Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor

ROMAN COLONIES IN
SOUTHERN ASIA MINOR

ROMAN COLONIES
IN SOUTHERN
ASIA MINOR
BY
BARBARA LEVICK
ex libris
A.ORANSAY
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. I
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
CAPE TOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBADAN
KUALA LUMPUR HONGIKONG TOKYO
© Oxford University Press 1967

Twv o'ovv 6pEWWV oils El1Tov IIunowv
ot f-t~v a:>'>'OL KaTa TVpaVV{Oas f-tEf-tEpLU-
f-tffVOL, KaBa1TEp OL K{>'LKES, >'nUTpLKWS
TfUK1)VTaL ••••
Strabo (XII, p. 570), 1St century A.D.
Ot o~ llLuLo'iTal oihOL Kat BapuaKLoES

Ka>'oVf-tEVOL vo,..aOES f-tffv Elm l<at
y>'c!;TTTJ Til TOVpKWV oLaxpc!;f-tEVOL,
>'nUTpLKc!;TEPOV o~ {iwTEvovm •••.
Laonicus Chalcocondylas (p. 243, Bonn ed.),
15th century A.D.
PREFACE
HE aim of this book is to survey a field of which some
T aspects have been repeatedly and minutely examined,

while others have never attracted attention. During the
last years of the nineteenth century and the first three decades
of the twentieth, Pisidian Antioch and, to a lesser extent, her
sister colonies were the subject of numerous articles; but, as the
theme of one paper leads on to that of the next, it was inevitable
that gaps should be left. Thus, the Homanadensian war has been
treated again and again, while the origin of the colonists at
Antioch has hardly been glanced at; and, although the decline
in the use of Latin in the colonies is a familiar topic, it has
usually been expounded with the help of inscriptions alone.
Again, the period of intense activity at Antioch ended more
than three decades ago. The conclusions reached in each
publication seemed worth re-examining, not only in the light
of the others, but in that of evidence discovered since they
appeared. In particular, there has been time for the novel and
exotic features of Pisidia and the Pisido-Phrygian borderland,
which made so strong an impression on the scholars who ex-
plored them, to become familiar and to be taken for granted.
Hence the title of this book and its emphasis on all that was
Roman and Italian in these colonies.
A student of Asia Minor incurs debts of gratitude of two
kinds. The first will be to his teachers and to his predecessors in
the field. A glance at the bibliography and at almost any
page of this book will show how much it owes to discoveries
made and analysed by J. S. Sterrett, W. M. Ramsay, W. M.
Calder, and J. G. C. Anderson, and to the synoptic works of
A. H. M. Jones and David Magie. I have been singularly
fortunate in my teachers, Sir Ronald Syme, whose insight and
learning have been at my disposal at all stages, Dr. C. H .. V.
Sutherland, and Mr. E. W. Gray. The advice and criticism of
the late Sir Ian Richmond and of Mr. F. A. Lepper have en-
abled me to make many improvements and to see my subject
from new angles. My first teacher in Roman History was Mr.
C. E. Stevens. Very frequently I have found myself setting the
viii PREFACE
colonies against a background that he had already drawn
and illuminated for me. It is only minor debts to these scholars
that could be acknowledged in the notes; lowe them more
than I can say, certainly whatever merits this book may possess.
Yet I have gone my own way, and all error and misinterpre-
tation proceed from my own excursions and choices.
On particular points and themes help has readily been given.
For Pisidian inscriptions I have been able to consult Professor
G. E. Bean, Mr. A. S. Hall, and Professor L. Robert. Professor
W. C. G. Schmitthenner and Dr. S. A. Jameson have kindly
allowed me to quote from their doctoral theses; Dr. Jameson has
also been my guide through Byzantine Anatolia. Other appeals
have been answered most generously by Mr. M. Ballance,
Dr.]. lnan, Dr. L. H. Jeffery, M. Lasserre of Geneva, Professor
K. Major, Miss H. Mitchell, Miss R. Robson, and Dr. M. G. Simp-
son. Numismatists have been particularly helpful. Dr. G. Galster
of the Kongelige M0nt- og Medaillesamling in the National
Museum, Copenhagen, kindly sent me a typescript of the
Antiochian section of SNG (Copenhagen) before publication, and
the late Dr. G. Bruck, of the Bundesammlung von Medaillen,
Munzen und Geldzeichen, Vienna, a set of casts of the Anti-
ochian coins in the collection; and the hospitality of Herr von
Aulock made hours spent with the Sammlung von Aulock as
agreeable as they were instructive.
This practical help brings me to the second type of debt that
I have to acknowledge. Travel in Asia Minor is expensive and
not always easy. My first trip was made as Thomas Whitcombe
Greene Scholar of the University of Oxford, and both journeys
were generously subvented by the Craven Committee; without
that help I should not have had the opportunity of seeing
the colonies, and many other sites in Anatolia, for myself. In
Turkey I enjoyed the comfortable quarters provided by the
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, and benefited from
the advice of two successive directors, Professor Seton Lloyd
and Mr. Michael Gough. But what gives me most pleasure to
acknowledge is help received from Turkish guides, official and
unofficial, and the hospitality unstintingly accorded by the
muhtars of remote villages to a stranger who arrived without
warning. I visited too many places to name the muhtars in-
dividually, but some of my Turkish mentors I must mention:
PREFACE ix
Bay Muzaffer Tuttincu, formerly Director of the Library and

Museum at Yalva<;:; Bay Avni Ayaz Adam, who witnessed the
excavations conducted there more than forty years ago; his
nephew, Bay Arslan Nuri Gunduz, and Baylar Orhan and
Durmu~ Ali Ke<;:ili, all of Yalva<;:. Without their help I could
have achieved very little. I hope that my efforts are worthy of
theirs.
B. M.L.
St. Hilda's College, Oxford
15 December, 1966
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CONTENTS
List of Plates Xlll
List of Abbreviations xv
I. The Roman Colony Abroad
II. Mountains and Routes in Southern Anatolia 7
III. The Military Problem: Two Early Solutions 21
IV. Provincia Galatia and the Foundation of the

Colonies 29
v. Sites and Territoria 42
VI. The Origin of the Colonists 56
VII. Local Government 68
VIII. Population and Prosperity 92

IX. Senators and Equites 103
x. Cities and Aristocracies in Anatolia 12I
XI. The Absorption of the Colonists and the Decline

of Latin: 1. Antioch 13 0
XII. The Absorption of the Colonists and the Decline

of Latin: II. The Minor Colonies I45
XIII. Stagnation, Brigandage, and Invasion: The End

of the Colonies I63
XIV. Conclusion: The Colonies in the Empire I84

xii CONTENTS
APPENDIXES
1. The Foundation of the Galatian Province:

25 or 20 B.C.? 193
II. The Date of the Colony at Lystra 195
III. The Date of the Colonies at Germe and
Ninica 198
IV. The Identity of Legio V Gallica and Legio

VII 200
v. The Homanadensian War 203
VI. Client Kings, Royal Domains, and Imperial

Estates 215
VII. Lycia and Pamphylia under Nero and Galba 227
VIII. The Division of Galatia and Cappadocia 229
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
INDEX 241
LIST OF PLATES
(at end)
I. a. Antioch from the,north, showing ruined aqueduct, foundations of

buildings, and path to Yalva~
b. Antioch: the aqueduct from the north
I I. a. Cremna from the east

b. Cremna: tomb in the south face
III. a. Cremna: city gate, from the west

b. Olbasa: the acropolis from the south
IV. a. Olbasa from the north, showing apsidal building and route into
the mountains
b. Olbasa: the Makron Pedion from the western shoulder of the
acropolis
V. a. Comama from the east

b. Comama: view to the north from the western side of the tepe
VI. a. Lystra from the south

