was generally accepted. On the other hand, later Greek sources,

76 Ruzicka 1992, 101, concedes that the Persians were unlikely to have cared that shewas a woman as long as the tribute came in on time. He cites as a parallel case that ofMania, widow of the dynast of Dardanus. Nourse 2002, 89, sees Persians as comfortablewith the political role of women in Anatolian dynasties.

77 Ruzicka 1992, 42, noted that Mausolus’ association of his sister with him in therule of Caria was without Persian precedent, but this need not mean that the Persian kingobjected. Ruzicka’s suggestion (1992, 124) that the Persians may have wanted Ada out ofsole rule has no evidentiary basis.

78 For instance, Patterson 1998, 2–3, 228, sees polis and oikos as mutually supportingrather than antagonistic and explicitly rejects private/public, male/female analysis. Thoughthis view has hardly met with universal acceptance (Demand 2002, 33–39), it has had thesalutary effect of forcing the recognition that, though Greeks were fond of thinking inpolarities, such thinking was an intellectual construct, not necessarily a reflection of whatGreek men and women really did.

79 Demosthenes’ remarks about Artemisia’s position (15.11–13) indicate that helooked down on her as a “barbarian and woman” (Dem. 15.23) and hoped to take advan-tage of what he considered her weak position.


unaware that Ada and Artemisia co-ruled with their spouses, would havebeen more likely to see their sole rule as problematic. Judging by thetreatment of royal Macedonian women who exercised some degree ofpolitical power, Greek sources might have been comparatively positive,if a woman’s political activity could have been understood in terms ofconventional female roles, but much more negative if not.80

On the other hand, it may be dangerous to assume that Greekswould entertain the same expectations about Greek or Macedonianroyal women that they would about Asian female rulers.81 Other Greekprejudices and cultural paradigms, common but hardly universal, wouldalso have affected perceptions of the role of Carian female rulers. Arrian(1.23.7) seems to juxtapose brother-sister marriage, which he believed tobe Carian custom, with the rule of women. Moreover, having noted thatIdrieus left his sister-wife Ada to rule, Arrian adds that from the time ofSemiramis on, it was custom in Asia that women rule over men. This callsto mind the famous reversal Herodotus attributed to Xerxes in referenceto the elder Artemisia, that his men had become women and his women,men (8.88). These associations generated dubious polarities, e.g., women/Asia/softness as opposed to men/Greece/hardness.82 In this context, Asianfemale rulers might be admired in order to negate the role of Asian maleleaders, as in Xerxes’ supposed remarks already mentioned (Hdt. 8.88–89). Here again it is, however, wise to resist overgeneralization. For someGreeks, to be Asian was to be barbarian, but for others, especially Greeksfrom Asia Minor (Thomas 2000, 77–78, 99–100), cultural distinction mightbe explained as the consequence of climate or custom, not necessarilycultural or ethnic superiority.

These ancient prejudices may be further magnified by modernones. Scholarship about Caria tends to consider the rule of Carian womenproblematic.83 Scholars often assume that Hecatomnid women played norole other than a formal one in rule until their brother-husbands died,and that, even then, they functioned merely as placeholders when they

80 See discussions in Carney 1993, 29–36; 2000a, 8–15.81 J. Hornblower 1981, 226, seems to suggest that Greek historians would have been

more accustomed to the idea of an Asian female ruler than one from the Greek mainland.82 See Sancisi-Weerdenburg 1983; Hall 1989, 95, 209; 1995, 110, for references and

discussion. Sassi 2001, 83, warns against exaggerating the parallelism of women and barbar-ians as categories.

83 For instance, Ruzicka implausibly argues (1992, 101–2) that Artemisia was in aparticularly vulnerable position with the Persian king, assuming that Demosthenes’ (Dem.15.23) view was not only literally true but also identical to that of the Persian king.

78 E. D. CARNEY

ruled alone.84 Perhaps the more recently discovered inscriptional evi-dence that demonstrates co-rule has somehow continued to seem lessreal than the longer-known literary evidence in which there is no refer-ence to co-rule. The assumption that the co-rule of royal women was onlynominal could be correct but is more likely an oversimplification. Worseyet, the assumption remains largely unexamined and even unnoted.

A good example of the way unexamined assumptions affect inter-pretation of the role of Hecatomnid women relates to the Mausoleum.Though all our ancient sources say Artemisia built her husband’s tombmonument, the famous Mausoleum,85 virtually all scholarship insists thatshe was essentially only the contractor and that her husband planned themonument, presumably in great detail, before his death.86 The only ob-jective evidence for this assertion is that space was left for the monumentin the revised city plan that certainly did take shape during Mausolus’rule, but this need only signify that Mausolus intended to have a grandtomb monument, not that he had specific plans for it. Of course even thisconclusion is based on the presumption that Artemisia had no role indecisions until her brother was dead. In effect, scholarship has simplyassumed a construction of gender and allotment of sexual roles in Cariabased on the situation in other, better-known ancient cultures.