b. Parlais from Egridir Gol
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABSA Annual of the British School at Athens
AE L' Annee epigraphique
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJP American Journal of Philology
AM Ashmolean Museum (coin collection)
Anat. Stud. Anatolian Studies
Ant. Class. L' Antiquitl classique
Arch. Anz. Archiiologischer Anzeiger: Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen
Archiiologischen Instituts
Ath. Mitt. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts (in Athen)
BCH Bulletin de correspondance helUnique
Belleten Turk Tanh Kurumu, Belleten
BM British Museum (coin collection)
BMC A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum
Buckler Anatolian Studies presented to William Hepburn Buckler, edd.
W. M. Calder andJ. Keil (Manchester, 1939)
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
Cahn A. E. Cahn: Auktions-Katalog (Frankfurt ar;n Main)
CIE Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CP Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
CR Classical Review
CRAI Comptes rendus de l' Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres
EE Ephemeris epigraphica
Egger Bruder Egger: Auktions-Katalog (Wien)
EJ J. S. Sterrett: An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor. (Papers
of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
(Archaeological Institute ofAmerica), vol. II, Boston, 1888)
GRM F. Imhoof-Bluiner: Zur griechischen und ro'mischen Miinz-
kunde (Separatabdr. d. Revue suisse de numismatique XIII,
XIV (Genf, 1908)
Grom. Vetl. Gromatici Veteres ex recensione Caroli Lachmanni (2 vols.,
Berolini, 1848-52)
Hell. Hellenica: recueil d'epigraphie, de numismatique et d'antiquitis
grecques, publ. par L. Robert (Limoges, etc., 1940- )
Hirsch J. Hirsch: Auktions-Katalog (Munchen)
HN B. Head: Historia numorum (ed. 2, Oxford, 1911)
Hunter G. MacDonald, A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian
Collection (3 vols., Glasgow, 1899-1905)
IG Inscriptiones Graecne
IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes
lLS H. Dessau: Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies.
JOAl Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archiiologischen Institutes
xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
KM F. Imhoof-Blumer: Kleinasiatische Milnzen (Sonderschr. des
ost. arch. Inst. in Wien I, III, 2 vols., Wien, 1901-2)
Lat. Eig. W. Schulze: Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Ab-
handlung der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N.F. v, Nr. 5, Berlin, 1933)
Le Bas-Wadd. P. Le Bas and W. H. Waddington: Voyage archiologique
en -Grece et en Asie Mineure fait pendant les annies 1843 et
1844 (6 vols., Paris, 1853-70)
McClean S. W. Grose: The FitzWilliam Museum: Catalogue of the
McClean Collection of Greek Coins (3 vols., Cambridge,
19 2 3-9)
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua (8 vols., Manchester,
1928-62)
Mion. T. E. Mionnet: Description de mMailies antiques, grecques
et romaines, vols. I-VI, Suppl. I-IX (Paris, 1807-37)
Monn. grec. F. Imhoof-Blumer: Monnaies grecques (Letterk. Verh. der
Koninkl. Akademie, deel XIV, Paris, etc., 1883)
NC Numismatic Chronicle
NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift
OGIS W. Dittenberger: Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae
PIR ProsopograjJhia .Imperii Romani
Ramsay Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay,
edd. W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder (Manchester, 1923)
RE Paulys Real-Encycloj)iidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
REA Revue des etudes anciennes
Rhein. Mus. Rheinisches Museumfur Philologie
RIC H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, et alii: The Roman Im-
perial Coinage (5 vols., London, 1923-38)
RN Revue numismatique
RNB Revue numismatique belge
RS Revue suisse de numismatique
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae
SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum
Stiidte K. Graf Lanckoronski, et,alii: Stiidte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens
(2 vols., Wien, etc., 1890-92)
TAPA Transactions and Proceedings if the American Philological Assoc.
Wadd. E. Babelon: Inventaire sommaire de la collection Waddington
(Paris, 1898)
WE J. S. Sterrett: The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor (Papers
of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Archaeo-
logical Institute of America), vol. III, Boston, 1888).
Weber L. Forrer: The Weber Collection. Greek Coins (3 vols.,
London, 1922-g)
ZfilrN Zeitschriftfur Numismatik
ZSS Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung filr Rechtsgeschichte, Romani-
stische Aht.
I
THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD
HE colonia civium Romanorum survived as an institution for
T more than 500 years. It owed its long life to its adapt-
ability. Successive generations found in it the means of
satisfying their various needs, and, as time went on, politicians
could bring forward the enterprises of the past as precedents
that would justify and popularize their own schemes. With their
function, citizen colonies changed their siting, composition,
constitution, and size; and yet the same strands come to the
surface again and again in the tissue of their history. When
that history was well advanced, Caesar Augustus made his own
contribution to it by founding veteran colonies in the heart
of Asia Minor. Here as elsewhere he turns out to be a cautious
innovator, a canny revolutionary; this chapter will attempt
to distinguish old from new in that act, and to ~race 'as far back
as possible the strands that made it up.
Roman colonization had been military in character right from
the start. From before the foundation of Antium in the later
fourth century I until the end of the Punic wars, colonies,
whether Latin or citizen, had as their main function the defence
of Roman territory.2 The two kinds of colony differed in the
areas they served, in their size, and in their constitution. The
series of citizen colonies, whether they consisted of civilians or,
after the First Punic War, of veterans, were confined to the less
promising sites on the coast near Rome, and were accordingly
known as coloniae maritimae; they were extremely small, com-
pared with the Latin colonies (three hundred families, each
with its plot of two iugera, was the norm 3); and because of their
size and their nearness to Rome, they enjoyed no civic life of
their own. Their function has been compared, very aptly, with
that of the cleruchies of Athens. 4
! A turning point in colonial history; see A. N. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 72.
2 H. Last, CAH VII. 473 f., 541, and IX. 68, stresses the economic motive in
early Roman colonization; cf. E. T. Salmon, Phoenix IX (1955), 64.
3 Livy VIII. 2 I. xi; XXXIV. 45. i. 4 Sherwin-White, op. cit. 73.
814259 B
2 THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD
In the first quarter of the second century B.a., after the