Nothing in our ancient sources suggests that these Hecatomnidwomen were merely ciphers during their periods of shared rule or thatthey were considered incompetent when they ruled alone. It continues tobe reasonable to believe that the men were the dominant partners inrule, but it is not reasonable to believe that their wives did nothingsignificant before their husbands’ deaths.

84 For instance, Hellström 1996a, 136, refers to the rule of Artemisia as a “briefinterregnum.” See further below.

85 Strab. 14.16; Cic. Tusc. 3.31.75; Aul. Gell. N.A. 10.18.4; Plin. NH 36.4.30.86 Bockisch 1970, 145, sees her only as the contractor; Ruzicka 1992, 51, building on

Hornblower’s observation (1982, 238) that the location of the Mausoleum necessitates thatMausolus had the idea and general plan for it when he was rebuilding the city, then arguesthat construction must have begun during Mausolus’ lifetime. Hornblower himself (1982,238–39) is more cautious, noting that the literary sources all attribute the monument toArtemisia. His conclusion that she could not have completed the task is reasonable (andconfirmed, as he points out, by Pliny), but his belief that her grief would somehow haveprevented it is not.


III

The Hecatomnids practiced brother-sister marriage. Although Arrian(1.23.7), in reference to Ada’s marriage, remarked that such marriageswere customary in Caria, he may have meant only that they were cus-tomary in the ruling family.87 His assertion, whether broadly or narrowlyinterpreted, is otherwise unproven. No earlier sibling marriages in thedynasty are known, and there is some evidence that sibling marriage wasnot previously practiced.88 Thus, on the face of it, this was a dynasty that,so far as we know, practiced brother-sister marriage for only one genera-tion, without any certain local precedent,89 but did so in duplicate.

Royal families in various cultures have practiced brother-sistermarriage,90 most notably numerous pharaonic Egyptian rulers,91 the Ptol-emies, and the Achaemenids, the overlords of the Hecatomnids. In recentyears, the extent of Achaemenid sibling marriage (or other close kinmarriage) has been questioned.92 It was never a uniform practice of thedynasty. One could speculate that the Hecatomnids imitated Achaemenidpractice, but the evidence for Achaemenid sibling marriage is too slightto justify this speculation. Moreover, Persian influence on Caria was

87 Kornemann 1923, 30–33, and Hornblower 1982, 361, accept the idea that it wasCarian custom. Bosworth 1980, 152, suggests that Herodotus’ failure to refer to examplesof endogamy within Caria, granted his interest in Halicarnassus and in the subject ofbrother-sister marriage (3.31), means the custom was limited to the Hecatomnids.

88 Bosworth 1980, 152, argues that fifth century Hecatomnids were exogamous:Herodotus (5.118. 2) reports that Pixodarus, son of Mausolus, married a daughter of theCilician king. Hornblower 1982, 37, notes that there is no evidence Hecatomnus married hissister.

89 Asian dynasties like the Hittites and the Elamites may have practiced brother-sister marriage; the practice could have continued, but there is no evidence that this is so.See Frye 1985, 447–48.

90 The only broad population known to have practiced full sibling marriage was inRoman Egypt (Hopkins 1980, 303–54). Half-sibling marriage was comparatively common,especially in the Greek world where close-kin marriage was especially frequent, andpractice varied considerably around the ancient Mediterranean; see Shaw 1995, 270.

91 Robertson 1975, 447, suggests that the Hecatomnids practiced sibling marriage in“emulation of the pharaohs” for the sake of purity of the blood. Apart from this misinter-pretation of the purpose of the Egyptian custom, Egyptian influence in Caria was modest(see below).

92 Extant evidence is either Greek or late Persian. Bosworth 1980, 152, believed thatit was regular practice, but see Frye 1985, 445–55; Macuch 1991, 141–54; Herrenschmidt1994, 113–25; Brosius 1996, 45–46, 66–67.

80 E. D. CARNEY

primarily related to external politics, not cultural practices.93 Egyptianinfluence, though present, was not obviously connected to Egyptian mon-archy.94 It seems improbable that the sudden adoption of brother-sistermarriage by the Hecatomnids was primarily the result of outside influenceor imitation of one of these other dynasties. Even if we concede thepossibility of outside influence in the adoption of this custom, we wouldstill need to know why the Hecatomnids chose to imitate this particularcustom at this particular moment.

Moreover, the Hecatomnids practiced an unusual kind of royalsibling marriage, different in two critical respects from the practice oftheir possible models. Husbands as well as wives appear to have beenmonogamous. It is likely though not certain that full sibling marriagesproduce recognizable problems with conception and the production ofhealthy children.95 It is surely significant that the only one of Hecatomnus’children who had a child was also the only one not married to a sibling.96

Whether or not the two sibling marriages were without progeny becausethey were sibling marriages, it is notable that the male Hecatomnids,unlike the pharaohs and later Ptolemies, did not turn to secondary wivesor mistresses for the production of children. (I see no reason to assumethat these marriages were never consummated, but, if they were not,then the failure to find an alternative way to produce heirs appears onlymore striking.)

Another distinctive feature of Hecatomnid sibling marriage is itsconnection to the rule of women. I do not mean to imply that thepractice of royal brother-sister marriage inevitably leads to some sort ofco-rule involving male and female members of a dynasty.97 Whereas in

93 Ruzicka 1992, 7; Hornblower 1982, 9–11. Hornblower (1982, 361) points out that anumber of sub-Iranian cultures adopted consanguineous marriage, possibly in imitation ofAchaemenid, possibly on their own, perhaps because of earlier cultural models.

94 Hornblower 1982, 354–57. Many Carian mercenaries were Egyptianized and didnot return (see Kammerzell 1993), but Hornblower (1982, 357) detects limited reverseinfluence in terms of imitation of Egyptian styles in the cities and sanctuaries of Caria.

95 Scheidel 1996, 9–49; Ogden 1999, 97. See also Hornblower 1982, 362–63.96 Hornblower 1982, 361–63 assumes that there was a connection but rightly points

out that there may have been children who did not survive. Ogden 1999, 67, notes thatPtolemaic brother-sister marriages were similarly infertile. Nourse 2002, 107, suggests thatthe sibling succession was a response to the lack of children.

97 Hornblower’s statement (1982, 358) that a connection between brother-sistermarriage and matriarchy has “long been recognized” (citing Frazer and Cumont) and hisimplicit acceptance of the idea that sibling marriage is a survival of a supposed originalmatriarchy are views no modern scholar would now embrace.


the case of the Ptolemies some sort of connection developed (though itsnature is hard to define; Carney 1987, 438–39), nothing remotely similarcame of Achaemenid sibling marriages. My point is rather that the suc-cession pattern of the children of Hecatomnus strongly implies thatthere was a direct connection between Hecatomnid sibling marriage andthe function of the two daughters of Hecatomnus as co-rulers with theirbrother-husbands. As we have seen, Artemisia and Ada may not havebeen the equals of their respective spouses, but they demonstrably sharedpublic authority to some degree. The really remarkable feature ofHecatomnid sibling marriage is that, upon the deaths of their spouses—though in both cases there was a living, competent and adult male heir, afull brother—in each case the woman succeeded before the man. WhenMausolus died, it was Artemisia not Idrieus who succeeded him, andwhen Idrieus died, it was Ada, not Pixodarus who succeeded. Pixodarusoverturned this succession pattern, perhaps because he was the “oddman out” dynastically (the brother who lacked a sister-wife) or perhapsbecause he was getting old and was therefore unwilling to wait for hisown chance at rule.98 Ada, however, saw him as the usurper and waitedher chance to regain a position she saw as rightfully hers.

There has been almost no scholarly discussion of the reasons whythe Hecatomnids chose to pursue brother-sister marriage as a dynasticstrategy.99 Certainly no attention at all has focused on why they practicedsuch a distinctive form of royal sibling marriage. Discussions of thereasons why other royal dynasties opted for this marriage practice, how-ever, can help to compensate for scholarly neglect of the Hecatomnids.Some have suggested that other dynasties chose this strategy because itconsolidates a dynasty and limits dynastic strife, thus concentrating andeven preserving royal power.100 Though the practice of royal siblingmarriage may have averted some conflict in the short term,101 this strat-egy—granted that dynastic heirs were often produced by non-sibling

98 Ruzicka 1992, 124, suggested that Pixodarus may have been older than Ada.99 Hornblower 1982, 361–62, was the only scholar to consider the question. His

arguments (keeping property in the family, keeping the dynastic strain pure) have no clearrelevance to anything we know about the Hecatomnids. See Nourse 2002, 104, who sug-gests that sibling marriage may have implied the devotion of the couples and thus dynasticsolidarity.

100 So Brosius 1996, 34. Burstein 1982, 211–12 (followed by Ogden 1999, 75), at-tributes the first Ptolemaic sibling marriage to a need to define a particular line within thedynasty (the children of Berenice) contra Hazzard 2000, 88–89.

101 Herrenschmidt 1994, 117–18; Robins 1993, 29.

82 E. D. CARNEY

sexual partners—hardly consolidated the dynasty in the long term, as thehistory of the later Ptolemies demonstrates (Pomeroy 1984, 17).