Hannibalic war, a change set in. In 194 five citizen colonies
were settled in southern Italy;1 the nearest, Salernum, was
130 miles distant from Rome, too far for continuous contact to
be maintained. There followed an increase in the size of the
settlements. In 183 citizen colonies were established at Mutina,
Parma, and Saturnia; each consisted of 2,000 families. 2 At the
same time, the area of the allotments was increased-at Saturriia
to as much as ten iugera. These trends culminated in the founda-
tion of Luna in 177: 2,000 families are said to have received no
less than 5It iugera each. 3 Some degree of self-government
in the colonies now became inevitable; and this is the begin-
ning of a thread which, if we could trace it with any assurance,
would lead to the developed constitution, the magistrates
and ordo, of the Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae. 4 Latin colonies,
on the other hand, were being founded far less frequently.
Citizen colonies, larger than they had been and more widely
spread, could take over their functions, the manpower of
Latium had been seriously diminished by emigration, and
Rome herself could not afford to fill up Latin colonies with her
own citizens.s In any case, Roman citizenship was becoming
more and more attractive, and men were less willing to
sacrifice it6 by enrolling in a Latin colony.
These developments came to a halt in 177 with the founda-
tion of Luna and the temporary pause in colonization that
followed, but ~he second century was crucial for the citizen
colony in more ways than one, and the most startling changes
were yet to come.
Firstly, there was the beginning of colonization outside Italy.
Latin status had already been exported to Carteia in Spain
as a convenient means of solving a local problem,? and we hear
of Romans from Spain settled in the Balearic islands in about
123 B.a.;S but this cannot have made Gaius Gracchus' plan
LivyXXXIV. 45. ii-iv.
I 2 Livy X),."XIX. 55. vii-ix.
Livy XLI. 13. iv-v.
3
4 ILS 6087; for the gradual development oflocal government, see Sherwin-White,
op. cit. 75 ff. 5 See Salmon, ]RSXXVI (1936), 61 f.
6 Gaius, Inst. III. 56; Cicero, De Domo 78, and Pro Caee. g8. .
7 Livy XLIII. 3. i-iv.
~ At Palma and Pollentia in Mallorca: Strabo lll, p. 168; Pomp. Mela 11.124;
Plmy Nat. Hist. III. 77. The status of these settlements is uncertain; see F. Vitting-
hoff, Riimisehe Kolonisation 55, note 6.
THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD 3
for a trans marine colony near the site of Carthage I seem less
revolutionary. The context of the proposal, the site, and the
opening of the projected colony to the landless urban pro-
letariat made colonization a political issue for a hundred years
and gave a revolutionary tinge to the provincial settlements of
Augustus and his successors, long after the victories of Phar-
salus, Philippi, and Actium had broken the power of those
who would have opposed them. Senatorial circles feared the
rivalry of successful transmarine colonies,2 especially colonies
composed largely of proletarians and enjoying the patronage
. of a popular leader. The colonial plans of Gaius Gracchus were
frustrated, but in the late Republic it was his conception of
colonization that prevailed. Henceforward, colonies were to
be founded not only for the defence of Roman territory, but
also to appease the land-hunger of the poor. Nor was it long
before a permanent regular colony was established outside
Italy. Narbo Martius, founded in I IS in spite of senatorial
opposition,3 illustrates another new motive in Roman coloniza-
tion: commercial interests, always secondary, but never to be
ignored altogether. 4
The age of Marius and Sulla saw colonization of the Gracchan
type in full swing. The beneficiaries are still the proletariat,
but now in the guise of time-expired soldiers.s Appuleius Satur-
ninus followed up Narbo with proposals for foundations in
Africa, Sicily, Achaea, and Macedonia. 6 This was the first
time that the question of colonizing the east had arisen. In the
event, Marius and Sulla are known to have been responsible
for only two regular overseas colonies, besides those in Africa:
Mariana and Aleria in Corsica;7 but they showed that the
generals cared neither for the strategic siting of a colony nor
for the convenience (not even for the safety) of those they dis-
possessed8 when the provision of land for their veterans was
the first consideration.
[ Livy, Epit. LX; Velleius Pat. I. IS, and II. 7; Appian, Punica 136, and Bell. Civ.
I. 24; Plutarch, Vito C. Gracchi 10 If.
2 Velleius Pat. II. 7. 3 Ibid. 8.
4 cr. Cicero, Pro eluentio 140; C. H. Benedict, A History qf Narbo (Princeton,
I94I}, 3 r . s Velleius Pat. I. IS.
6 Aur. Victor, De Vir. [!lustr. LXX,II. I an.d 5. It seems that they were to be
Latin colonies (Cicero, Pro Balbo 48; H. Last, CAH IX. 169).
7 Pliny, Nat. Hist. III. 80; Pomp. Mela II. 122; Seneca, Ad Helviam VII. 9.
8 Appian, Bell. Civ. II. 94; R. Syme, Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939),88.
4 THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD
These men acted in haste; future autocrats, less pressed for
time, would be able to combine the settlement of discharged
veterans or the urban poor with the protection of Italy and
the provinces, and even with their economic rehabilitation.
They would not be tempted, even by the desire for revenge, to
plant colonies in a land which, after 59, could not support
them, I and which would be roused to hostility if they tried.
They could plan a whole series of colonies designed to relieve
land-hunger at home and (in some cases) depopulation abroad.
There would be no serious opposition: the control of coloniza-
tion had passed from the Senate to the generals, never to return. 2
The activities of Julius Caesar fit into the Gracchan pattern,
but, unlike his predecessors, he ruled the state long enough
to work out a coherent colonial policy, if not to carry it out
completely. His colonies, as one might expect from the backer
of Rullus' Lex Agraria,3 were designed to benefit the Dictator's
veterans and the urban poor;4 at the same time, most of them
were settled in the provinces, and Italy was left in peace. s
Half a century had passed since Saturninus had brought for-
ward the Lex Appuleia, but the idea of colonization overseas
had not been forgotten. Although Saturninus' legislation had
been annulled or allowed to drop,6 some of the African colonies
may have survived,7 and there were unofficial settlements of
veterans in Macedonia, Crete, and even Cilicia. 8 Caesar was
encouraging and organizing on a large scale a natural move-
ment which, until his time, had been held back by artificial
political restraints based on prejudice. Moreover, in sending
colonists to Carthage and Corinth, both victims of Roman
imperialism, Caesar was not merely reviving the plans of Gaius
Gracchus, or relieving the distress of an urban proletariat that
knew nothing of farming. He was aiding and developing the
provinces as wel1. 9
1See Vittingholf, op. cit. 53. 2 See E. Kornemann, RE1V (1901), 562 If.
3P. MacKendrick, Athenaeum XXXII (1954), 230 .
.; Suet., Diu. lui. XLII; for the servile origin of the colonists at Corinth, see
Strabo VIII, p. 381.
S Appian, Bell. Ciu. II. 94; Suet., Diu. lui. XXXVIII.
6 Cicero, De Legibus II. 6. 14, and 12.31; see E. Badian, Historiaxl (1962), 219,
note 87. .
7 T. Frank, AJP XLVII (1926), 60 f.; LXVIII (1937),9° If.; cf. CRAI 1950, 332 If.
8 Caesar, Bell. Ciu. Ill. 4; Cicero, Ad. Fam. xv. 4. iii.
9 Vittingholf, op. cit. 87.
THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD 5
With colonies founded at Corinth, Buthrotum, and Dyme,1
it was only natural to enter Asia Minor. Lampsacus, Apameia
Myrleia, Heracleia Pontica, and Sinope received] ulian colonies;
and they may have been projected at Alexandria Troas and
Parium as well. z These were probably civilian foundations,
and their position leaves no doubt but that the colonists were
to share in and to develop the economic prosperity of north-west
Anatolia.
In the triumviral interlude, policy gave way once more to
the need of the moment. Colonies were founded wherever the
triumvirs willed, with as little regard for strategic considerations
as for the rights of property-owners. 3 The Italian confiscations
took a long time for Augustus to live down, 4 and after the
restoration of the Republic in 27 B.C. there could be no question
of founding new colonies in Italy proper. We hear only of
Augusta Taurinorum and Augusta Praetoria in Cisalpine Gaul
-the latter established on the territory of a vanquished Alpine
tribe. s With this reservation, Augustus had a free hand and
(after the demobilization which followed the battle of Actium)
plenty of time for thought. He could look back and pick up
whichever he chose of the strands that had made up the history
of colonization. In the main he pursued the policy of Divus
Iulius. He refounded some of the Dictator's colonies and (to
secure their loyalty for himself) some of those established by
his own dead rivals. Other settlements of Augustus may have
been based on plans that Caesar had left on the drawing-board. 6
Out of conservatism or delicacy, or because he was so hard
put to it to satisfy the demands of his veterans, Augustus
founded few colonies drawn from the urban proletariat.7 Until
he gave up colonization altogether, in 13 B.C.,S Augustus'
settlements combined, in varying proportions, military objec-
tives and the provision of land for discharged soldiers. There
was now nothing new in the foundation of colonies in the east,
but in the Balkan peninsula (where he established Byllis,
'Op. cit. 85 f. 2 Op. cit., 87 ff. For Heracleia, see below, p. 7 I.
3 Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 3.
• The protestations of Res Gestae XVI are significant.
S Strabo IV, p. 206; Dio LIII. 25. V. 6 Vittinghoff, op. cit. 100 ff.
7 Col. Civica Augusta Brixia, ILS 4910.
8 DiD LlV. 25. v; the date usually proposed for the minor Pisidian colonies is
rejected below, pp. 35 ff.
6 'THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD
Cassandrea, Dium, Dyrrachium, Patrae, Pella, and Philippi),
as well as in north-west Asia Minor (Alexandria Troas and
Parium),! Augustus was satisfied with planting colonies in the
same districts as the Dictator, and in keeping, like him, to the
coast. It was in Syria and central Anatolia that Augustus
showed himself an innovator; but even Berytus was a coastal
town. The 'Pisidian' colonies were, as Vittinghoff says,2 ex-
ceptional in being inland. Pressing need, arising from the geo-
graphy and history of the area, drew Augustus' attention to it
and prompted their foundation. These colonies were primarily
military in character and their main purpose was defensive.3
x Vittinghofr, op. cit. 126 fr. 2 Op. cit. 131.
3 For an important secondary function, see below, Ch. XIV.

II
MOUNTAINS AND ROUTES

IN SOUTHERN ANATOLIA
HE shape and contours of Anatolia may be compared
T with those of a hat, with brim and indented crown. Only

.. in the west, where the long river valleys have made deep
inroads, has the brim any considerable width. Along the coasts
of Pontus and Paphlagonia on the Black Sea and of Lycia,
Pamphylia, and the Cilicias on the Mediterranean it is very
narrow indeed. The crown of the hat is sunken in the middle to
form the rolling plain ofPhrygia, Galatia, and Lyca:onia, which
centres on the salt lake of Tatta (Tuz Gol). Ranges of moun-
tains border the plateau, rising from it less steeply than they
fall to the sea or to the coastal lands on their outer edges. In
the north are the ranges ofPaphlagonia and Pontus; in the east,
where the analogy breaks down completely because there the
hat has no edge at all, the mountains rise higher and higher
until they are merged with those of the Caucasus; in the south,
the Taurus and Anti-Taurus, which stretch from the eastern
end of the plateau as far as the Cayster,are continued in
broken form by the Emir Dag and other mountains as far as
the Sangarius. .
The hat analogy is unsatisfactory, not only because it does
not account for the eastern end of Asia Minor, but because
it minimizes the size of the area eaten away from the plateau
by the western end of the Taurus, by the mountains of Pisidia
and Lycia. Professor Magie, writing of this area,I sharply dis-
tinguishes it from the main body of the Taurus ridge: here the
rn,ountain wall is broken up and constitutes part of the central
plateau, though it is separated from it on the north and east by
the high range ofthe Sultan Dag and by lower mountains.
In fact, throughout its history, the region was continually
asserting its independence of the central plateau, and in the
I Roman Rule I. 259.