Two more persuasive arguments made in terms of other dynastiesseem to be a better fit for the Hecatomnids. One connects royal siblingmarriage to either actual isolation, whether geographic or political, or toisolationist policies. In pharaonic Egypt, for instance, there was not onlyconsiderable geographic isolation but also a reluctance of Egyptian rul-ers to send their daughters out of Egypt and marry them to foreigners(Robins 1993, 32). The prestige and the power of a king’s daughter wereconsiderable, and Egyptian kings seem to have looked on them as anatural resource to be conserved and used only in Egypt. As the Ptolemiescame to practice brother-sister marriage more and more, a sense thatonly male Ptolemies were worthy husbands of female Ptolemies devel-oped. Later on, as the Romans gradually eliminated the other Hellenisticdynasties, there was also a scarcity of alternative royal brides.102

The most compelling argument about sibling marriage made interms of other dynasties has been that it is a strategy often pursuedbecause it makes a royal family distinct from the population as a whole,and, at the same time, it imitates the marriages of gods.103 Gay Robins(1983, 71), for instance, has pointed out that some pharaonic royal siblingmarriages happen at the beginning of a new dynasty when the siblingbride is not, in fact, the daughter of a king. As the first Ptolemaic brother-sister marriage demonstrates, a certain repulsion connected to an under-standing of such marriages as incestuous is not necessarily a deterrentand may be co-opted into an understanding of the dynasty as special andgodlike.104

Let us apply these general arguments to the situation of the Heca-tomnids. Why did the Hecatomnids, apparently without any compellingprecedent, suddenly turn to this comparatively unusual practice? Theywere a new dynasty (in terms of rule of all of Caria) and these marriagesmade them distinctive immediately, much as the sibling marriages of newpharaonic dynasties had done. If both sibling marriages were arrangedaround the same time, by Hecatomnus, then the effect would have been

102 Carney 1987, 436. Shaw 1995, 283, makes the isolationist argument that siblingmarriage in Roman Egypt was practiced only by the colonial elite to preserve their identity.Curiously, he seems to see a parallel to the Hecatomnid situation (295, n. 11), although thedynasty could hardly be categorized as a conquering elite.

103 Robins 1983, 71; 1993, 27.104 Hopkins 1980, 307; Frye 1985, 447. See Carney 1987, 428, esp. n. 19, for references

to Greek resistance to the marriage of Ptolemy II and his sister Arsinoe. She does notdetect major opposition contra Hazzard 2000, 8, 39.


even more intense. Just as the Mausoleum implies that Mausolus and hisdynasty were heroic, perhaps semi-divine (see below), so might the un-usual marriage habits of the Hecatomnids. They may also have beentrying to buy authority by imitating occasional Achaemenid practice,although, as I have indicated, this is not likely to have been a majorfactor.

IV

The Hecatomnids probably turned to brother-sister marriage in order toelevate the status and establish an identity for their new dynasty. Thismotivation does not explain why they chose to embrace the practice withsuch whole-hearted enthusiasm that both male and female Hecatomnidsdemonstrated a puzzling indifference to the long-term future of thedynasty, to the absence of heirs. We could explain Ada’s lack of concernfor her younger namesake by concluding that she naturally associatedher niece with Pixodarus’ betrayal,105 but it is still worth noting that sheapparently showed no interest in some continuation of Hecatomnid rulein the new empire of Alexander and preferred the “adoption” of Alex-ander, even though she must have known that Alexander would be onlyan absentee ruler and that rule of Caria would ultimately pass to aforeigner. More striking, though, is the fact that neither Mausolus norIdrieus seems to have produced a child by a woman other than theirwives or shown any interest in finding more distant male relatives toadopt.106 Only the actions of Pixodarus, the brother who lacked a siblingspouse, imply some, if limited, concern for the succession.107 Ordinarily, itis axiomatic in dynastic thinking that one wants to perpetuate the familythat, in effect, one wants to turn into an ancestor. So why were not theHecatomnids, so clearly focused on dynastic unity in the short term,worried about the future of their dynasty?

The answer may lie in the peculiarly ambiguous position of theHecatomnids as dynasts and satraps. Even if, as seems likely, more than

105 Strabo (14.2.17) seems to suggest this.106 Hornblower 1982, 361, notes their indifference to the production of heirs but

does not pursue a discussion of the reasons.107 His daughter’s marriage to Arrhidaeus might have preserved the dynasty. Granted

Arrhidaeus’ limited mental capacities (see Carney 2001, 63–89), Pixodarus might havehoped that his daughter would really rule and that the marriage would produce heirs.However, once his initiative failed, the fact that Pixodarus turned to the Persian elite for agroom for his daughter strongly implies that he had given up hope of maintainingHecatomnid dunasteia.

84 E. D. CARNEY

one Hecatomnid came to rule Caria before the current Persian kingrecognized that rule, no member of the dynasty could have dreamed ofany long-term rule of Caria without the approval of the Great King. TheHecatomnids were generally fairly obedient or at least not outwardlydefiant to Persian power. The two occasions on which Hecatomnids areknown to have opposed central control were brief moments of despera-tion.108 The members of this dynasty knew themselves to be employees, ifones with considerable independence. They continued to rule Caria atthe pleasure of the Persian king. In such a circumstance, it may haveseemed pointless to think in the long term, dynastically, to have anyrealistic expectation that many generations of Hecatomnids would ruleCaria.

Instead, the Hecatomnids took a different path, suggesting shorter-term goals that may have seemed more achievable. As I have argued, theinitiation of brother-sister marriages gave them instant attention in theinternational world and distinction at home. The role of women in rulemay have connected to older Carian patterns of rule. In effect, the role ofwomen in the dynasty may have contributed to its rapid acceptance andcomparative stability by combining innovation with revived tradition.