8 MOUNTAINS AND ROUTES IN S. ANATOLIA
Roman period its claims were eventually met by the creation

of a separate province of Pisidia. As we shall see, lines of com-
munication with the plateau were few, and the nature of the
country made it difficult to penetrate.
To the south of this region, the coast bends inwards to form
the Mare Pamphylium (Gulf of Antalya); it is as if a giant
had seized the capes ofLycia and Cilicia Tracheia and squeezed
them together, forcing the land between them up into ridges
running north-east and north-west. These ridges converge on
a line beginning just east of Attaleia and running due north to
Ipsus. The countryside and its inhabitants are wholly domi-
nated by the Taurus, which forms a difficult barrier between
the plateau and the sea. 1 One edge of this mountainous triangle
is backed by the Indus (Dalaman), another by the plateau on
the north. The Indus flows south and then south-west, dividing
Caria from Lycia; in the valley of its main stream are Themi-
sonium and Eriza, and on a tributary Bubon and the important
town of Cibyra.
On each side of the north-south axis already mentioned are
four ranges, running, in the west, north-east to south-west, and,
in the east, north to south or north-west to south-east.Z The
outermost ranges of the western half of this tract of country
are broken by no important valleys: rivers are no more than
mountain torrents, and the mountains are cut off sharply at
the sea. At its southern end the range on the extreme west is
fairly high, perhaps 4,000 feet, wide, flat-topped, and unbroken;
further north, where it meets the Sultan Dag, it becomes
narrower and more serrated. Ktiktirt Dag projects from it due
north towards Prymnessus.
The second range, beginning between the valley of the Xan-
thus and Antiphellus, continues almost unbroken as far as
Sagalassus, then falls away and reappears in the heights be-
tween Tymandus and Agrae. The highest peak in this range
(Dumanh Dag, 6,470 feet) is near the sea, where it is separated
from the' third only by the narrow valley in which Nisa stands.
The two ranges ruri almost parallel to each other, but the
1 Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 97: 'iunctum mare Lycium est gensque Lycia, unde vastos
sinus Taurus mons ab Eois veniens litoribus Chelidonio Promontorio disterminat,
inmensus ipse et innumerarum gentium arbiter.'
Z The following account of the structure of Pisidia is based on that given in
the Naval Intelligence Division Geographical Handbook Series: Turkey I (1942), 142 if.
MOUNTAINS AND ROUTES IN S. ANATOLIA 9
distance between them increases, as the third runs east for a
time before it turns north-east. Part of the intervening low
ground is occupied by three lakes now called Kestel, Kara, and
Avian. I
The third range is also highest near its southern end (IO, I 20
feet); even at a distance of only eight miles from the sea there
is a peak of 4,000 feet. In turn it walls in the plain in which
Podalia stands and, further north, the plain of Comama. Saga-
lassus is situated on one of the main ridges of this range, which,
like the second, is broken at the plain of Baris and turns north-
east to end at Prostanna and the southern end of the so-called
Limnae (Egridir Gol). This last section is cut off from the rest
by the Cestrus, which curves round from Sagalassus to Baris
and then turns southwards on its way to the plain of Pam-
phylia.
The fourth range, which is only forty miles long, rises to
a height of 7,780 feet, thus dominating the west of the Pam-
phylian Gulf, I t is separated from its neighbour only by a shallow
and narrow valley.
The eastern ranges are more strongly marked than the
western, a fact which was remarked by Strabo. 2 Nevertheless,
the inner ridges rise less sharply than the western mountains,
for they originate in the plain of Pamphylia. From Side to
Anemurium the line of the coast follows that of the mountains,
but when it turns north-east it cuts off the ranges in the same
way as its western, Lycian, counterpart.
Of the eastern ranges, the first, on one of whose highest
peaks stands Selge, stretches from the plain of Pamphylia to
Egridir Gol. The second is divided from it by the Eurymedon
valley. This mountain barrier persists 'as far as Hoyran Gol
and separates it from Lake Caralis (Bey~ehir Gol). West of this
lake, near Timbriada, the range attains its highest point
(9,770 feet).
Far higher in the south is the next range, which is cut off
by the sea at Anemurium. It runs north as far as Lake Caralis,
and reaches its peak just south of Lake Trogitis. The overflow
I Only Avian is a well-defined stretch of water unbroken by islands or beds
of reeds.
,2:1, p. \52°; 76 Y~P opo~ TO~'TO ap"!E~at /1-EV d~o 'Tfjs Kap~a~ K~i ~vKl~S', a~'
~VTav~a J.LEI! O~'T~ 7TAuTOS O;l"rE, ufos a!LoAoy~V S:I..KIIVa,,; . .. €tTl. Oe 70S (lVClrOAas
E/<TEtvOfLevov aVAWVOS fLG.KpOVS Cl1ToAafL!3a.vEI, Tavs TWV. KtAf.KWV.
from Caralis runs into this lake via the valley between the third
and fourth ranges. I
In the north, the fourth and last range assumes the well-
defined form of the Sultan Dag. The first major break in the
chain comes with the valley of the river now called the Sarvos;
there is another further south, where a stream, now the Qar-
~amba Su, flows from Lake Trogitis into the Lycaonian plain.
However, the main trend of the range can still be distinguished
until it is broken off by the sea just west of Seleuceia. It is
interrupted by the upper reaches of the Calycadnus before
the river has altered its course from due east to south-east, and
by a second source of the same river, which flows east to join
. the stream at Claudio polis (Mut).
It is this river which backs the fourth range on the east and
indeed the whole area under discussion. The more northerly
sections of this range are backed by the plain ofLycaonia, but at
the first break in the Sultan Dag, east of Lake Caralis, there
are two blocks of hill country running from west to east as far
as Iconium and forming a bulge on the north-east side of this
triangle of mountains.
On both sides of the extension of the Sultan Dag towards
the south-east lay Phrygia Paroreios, a fertile and populous
region, but on the north-east side of the range inhabited country
is a mere fringe attached to the grey and yellow salt wilderness
which stretches as far as Lake Tatta.
The existence of this serrated triangle of land inevitably
affected the road system of Asia Minor, at least in the south; but
it was the opinion of Sir W. M. Ramsay that under the Per-
sians the Royal Road went from Ephesus to Sardes, Acmoneia,
Pessinus, Gordium, Ancyra, and Tavium, too far north to have
any effect on Pisidia or to be affected by it. The retention of
this roundabout route was explained by Ramsay2 as being due
to conservatism on the part of the Persians: they were using
an old path which, like the Cappadocia-Sinope road, centred
on the ancient city of Pteria. This view cannot be accepted.
One major difficulty in Herodotus' account of the road 3 is
caused by his statement that it passed for three days' journey
through Cilicia, another by the fact that the distances he gives
I On the state of Lake Trogitis in modern times, see W. M. Ramsay, Klio
XXII (1928-9), 369 ff. 2 Hist. Geog. 36 ff. 3 V. 52 ff.
MOUNTAINS AND ROUTES IN S. ANATOLIA II
for each stage do not add up to his total distance for the Royal
Road. For this reason, some scholars! have concertina'd the
road into unnecessarily sinuous.detours and have moved Hero-
dotus' m5.\at north and east. D. G. Hogarth, comparing the
road with Strabo's KO£vi] 686s,2 would have the road lead east
from Mazaca to Melitene and Tomisa, but would not permit
it to cross the Euphrates there. To allow for the inclusion of
Cilicia he brings it south to Samosata, where he makes it
pass over into the desert country on the other side of the river.
In spite of this preoccupation with the KOW~ 686s, Hogarth
adhered to the northern route for the western part of the road,
thus creating an unconvincing hotch-potch of routes. The.
position of the second m5>.at mentioned by Herodotus is. the
only thing in his account that seems perfectly clear: he is re-
ferring to the well-known Cilician Gates, and so is able to
speak of them with precision. We may best explain the peculiari-
ties of Herodotus' road by assuming that he has incorporated in
his description of the route of his own day some features of
a road which lost much of its importance when the Persians
occupied Lydia, Ionia, and Phoenicia. 3
The route taken by Xerxes on his expedition against Greece
is inextricably involved in the problem, for it has been assumed
that Herodotus thought that Xerxes followed the Royal Road;
in his westward march through Asia Minor. Some writers4
I e.g. H. Kiepert, Monatsb. Berlin. Akad. 1857, 123 fr.; D. G. Hogarth, apud
R. W. Macan, Herodotus: the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Books, II (1895), 299 fr.
2 XlV, p. 663: €1Tt p.~v 1"a Kapoupa TfjS Kaplas bptoV 'lTpOS TIjv r/Jpuytav aLa MaYV7]C1ta~
Ka.~ Tpa>..Aiwv Nva1]S ):lvTt,0XElas oDos €1TTaKoutwv Kat TETTapat(ovra. orO-stoov·
€VTEU8EV. oe ~ <J>puyta OLa. AaOOLK€tas Kat )11Tap.fdas Kat Mrj'rp01TOAEWS Kat t XEALoovtwvt*
E1Tl J-tEV OOV T~V apx~v TfjS JIapwpEtov, TOUS ~Oi\p.ovs, <17aOiOL 7TEpt EvaKoalovs Kat E{Koaw
EK TWV Kapovp(tJv' E7ft O£ TO 1TPOS -rii AVKaov{<t- 11lpas Tfjs IIapwp€{ov -r6 TVPLUfov 8£(1.
Wt.'AOfl/1JAlov--fLLKPrp- 1rAElovS TWV ?T€JJ'TUKoatwv, Et(J' 1j AVKaovta f'€XPI. Kopo1TauaoD 3ta.
Aaoo(.K€tas Tf1S KUTUKEKaVp-€v7JS OKTaK6atot T€TTUpaKDVTa, EK OE Kopo1Tuauof] TfjS
AVKaovlas £ls Tapaaovpa, 7ToJ\lXVtov TfjS Ka1T1TaooKlus E1T~ TWV opWV UVTfjS lopV/-L€vov,
EKaTOV €tKoa(.v· €VTEV8€v o'€ls Md,aKa T~V p/?Tp67TOAW TW~ Ka1T7Tao6KWV Otd. l:oavoov
Kat l:aSaK6pwv 19aK6ato£ dySo~KoVTa' €vT€v8EV 3' (7Tt TOV 'EVcPpO:T7JV p.iXP' Top-tawv
xwptov Tils .Ewtfo1Jvfjs OLd. IIp?>WV 1TOAlXV1]S XlAtOt T€Tpa«6a(.ot TETTapa.KOVTa.
3 Evidence found by the 1961 expedition (Illustrated London News, vol. CCXLIII,
no. 6486, 23 Nov. 1963, 859 fr.) attests the importance of the northern route even
in Roman times and identifies the m)AuL that Herodotus says have to be passed
before the Halys is reached; but it does not demonstrate that this route was
Darius' messenger road .
.. e.g. W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, II (Oxford, 1928),
137,4 16.
have been inclined to regard Herodotus' view as correct;
Sir W. M. Calder, on the other hand, argued with far greater
probability' that his idea had led Herodotus astray, and that the
Royal Road took a southern route via Philomelium, Laodiceia,
and Cybistra. The discovery of some monuments at FassIllar
and Eflatun Pmar caused Ramsay to abandon his earlier
views on the direction taken by the Persian expedition. His
later suggestion 2 was that Xerxes marched by Lakes Trogitis
and Caralis on the route south of the Sultan Dag which passes
the site of Antioch towards Pisidia and leads north of Egridir
Gol to Apameia. It is not likely, however, that Xerxes would
choose a line of march that led him through the territory of the
indiscriminately hostile Isaurians. The route indicated by
Calder for the Royal Road seems the more likely to be correct;
it is to be compared with that taken by the younger Cyrus in
his anabasis of 401 B.C. 3 Cyrus' path seems to twine round
Calder's Royal Road, as though trying to avoid it, yet unable
to resist the power of its attraction. In the circumstQ.nces of
the march, this was quite natural.
Alexander, on the other hand, missed this route almost
completely. He marched north from Side to Apameia and
followed the route once used by Croesus and Cyrus the Great4
to Ancyra; from there he dropped down the east side of Lake
Tatta and joined the Royal Road only just before it reached
the Cilician Gates. s
Although so many doubts have been felt, even by his strongest
supporters, about Herodotus' account of the Royal Road, it has
often been assumed, and it was assumed even by Calder, that
the route over the Halys, said to have been taken by Xerxes,
should be accepted. But this is a mistake that is easily explained
by reference to Herodotus' conception of the Halys, which he
seems to have imagined as flowing straight across Anatolia
from south to north and as forming a boundary which all east-
west roads must cross. If this is so, there is no reason for making
Xerxes adopt the northern route, especially if it has been agreed
that the position of the Royal Road may be shifted to the south.
Xerxes' desire to keep in touch with his fleet, so plain through-
ICR XXXIX (1925), 7 fr.; cf. E. Gren, Kleinasien 41 f.
2]HSXL (1920), 91 fr. 3 Xenophon, Anabasis I.
• Herodotus I. 75 fr. 5 Arrian, Anabasis I. 26 fr.
out the campaign of 480, would best be fulfilled if he used the
southernmost route, rather than one which led through the
heart of the Anatolian plateau.
A glance at the map will show that the routes of the Royal
Road and of Xerxes, as well as that of the younger Cyrus and
of the KOLV~ o86s, were profoundly affected by the mountain
wedge of Pisidia: a detour to the north, by way of Philomelium
and Ipsus, was expressly designed to avoid crossing it.
The powers that dominated Anatolia were continually chang-
ing, and with them the political centre of the peninsula. But
they moved from east to west rather than from north to south.
This meant that systems of communication were little altered
by successive changes of government. One example of this con-
servatism: at the height of its power, Pergamum had no direct
route to the plateau. Even in the Roman period the old lines
of communication were hardly changed, though the centre of
interest had shifted still further to the west. Speedy com-
munication with Rome through Ephesus came to be of prime
importance, and under the Empire the ancient northern route,
once used by Croesus and Cyrus the Great, became the means
of linking Ephesus with the new province of Galatia.
At all important points the east-west highway was joined by
roads leading north-south, and in the central reaches some of
these came from the Pisidian wedge. The direction taken by
roads within this wedge is dictated by the orientation of the
eight mountain ranges which have already been described. In
the western half, roads running north-east to south-west find
the easiest way; in the eastern, roads running north-west to
south-east. From east to west communication is easy only in
the plain of Pamphylia, and from north to south only in the
neighbourhood of the Cestrus valley. On the eastern side of
the wedge, the road down the Calycadnus valley from Laranda
was probably in use before the foundation of Seleuceia, while
on the other side the Eriza inscriptionl shows that the route
from Laodiceia to Cibyra, which then turned east and climbed
over the mountains to Isinda and the Pamphylian coast, was
important by 200 B.C. Its modern equivalent is the Antalya-
Korkuteli-Ye~ilova-Denizli road. On its way to Cibyra across
the grain of the mountains, the road takes advantage of breaks
I OGIS 224.
14 MOUNTAINS AND ROUTE's IN S. ANATOLIA
in the three outer ranges. Another route from Cibyra to Apol-
Ionia, which is also connected with Apameia by way of the
east coast of Lake Ascania, follows the Xanthus valley to the
coast, while yet another crosses two ranges via Oenoanda,
Podalia, Arycanda, and Limyra, and comes out on the coast
road in the small valley between the two inner rariges. Both
these routes have their modern equivalents.
By the time that the highway has reached Apameia, the next
important road junction, all the western ranges have become
lower and more broken, and access to the road from the Baris
valley and Lake Ascania is not difficult. Today both the road
and the railway take this route. Another road, following the
north coast of Hoyran Gol, comes from Antioch and Apollonia,
the easy path it takes being determined by the direction of the
Sultan Dag and its opposite number in the west. This was not,
as Ramsay thought,! the road taken by Xerxes, but was an
impoJ'timt supplement to the main east-west highway and at
the same time a branch line which served Pisidia, a region
almost completely shut off from the main road by such moun-
tain masses as the Sultan Dag. This range also prevents the
emergence of any other important road junctions before Lao-
diceia Catacecaumene and Archelais Colonia.
The importance of the road that leads between the lakes
and the Sultan Dag is, then, due to the fact that other roads
in Pisidia tend to converge upon it; and the position of Antioch,
near the apex of the triangle, is a dominant one. The road it
commands follows the valley past Lake Trogitis as far as Isaura
Vetus, while an eastern branch takes advantage of the broken
end of the Sultan Dag to go via Pappa Tiberiopolis to Iconiurri,
with a southern offshoot to Lystra.
Besides the pass over the Sultan Dag from Antioch to Philo-
melium, there is a break in the second eastern range just south
of Antioch, which enables the road from Antioch to reach
Egridir Gol and, by hugging the cliffs, Prostanna. For journeys
to villages on the western side of the lake boats are preferred
even today, as they were in the fourteenth century.2 From
Prostanna it is possible to take advantage of one of the tribu-
taries of the Cestrus, climb the slope on the other side of the
I ]HSXL (1920), 91 If.
2 The Travels of Ibn Bdt!fita, tr. by H. A. R. Gibb, II. 422.
valley, and reach Cremna, high up on the Davras Dag, the
innermost range of the western half of the triangle. This route
is now unimportant and is used mainly by nomads. I
Further south on the important supplementary route in the
north-west of Pisidia was another cross-roads, near Neapolis,
from which one pass led over the Sultan Dag to Thymbrium
and another via Anabura down the left coast of Lake Caralis
across the grain of the mountains by Adada and Mallus to
Cremna. From Adada easy routes could be followed along
branches which led north to Prostanna and south to Perge.
Still further south, at Misthia on the south-west corner of the
lake,2 another branch of the road went south-west along its
coast, and slipped through the gap between the second and
third ranges to Side, which was connected with all the other
towns on the south coast. The modern road runs parallel to
this one but further to the east.
The only other road in this region which ran north-south is
represented today by the Antalya-Burdur highway, which cuts
giddily across the grain of the mountains and over the Qubuk
Bogaz. The ancient road climbed by way ofDo~eme and Ariassus
across the plain of Kestel Gal to Sagalassus, thus connecting
Pamphylia directly with Baris and Seleuceia Sidera, and
eventually with Apameia and Apollonia. This was the route
taken by Alexander the Great. 3
The discipline imposed by the difficult configuration ofPisidia
is clearly shown by the striking similarity between maps of
ancient and of modern road systems. There is still a knot of
roads, and now of railways, at Dinar (Apameia), which has
lines of communication with Antalya (Attaleia), round the north
of Hoyran Gal with Yalva<;: (Pisidian Antioch), and then down
to BeYgehir, from which a road branches off to seek the coast.
The centre of the district, however, is now even less well covered
than it was in classical times, for the earth road leading south
from Egridir (Prostanna) reaches only as far as Siitciiler. The
fact that this is one of the more conspicuous gaps on the modern
road map of Turkey is evidence of the difficulty of the task
which confronted the Romans and their predecessors.
I X. de Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 196.
2 For this town, see A. S. Hall, Anal. Stud. IX (1959), 119 ff.
3 Arrian, Anabasis I. 27 ff.
This area, remote and difficult of access, was affected to
a lesser degree than almost any other region of Anatolia by the
changing boundaries of the Hellenistic age. 1 The mountaineers,
subject to each ruler in turn, were controlled by none. The fact
that Cyrus' expedition of 40 I was ostensibly directed against
unruly Pisidians,2 and his hostile treatment of the Lycaonians,3
show that the Persians had been unable to hold either of these
peoples in real subjection, and there is no reason to suppose
that this was a new state of affairs.4 Persian suzerainty came
to an end even in name when Alexander marched through
Lycia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia to Celaenae in 334-333.
The coastal plain of Pamphylia was always more easily held,
and the inhabitants claimed to be descended from Greek
settlers.s It was from this direction that civilizing influences
spread towards the mountains and caused some of the bar-
barian Pisidians to organize themselves into primitive city
states. Thus Arrian says of the Selgians that they were Pisidians
who inhabited a large city-a fact that he evidently considered
remarkable. 6
Such were the communities that the Hellenistic kings found
in Pisidia. Confronted by Alexander, the Selgians submitted;7
the Termessians, or some of them, fought on, both against him
and against Antigonus. 8 With their new constitutions, these
centres of population acquired new notions of their origins.
The Selgians, whose constitution in the first century B.C. was
praised by Strabo,9 claimed kinship with the Lacedaemonians,
as did Sagalassus, the only north Pisidian city known to have
existed in the fourth century B.C.IO Although the distinction
between a large tribal centre and a primitive polis is not easy
to draw, the passage of Strabo seems to show that the process
1 For the history of Pisidia, etc., in this period, Professor A. H. M. Jones's
chapter on the subject (Cities rif East. Rom. Prou. 124 ff.) is indispensable, and I
have drawn freely on it.
Z Xenophon, Anabasis I. i. I I.
3 Ibid. r. ii. 19. 4 Ibid. m. ii. 23.
5 Herodotus VII. 9. r; Theopompus, in Jacoby, FGrHist lIB (Berlin, 1929), 115,
fro 103 (16); Strabo XIV, p. 668.
6 Anabasis r. 28. i. 7 Arrian, loco cit.
8 Resistance to Alexander: ibid. r. 27 f. (where Arrian's T.A/.LLUaOV, etc., is
doubtless a slip); to Antigonus: Diodorus XVIII. 46 f.
9 XII, p. 570.
10 Arrian, Anabasis I. 28. ii. On claims to kinship with the Lacedaemonians see
A. M. Woodward, Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson, II (St. Louis, 1953),868 ff.

of development had not gone very far; he says that the rest of
Pisidia was divided up into 'tyrannies', a word used by him
in connexion with the supremely intractable Homanadenses. I
There can be little doubt that, down to the intervention of
Augustus, the social organization of this area was a fairly homo-
geneous one of warlike tribes ruled by petty chieftains, with
a sprinkling of superficially hellenized cities.
The Isaurians, who occupied the mountain ranges north-east
ofPisidia, lived in similar fashion. 2 With some of the Lycaonians
they were involved, even in the lifetime of Alexander, in the
revolt against Balacrus, the Macedonian satrap of Cilicia. The
revolt was put down by Perdiccas, who stormed Isaura and
Laranda. 3
After the death of Lysimachus in 281, all these regions fell
under the nominal control of the Seleucids. Pamphylia, whose
more exposed position always distinguished it from other dis-
tricts, was claimed by the Ptolemies.4 Their grasp, however,
was not very firm, and could not be detected from Polybius'
account of the campaign of the Seleucid usurper Achaeus in
217.5 Correspondingly feeble was the hold of the Seleucids on
the hinterland. Along the northern boundary of Pisidia passed
the road that connected Syria with Asia Minor. The colonies
founded along this route were in part a confession of failure
in Pisidia: a hard nut of resistance was being contained; it had
not yet been cracked. Ofthese colonies only one, Seleuceia Sidera,
was in Pisidia proper. The others were Apollonia,6 Antioch,
I XII, p. 570; the Homanadenses: XII, p. 569.
2 Strabo XII, p. 568: tl1r~KOO' 3' ,jaav TaliTa,s (the Isaurae) Kat &:AAa, KWf'a,
avxval, Al1aTwv 3' u:rraaa, KaTo'Kla,. The first mention of them is by Diodorus (XVIII.
22), who speaks of them as though they were a city state.
3 Diodorus, loco cit.
4 Theocritus, Idylls XVII. 88.
S This is pointed out by Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 128.
6 There is no reason to doubt that the foundation at Apollonia was Seleucid.
The inscription, SEGVI. 5g2, which mentions an &:yaAf'[a O€oiJliN'KuTopos, is strong
evidence that it was Nicator who was responsible for colonizing the old town
of Mordiaeum (Steph. Byz., S.V • .i1r.oAAwvla). In the imperial age the Apolloni-
ates called themselves AUKw, epfjK€S K&AWVO' (Head, HN 706; IGR III. 314,
317-18, 324). This led Professor Jones to suggest (op. cit. 412) that Lycians and
Thracians, perhaps veterans of Amyntas' army, were planted in the city by the
Roman government. Arguing against Anderson's view (JHS XVIII (18g8), 96)
that the Apolloniates called themselves coloni in emulation of the Roman colonia
at Antioch, he writes: 'The styles of cities were clearly regulated by the central
government, and it seems to me unlikely that the Romans would have allowed
814259 C
and Laodiceia Catacecaumene, and these were all, strictly