The most splendid accomplishment of the Hecatomnids made theprominent role of women in the dynasty visible. The Hecatomnids didnot produce babies but they did produce a famous monument, one of theSeven Wonders of the ancient world.109 This monument, the Mausoleum,was not simply a very elaborate tomb and commemorative for Mausolus.110

It was also a dynastic monument in two senses. For one thing, of the threehundred or so human figures on the monument, a number may havebeen images of male and female members of the dynasty and, of course,of the royal pair. If so, this was a memorial to the entire dynasty, not justto Mausolus. For another, even if Mausolus himself, as is often conjec-tured, conceived the general plan of his tomb monument, its completionwas certainly the work of Artemisia and probably of Idrieus and Ada aswell.111 Moreover, though the Mausoleum is the most ambitious and

108 Weiskopf 1989, 65–68; Ruzicka 1992, 76–88. Nourse 2002, 73, suggests that theyused Persian support to gain dominance over competing dynasties.

109 Strab. 14.2.16; Pliny NH 36.4.30; Aul. Gell. 10.18.4.110 On the tomb as evidence for possible heroization or even deification of Mausolus,

see Hornblower 1982, 253; Ruzicka 1992, 52–54; Jeppesen 1994.111 Pliny (NH 36.4.31) states that work was not completed before the death of

Artemisia. Hornblower (1982, 238–39) suggests that all the Hecatomnids may have beeninvolved.


famous Hecatomnid building project, it is hardly the only one: not onlythe rest of Halicarnassus but Caria as a whole contained a number oflarge and expensive structures erected under Hecatomnid rule.112 Theirassorted building projects were critical in the formation of dynastic iden-tity,113 projects usually the work of major Greek artists but always lo-cated in Caria itself.114

Thus the Hecatomnids, individually and collectively, strove not somuch for the perpetuation of the dynasty as for the perpetuation of thememory of the dynasty and its accomplishments. The direct involvementof the women of the dynasty in rule and succession was an advantage inthe successful achievement of this goal.

V

The Hecatomnids functioned as both forerunners and models for latefourth-century and Hellenistic monarchs in a number of areas, particu-larly those relating to the public presentation of individual and dynasticpower.115 The Mausoleum was the prototype for many dynastic monu-ments, starting with the Philippeum (Hintzen-Bohlen 1990, 129–54). WhenMausolus and Idrieus inscribed their dedications with their names inconspicuous places on religious structures, they broke with previousarchaic and classical Greek tradition, establishing a precedent for subse-quent Hellenistic rulers. The Hecatomnids used temples and religiouscomplexes for self-advertisement as would many Hellenistic rulers(Hornblower 1982, 274). Like Hellenistic rulers, they patronized art andarchitecture that combined Asian and Hellenic elements.116 Mausolussynoecized populations as would Philip, Alexander, and the Successors(Bockisch 1970, 145). The Hecatomnids and their fellow satraps on theIonian coast sponsored the first real portraits, the probable origin ofHellenistic royal portraits (Hornblower 1982, 273). The generally luxurious

112 See Gunter 1989, 91–99; Hellström 1996a, 133–38. Hellström 1996b, 165–67, sug-gests the structures at Labraunda served as a kind of palace for the Hecatomnid dynasty,had as their aim the glorification of the dynasty, and that ritual at the site approximated aruler cult.

113 Ruzicka 1992, 46–47. He later notes (1992, 157) that the Mausoleum gave thedynasty a kind of survival after death.

114 Hornblower 1982, 275, points out that their policy was as much “Karianizing” asit was Hellenizing. See also Hellström 1991, 307–8.

115 See recent general discussion in Pedersen 1994, esp. 13–18.116 Ruzicka 1992, 44. Robertson 1975, 447.

86 E. D. CARNEY

life-style of the Hecatomnids was a forerunner of that developed in thegreat Hellenistic courts.117

Did the unusual role of women in Hecatomnid rule also function asa model and prototype for the later Argeads and for Hellenistic dynas-ties? This is not an easy question to answer granted the considerabledifferences between the roles of women in the later Argead dynasty, thecourts of various Successors, and in the three great Hellenistic dynasties.The lack of general studies of the role of women in a number of thesedynasties further complicates the problem.118

Despite these difficulties, some broad generalizations can be made.The appearance of images of royal women on dynastic monuments andindividual statues, that is to say, the inclusion of women in the publicpresentation of fourth-century and Hellenistic monarchy, is clearly mod-eled on the Hecatomnids (Waywell 1994, 63). Such practices were almostcertainly linked to the gradual development of ruler cults that includedwomen.119 The appeal of such practices in terms of building dynasticunity and establishing legitimacy was apparently compelling.

The ability of Hecatomnid women to share in rule and to rule bythemselves had much less general appeal as a model. At the end of theArgead dynasty, Olympias and others had some claim to rule, but suchclaims did not endure, were not institutionalized, and arose primarilybecause of the absence of adult males. Antigonid women had no majorinstitutionalized part in the rule of their dynasties. Seleucid women playeda greater role in dynastic rule,120 but the women of the Ptolemies didbegin to share rule on a regular basis.121 Probably not coincidentally,theirs was the only dynasty to practice sibling marriage on a regularbasis. Hornblower suggested that they did so in imitation of theHecatomnids (Hornblower 1982, 362). In both dynasties a relationshipbetween the rule of women and brother-sister marriage existed. The

117 Hellström 1996b, 168, suggests that the andrones at Labraunda dedicated byMausolus and Idrieus were the model for similar rooms in Hellenistic palaces.

118 Macurdy 1932, though dated, remains essential, though see now Carney 2000a,Nourse 2002, and Ogden 1999.

119 See Carney 2000b, 21–43, esp. 23–30.120 On Antigonid women, see Carney 2000a, 179–202, for discussion and references.

On Seleucid women, see Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993, 126–30, and Nourse 2002; see alsoSavalli-Lestrade 1994 and Roy 1998, 111–35. Kyra Nourse, in comments made to me, pointsto Seleucid emphasis on the family as “a ruling unit,” with wife and heir dedicated to theking’s policies.

121 See Pomeroy 1984, 23–28. She implies that the combination of foreign and civilunrest and a royal minority with a female regent led to its initiation.


practice of royal sibling marriage did advantage Ptolemaic royal womenby creating a secure power base (Pomeroy 1984, 17). We have no directknowledge that the co-rule of Hecatomnid women was the consequenceof action by the women themselves, but Ptolemaic women who began toco-rule did so, at least in part, on their own initiative, with a clear tradi-tion in both Macedonia and in Egypt of greater independent femaleaction.122 Thus a Hecatomnid model for Ptolemaic brother-sister mar-riage seems more likely than for female co-rule.

In considering possible connections between the role of women inHecatomnid dunasteia and that of women in subsequent dynasties, onemust recall that, judging by the literary sources, few Greeks after the endof the dynasty seem to have understood that female Hecatomnids sharedin rule; the only evidence is epigraphic. One cannot imitate something ifone does not know it exists.

In their short span, the Hecatomnids attracted attention primarilybecause they used their famous wealth to patronize major Greek archi-tects and artists, sponsoring the building of structures that in their monu-mentality, in their mix of Asian and Hellenic elements, created powerfuland enduring images of their individual and collective power. When thelater Argeads, the Successors, and Hellenistic rulers needed to establishnew monarchies, often with new families, the images of power and wealththe Hecatomnids had created attracted their admiration and imitation.Their enthusiasm for Hecatomnid practice in respect to the role of womenwas, by comparison, muted.123

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

e-mail: [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramenko, Andrik. 1992. “Die Verschwörung des Alexander Lyncestes und die“mÆthr toË basil°vw” Zu Diodor XVII 32, 1.” Tyche 7:1–8.

122 For instance, Olympias, Cynnane, Arsinoe II. For the Ptolemies, Cleopatra I’sregency during her son’s minority seems to have been the turning point: she coined moneyin her own name and placed her name before her son’s in some dating formulas (Macurdy1932, 141–47; Pomeroy 1984, 23).

123 I thank Kyra Nourse for her many helpful comments and suggestions at the timeI began work on this article. She, however, sees a greater degree of Hellenistic imitation ofthe role of Hecatomnid women than I do (see Nourse 2002, 75).

88 E. D. CARNEY

Badian, Ernst. 1977. “A Document of Artaxerxes IV?” In Greece and the EasternMediterranean in History and Prehistory: Studies presented to FritzSchachermeyr on the occasion of his Eightieth Birthday, ed. K. H. Kinzl, 40–50. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bean, G. E. 1980. Turkey beyond the Maeander. 2d ed. rev. Stephen Mitchell.London: Benn.

Berthold, R. M. 1978. “A Historical Fiction in Vitruvius.” CP 73:129–34.Berve, Helmut. 1926. Das Alexanderreich. 2 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck.Billows, R. A. 1989. “Anatolian Dynasts: The Case of the Macedonian Eupolemos

in Karia.” CA 8:172–203.Bockisch, Gabriele. 1970. “Die Karer und ihre Dynasten.” Klio 51:117–75.Bosworth, A. B. 1980. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s History of Alexander.

Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.———. 1988. Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Brosius, Maria. 1996. Women in Ancient Persia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Burstein, S. M. 1982. “Arsinoe II Philadelphos: A Revisionist View.” In Philip,

Alexander, and the Macedonian Heritage, ed. W. L. Adams and E. N. Borza,197–212. Washington D.C.: University Press of America.

Carney, E. D. 1987. “The Reappearance of Royal Sibling Marriage in PtolemaicEgypt.” PP 237:420–39.

———. 1992. “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the Murder ofPhilip.” Historia 41:169–89.

———. 1993. “Olympias and the Image of Virago.” Phoenix 47:1–55.———. 2000a. Women and Monarchy in Macedonia. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.———. 2000b. “The Initiation of Cult for Royal Macedonian Women.” CP 95:21–

43.———. 2001. “The Trouble with Philip Arrhidaeus.” AHB 15,2:63–89.Carter, Joseph. 1983. The Sculpture of the Sanctuary of Athena Polias at Priene.

London: British Museum Publications.Crampa, Jonas. 1969/1972. Labraunda. Vol. 3, 1 and 2. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Demand, Nancy. 2002. “Gender Studies and Ancient History: Participation and

Power.” In Current Issues and the Study of Ancient History, ed. S. M.Burstein et al., 31–44. Publications of the Association of Ancient Histori-ans 7. Claremont, Calif.: Regina Books.

Frye, R. N. 1985. “Zoroastrian Incest.” In Orientalia Iosephi Tucci memoria dicata,vol. 1, ed. Giuseppe Gnoli and Lionello Lanciotti, 445–55. Rome: Istitutoitaliano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Gunter, A. C. 1989. “Sculptural Dedications at Labraunda.” In Lindus andHellström 1989, 91–98.

Hall, Edith. 1989. Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1995. “Asia Unmanned: Images of Victory in Classical Athens.” In War


and Society in the Greek World, ed. John Rich and Graham Shipley, 108–33.London: Routledge.

Hazzard, R. A. 2000. The Imagination of a Monarchy. Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Hellström, Pontus. 1991. “The Architectural Layout of Hecatomnid Labraunda.”RA 31:297–308.

———. 1996a. “Hecatomnid Display of Power at the Labraynda Sanctuary.” InReligion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, ed. Pontus Hellström andBritta Alrott, 133–38. Uppsala: Coronet Press.

———. 1996b. “The Andrones at Labraynda. Dining Halls for ProtohellenisticKings.” In Basileia: Die Paläste der Hellenistischen Könige, ed. WolframHoepfner and Gunnar Brands, 164–69. Mainz: P. von Zabern.

Herrenschmidt, Clarisse. 1994. “Le xwêtôdas ou mariage ‘incestueux’ en Iranancient.” In Épouser au plus proche: inceste, prohibitions et stratégiesmatrimoniales autour de la Méditerranée, ed. Pierre Bonte, 113–25. Paris:Editions de l’Ecole des hautes études en sciences socials.

Hintzen-Bohlen, Brigitte. 1990. “Die Familiengruppe-Ein Mittel zur Selbstdar-stellung hellenistischer Herrscher.” JdI 105:129–54.

Hopkins, Keith. 1980. “Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt.” ComparativeStudies in Society and History 22,3:303–54.

Hornblower, Jane. 1981. Hieronymus of Cardia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hornblower, Simon. 1982. Mausolus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Isager, Jacob. 1994, ed. Hecatomnid Caria and the Ionian Renaissance, Halicar-

nassian Studies 1. Odense: Odense University Press.Jeppesen, Kristian. 1986. “The Ancient Greek and Latin Writers.” In The Written

Sources and Their Archaeological Background, vol. 2 of The Maussolleionat Halikarnassos: Reports of the Danish Archaeological Expedition toBodrum, ed. Kristian Jeppesen and Anthony Luttrell, 8–113. Jutland Ar-chaeological Society Publications, XV:2. Copenhagen: Aarhus UniversityPress.

———. 1994. “Founder Cult and Maussolleion.” In Isager 1994, 73–84.Judeich, Walther. 1892. Kleinasiatische Studien: Untersuchungen zur griechisch-

persischen Geschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Marburg: N. G. ElwertscheVerlagsbuchhandlung.

Kammerzell, Frank. 1993. Studien zu Sprache und Geschichte der Karer in Ägypten.Göttinger Orientforschungen IV. Reihe: Ägypten, 27. Wiesbaden.

Kornemann, Ernst. 1923. “Die Geschwisterehe im Altertum.” Mitteilungen derSchlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 24:17–45.

Kron, Uta. 1996. “Priesthoods, Dedications, and Euergetism. What Part DidReligion Play in the Political and Social Status of Greek Women?” InReligion and Power in the Ancient Greek World, ed. Pontus Hellström andBritta Alrott, 139–82. Uppsala: Coronet Press.

Le Bohec, Sylvie. 1993. “Les reines de Macédoine de la mort d’Alexandre à cellede Persée.” Cahiers du Centre Glotz 4:229–45.

90 E. D. CARNEY

Lindus, Tullia, and Pontus Hellström. 1989. Architecture and Society in HecatomnidCaria. Uppsala: S. Academiae Upsaliensis.

Macuch, Maria. 1991. “Inzest im vorislamischen Iran.” Archäologische Mitteilungenaus Iran 24:141–54.

Macurdy, G. H. 1932. Hellenistic Queens. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Morkot, Robert. 1986. “Violent Images of Queenship and the Royal Cult.”Wepwawet 2:1–9.

Munson, R. V. 1988. “Artemisia in Herodotus.” CA 7:91–106.Nourse, Kyra. 2002. “Women and the Early Development of Royal Power in the

Hellenistic East.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.Ogden, Daniel. 1999. Polygamy, Prostitutes and Death: The Hellenistic Dynasties.

London: Duckworth.Özet, M. A. 1994. “The Tomb of a Noble Woman from the Hekatomnid Period.”

In Isager 1994, 88–96.Patterson, C. B. 1998. The Family in Greek History. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-

sity Press.Pedersen, Paul. 1994. “The Ionian Renaissance and Some Aspects of its Origin

with the Field of Architecture and Planning.” In Isager 1994, 11–35.Pembroke, Simon. 1965. “Last of the Matriarchs: A Study of the Inscriptions of

Lycia.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 8:217–47.Pomeroy, S. B. 1984. Women in Hellenistic Egypt. New York: Shocken Books.Prag, J. N. W., and R. A. H. Neave. 1994. “Who is the Carian Princess?” In Isager

1994, 97–109.———. 1997. Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological Evidence. Col-

lege Station, Tex.: Texas A&M University Press.Ray, J. D. 1990. “A Carian Text: the Longer Inscription from Sinuri.” Kadmos

29:126–32.Robert, Louis. 1937. Études anatoliennes. Paris: E. de Boccard.———. 1945. Le Sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa: I: les inscriptions greques.

Mémoires de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie de Stamboul, 7. Paris.Robertson, Martin. 1975. History of Greek Art. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Robins, Gay. 1983. “A Critical Examination of the Theory that the Right to the

Throne of Ancient Egypt Passed through the Female Line in the 18thDynasty.” GM 62:67–77.

———. 1993. Women in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Roy, Jim. 1998. “The Masculinity of the Hellenistic King.” In When Men Were

Men: Masculinity, Power and Identity in Classical Antiquity, ed. Lin Foxhalland John Salmon, 111–35. London: Routledge.

Ruzicka, Stephen. 1992. Politics of a Persian Dynasty: The Hecatomnids in theFourth Century B.C. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.


Sancisi-Weerdenburg, Heleen. 1983. “Exit Atossa: Images of Women in GreekHistoriography on Persia.” In Images of Women in Antiquity, ed. AverilCameron and Amélie Kuhrt, 20–33. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Sassi, M. M. 2001. The Science of Man in Ancient Greece. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Savalli-Lestrade, Ivana. 1994. “Il Ruolo Pubblico Delle Regine Ellenistiche.” InHistorie: studi offerti dagli Allievi a Guiseppe Nenci in occasione del suosettantesimo compleanno, ed. Salvatore Alessandri, 415–32. Galatina Lecce:Congedo.

Scheidel, Walter. 1995. “Brother-Sister and Parent-Child Marriage Outside RoyalFamilies in Ancient Egypt and Iran: A Challenge to the SociobiologicalView of Incest Avoidance?” Ethnology and Sociobiology 16:319–40.

———. 1996. Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire: Explorationsin Ancient Demography. Journal of Roman Archaeology SupplementarySeries 21, Ann Arbor.

Shaw, B. D. 1995. “Explaining Incest: Brother-Sister Marriage in Graeco-RomanEgypt.” Man 27:267–99.

Sherwin-White, Susan, and Amélie Kuhrt. 1993. From Samarkhand to Sardis: ANew Approach to the Seleucid Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer-sity of California Press.

Thomas, Rosalind. 2000. Herodotus in Context. Ethnography, Science and the Artof Persuasion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tod, M. N. 1946/1948. Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Tourraix, Alexandre. 1990. “Artémise d’Halicarnasse chez Hérodote ou la figure

de l’ambivalence.” In Mélanges P. Lévêque V, ed. Marie-Madeleine Mactouxand Evelyne Geny, 377–85. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Waywell, G. B. 1978. The Free-Standing Sculpture from the Mausoleum atHalicarnassus: A Catalogue. London: British Museum Publications.

———. 1989. “Further Thoughts on the Placing and Interpretation of the Free-standing Sculptures from the Mausoleum.” In Lindus and Hellström, 23–30.

———. 1993. “The Ada, Zeus and Idrieus Relief from Tegea in the BritishMuseum.” In Sculpture from Arcadia and Laconia, ed. Olga Palagia andWilliam Coulson, 79–86. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

———. 1994. “Sculpture in the Ionian Renaissance. Types, Themes, Style, Sculp-tors. Aspects of Origins and Influence.” In Isager 1994, 58–72.

Weil, Raymond. 1976. “Artémise, ou le monde à envers.” In Recueil Plassart.Paris: Société d’Edition Les Belles Lettres, 215–34.

Weiskopf, Michael. 1989. The So-Called ‘Great Satraps’ Revolt,’ 366–360 B.C.Historia Einzelschriften 63. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

women and dunasteia in caria

Documents