speaking, in Phrygia; the correct title of Antioch is thus not
'Antioch in Pisidia' or 'Antioch ofPisidia', but 'Antioch towards
Pisidia'.1 The exact date of the foundations is not known; either
Nicator or his son Antiochus I seems to have been responsible:
therefore before 262-261. 2 The settlers at Antioch were brought
from Magnesia on Maeander to a site which was probably
already occupied by a temple village devoted to the Phrygian
god Men and run by his priests. 3 Presumably the land was
provided at Men's expense.
That Seleucid rule over the mountain zone, in spite of the
exist.ence of the road system and of the colonies, was as purely
nominal as that of the Persians had been is shown by the
occurrence in 218 B.C. of a situation curiously similar to that
of 401. Achaeus, in his revolt against the Seleucid rulers of
Asia Minor, turned his army against Pisidia, but, unlike the
younger Cyrus, he had a serious purpose. Taking advantage
of one of the quarrels which frequently broke out in the area,
he sent his lieutenant Garsyeris to form alliances with the cities
of Pisidia and Pamphylia. Although Garsyeris gained Milyas
and much of Pamphylia, it is an indication of the strength of
some of the Pi sid ian fortresses that Selge, in spite of treachery
on the part of its ambassador Logbasis, was able to beat off
the invader and maintain its boast that it had never lost its
independence. 4 The similar record that Cremna enjoyed was
destined to be spoiled only by the vigour and determination of
Amyntas.
When his rule over this region was officially terminated after
the Apolloniates to usurp the peculiarly Roman title of coloni if they had no title
to it whatsoever.' But the ApoIIoniates were, it is quite certain, not a colony in
the Roman sense, and their use of the title was in any case a usurpation. There is
no evidence of any settlement at Apollonia later than that of the Seleucids.
! StraboXII, pp. 557, 569, and 577, correctly. Cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 94: 'insident
verticem Pisidae ... quorum colonia Caesarea, eadem Antiochia'; Acts XIII. 14:
)tvTt6x€~av r1]V Iltu£oluv (var. lect. 'Tijs IILaLo{as); Ptolemyv. 4. ix: )1VTt,OXELCL lIuJ'Lo[as.
2 See Ramsay, Klio XXIII (1929-30), 243 f.
3 Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 128 f., following Ramsay, ]RS XVI (1926),
107 fT., derives the modern name of the town, Yalvag, from the Phrygian word
'gallos', priest. In Turkish Yal(a)vac means 'messenger', 'ambassador', or
'prophet'; there certainly seems to have been an attempt by the Turks to make
sense of a native name.
4 For the activities of Achaeus, see Polybius v. 72 ff.; for Selge's independence,
Strabo XII, p. 571.
the battle of Magnesia in 189 B.C. with the surrender of all his
possessions north of the Taurus, I Antiochus III lost little that
was of value to him. He had regained control over Pamphylia,
which he was temporarily allowed to keep, but the Pisidians
were as unruly as ever, and some of them were still defying
him in 193, so that he was forced to attack them in person
with all his forces. 2
Pamphylia was soon reunited with Pisidia. The relationship
between these two districts was such that it caused them to be
alternately joined together and separated from each other. On
the one hand, the Pamphylian plain is quite different in charac-
ter from the mountains of Pisidia, and far easier to live in; on
the other, it faces the sea, and without the lines of communica-
tion which run through the mountains to the hinterland would
be completely cut off from the central plateau. Now, as a result
of Manlius' expulsion of the Seleucid garrison from Perge,
Eumenes ofPergamum obtained Pamphylia with the exception
of all the important towns, which Manlius had recognized as
free. 3 Some inland towns were likewise free from Eumenes'
control. Antioch was certainly one of these;4 so probably were
Selge5 and Sagalassus;6 less certain are Termessus,7 Lysinia,
and the Oroandians.8
Where the Persians and the Seleucids had failed, the Attalids
did not succeed. None of its rulers had yet made any per-
manent impression on this area; it had not been penetrated,
but had been sealed off from the rest of their dominions, and
as long as this method was employed, Pisidia would continue
to be a source of trouble. Thus, under the Attalids, even a com-
paratively important town, Amblada, had no regular boule or
demos: Attalus addressed his letter of 165-159 to the city and the
elders. 9 Although the existence of the road south-west of the
Sultan Dag made administration easier, the Attalids merely
I For the cession of Pisidia to Eumenes see LiVYXXXVII. 5+ xi; Polybius XXII.
5. xiv. 2 Livyxxxv.-I3. v.
3 For a discussion of the identity of these towns, see Cities of East. Rom. Provo
130 f. • Strabo XI, p. 577.
5 HN 71 If.; Strabo XII, p. 571; Trogus, Prot. XXXIV.
6 HN 710; IGR III. 348, 350-3.
? cr. ILS 38, the Lex Antonia de Termessensibus, which may, as Jones suggests
(Ioc. cit.), confirm an ancient privilege.
8 Manlius accepted their submission (Livy XXXVIII. 15. ix and 18. ii); their
later status is not known. 9 OGIS 75 I.
exacted fines and hostages and a lump sum from each com-
munity in place of taxes.
In 133 B.C., when Attalus III died and bequeathed his king-
dom to the Roman people, the Senate did not have the courage
to face the problems presented by lands like Pisidia and Lycaonia
-in view of the past history of these lands this is not surprising
-and either freed them or, what amounted to the same thing,
as the complete absence of any trace of this suzerainty shows,
gave them with CUicia to the kingdom of Cappadocia. l
Until this period the irritation set up by the presence of
this undigested stretch of territory within the domains of the
Anatolian kingdoms had been almost entirely local. In this
final stage before direct Roman intervention, the inflammation
spread, and a far wider area began to be affected. Along the coast
of Cilicia pirates set up their bases and used the ports of Pam-
phylia, especially Side, as their dockyards and markets,2 while
the hinterland of Pisidia and Cilicia offered them a refuge into
_ which they could not be pursued. The mountains harboured
tribes who may not have been involved in piracy, but whose war-
like independence formed a hard knot in the fabric of Anatolian
politics and culture; these tribes included the Isaurians and
their neighbours the Homanadenses. Other centres of popula-
tion began to appear during this period, known either through
their coinage or through the list of Artemidorus in Strabo's
Geography. Among the former are Adada, Prostanna, Parlais,
Comama, and Cremna;3 among the latter Aarassus, Pityassus,
Timbriada, Anabura, and Tarbassus. 4 The growth of these new
centres may have made the Pisidians more formidable; it cer-
tainly did not make them less intractable.
Such was the situation at the beginning of the first century
B.C., when Rome created the first province of Cilicia.
Justin XXXVII. I. ii.
I 2 Strabo XIV, p. 664.
Adada: HN 705; Prostanna: ibid. 709 f.; Parlais: ibid. 714; Comama and
3
Cremna: ibid. 707 f. 4 Strabo XlI, p. 570.
III
THE MILITARY PROBLEM:

TWO EARLY SOLUTIONS
T is rightly pointed out in discussions of the subject! that the
I word provincia, when it is used in connexion with Cilicia

in the first century B.C., retains its original meaning of
'official duty, office, business, charge, province'.2 TIns may be
said of other provinces, but it is peculiarly applicable to Cilicia:
for nearly forty years neither of the Cilicias proper, Tracheia
and Pedias, was included in the Roman province to which they
had given their name) Provincia Cilicia, as a geographical
concept, is both weak and vague. Hence the difficulties ex-
perienced by those who would ask what were the boundaries
of the Cilician province in the first century B.C. This is the wrong
question. The impression of vagueness left by discussion of the
territory of the province is not accidental. The question that
should be asked is: what were the duties of the administrator
of Provincia Cilicia and how important were they? The pro-
vince will extend as far as the proconsul is led in the course of
carrying out the duties of his office and as far as is necessary
for their efficient performance; there was a job of work to be
done in Asia Minor, and the men sent out to do it were called
proconsuls of Cilicia.
What this work was is already plain: at first the suppression
of pirates operating from bases on the coast took priority, but
the maintenance of the great east-west highway by control-
ling the lands through which it passed was a supplementary
task the importance of which grew paramount after Pompey had
t e.g., by Ramsay, Hist. Comm. Gal. 103, where he speaks of a 'sphere of duty'.
So T. R. S. Broughton, AJP LlV (1933), 143: 'The first command there under
Antonius was little more than an authorization to cruise on the southern coast
of Asia Minor.'
• Lewis and Short, Latin Dictionary, s.v.; it is used much earlier in this than in
the territorial sense: Plautus, Captivi 474: 'provincia parasitorum'.
3 Syme, Buckler 299. This paper has been drawn on freely for what follows.
22 THE MILITARY PROBLEM: TWO EARLY SOLUTIONS
dealt with the pirates. Once undertaken, it could and eventually

must mean the thorough subjugation of the Pisidian highlands.
The pirates, however, demanded Rome's more urgent atten-
tion, and the province was instituted in 102 B.C. as the command
taken up against them by M. Antonius. 1 He was not very
successful-or perhaps in the twenty years following his opera-
tions a new crop had time to spring up-and Sulla is thought
to have created a new plan of campaign. 2 In 78, after a further
attempt to deal with the problem had ended prematJ.lrely in
the recall of Murena,3 P. Servilius, consul 79, was appointed
to the command of Gilicia-the first man of his rank to hold it.
The campaigns of Servilius, for which he took the cognomen
Isauricus, were important but not conclusive. 4 He captured
three Lycian strongholds (Phaselis, Olympus, and Gorycus),
took measures against Attaleia, and attacked the Isaurians,
capturing the two towns Isaura-Vetus and Nova-and annex-
ing the territory of the Orondeis. In his article on Servilius'
operations H. A. Ormerod argued that after completing the
pacification of Pamphylia the general marched north, either
from Attaleia via the present-day Kesik Bel and Bey~ehir, thus
reaching the territory of the Isaurians, or from Side to Sey-
di~ehir.5 Professor Magie also favours a march northwards from
Pamphylia, but prefers a more easterly route, that ofJ. J iithner,
from the Karpuz Qay, east of Side, to Silistat and Isaura Vetus. 6
There is another route that Servilius may have taken, one later
followed by a Roman road: it ran from Side to the south-west
corner of Lake Garalis. 7 Both Ormerod and Magie reject an
approach from the Gilician side as impossible because of the
occupation of Pedias by Tigranes,8 but the Pamphylian routes
must have presented considerable difficulties too: Servilius
would have to cross difficult mountain passes in hostile country.9
I For Rome and the pirates, see H. A. Ormerod, CAH IX. 350 ff., and ]RS xu
(1922),35 fr.
2 Ormerod, ]RSxu (1922), 36. 3 Ibid. 37.
4 Ibid. 37 fr. Ormerod's treatment of Servilius' campaigns is precise-more so
perhaps than the evidence warrants. 5 Ibid. 49.
6 See J. Jiithner's map in Vorl. Bericht, and Magie, Roman Rule u. 1171.
7 Magie, op. cit. II. 1140. 8 Ibid. 1177 f.
9 JUthner's route over the Sisam Bel was 'impracticable for waggons' (Magie,
op. cit. II. 1171); see Jiithner, op. cit. 42. Of the routes he proposes, Ormerod
writes: 'Both ... are difficult and would necessitate hard fighting with the hill,
men.'
THE MILITARY PROBLEM: TWO EARLY SOLUTIONS 23
Attacks on Isauria and north-east Pisidia are much easier from
the north, as the course of the Homanadensian war was to
show. I It is more natural to accept the view glanced at by
Ramsay and tentatively adopted by Professor Syme,2 that
Servilius used the northern route by Apameia and Antioch,
which would involve no risks until he was almost upon the
Isaurians.3 The topic of the line of Servilius' march is of some
importance, as the route he took will indicate how far the
Romans had succeeded in penetrating the Taurus at this time.
If the theory of an attack from the north is correct, their
knowledge of it cannot as yet have been more than superficial.
As far as the pirates were concerned, the results that Ser-
vilius achieved were not permanent, nor is there any evidence,
in spite of Eutropius' assertion4 that he reduced Cilicia, that
any part of Cilicia proper was annexed. This task, with the
final clearance of the pirates, was left for Pompey, who, when
he settled the east, added Cilicia Pedias to the province. s
Soon after Pompey's settlement, the focus of interest in the
province began to shift. It was only natural that this should
be so, and Professor Syme has shown what became the chief
concern of the governor from the year 56 onwards. In that year
the three Phrygian dioceses of Laodiceia, Apameia, and Syn-
nada were detached from Asia and added to the Cilician pro-
vince. 6 These territories lay along the great east-west highway,
which it was the task of the proconsul to protect, and which
was, in fact, his main province from 56 onwards. The dioceses
were particularly important in that, as we have seen, at least
two of the towns were situated at junctions on the road. Nothing
shows more clearly than the behaviour of the proconsul Cicero
in what the province consisted: during the whole of his tenure
I See Appendix V.
2 Ramsay, ]HS xxv (1905), 165 f.; Syme, op. cit. 300, note 4, comparing the
march of Q. Marcius Rex in 67.
3 Ormerod, ]RS XII (1922),48, and Magie, op. cit. II. 1171, object that Servilius
is not heard of in Asia and that he is said by Eutropius (VI. 3) and others to have
been the first general to cross the Taurus. The first of these objections is an argu-
ment ex silentio on which little weight can be placed (cf. Ramsay, Social Basis 31 [.);
and Eutropius simply says 'in Tauro iter fecit', which need not imply an actual
crossing. Nothing is gained by adducing the relative positions of the sites ofIsaura
Vetus and Isaura Nova as evidence for the direction taken by Servilius: the site of
Nova is still a subject of controversy; see Magie, loco cit.
4 VI. 3: 'is Ciliciam subegit'.
5 Syme, op. cit. 300. 6 Ibid. 301, note 4.
of the office, he hardly left the east-west highway at all. From
56 until 50 Cilicia sprawled along the whole of this road from
Laodiceia to the gates of Syria. In the south the province
stretched from the Chelidonian islands off Lycia along the
coast east to Mount Amanus on the borders of Syria; north-
wards it reached as far as Bithynia. On its north-west frontier
were the dependent kingdoms of Galatia, Cappadocia, and
Commagene. Cilicia was thus a province of first-class military
importance, since it stood between Asia and the non-Roman
world, making it unnecessary to garrison the western province.
There was also a secondary frontier in the charge of the pro-
consul: the Taurus, whose tribes were far from being pacified.
It was only twenty years since Servilius had been the first
Roman general to pelletrate that region, and as yet nothing on
a large scale had been done to civilize its ferocious inhabitants.
Unwieldy as it was, Provincia Cilicia fulfilled a definite,
important, and unified function in the Empire. The importance
attached to it in the mid-first century B.C. is shown by the fact
that all the proconsuls from Servilius to Cicero were of consular
rank.
The decline of the province was as spectacular as its rise,
and it was connected with political events at Rome, which made
Asia, the nearer province, also the more important. It began
in 49, when the three Phrygian dioceses were returned to Asia. 1
It may also have been at this time, or perhaps two years later,
that Side was detached from Cilicia;2 how much of the hinter-
land went with Side is not known. Cyprus was another early,
if less important, 10ss.3
The obscure later history of Provincia Cilicia has been eluci-
dated by Professor Syme. 4 From 47 to 46, the governor was
probably Q. Philippus. In 47 Cilicia was visited by Caesar,
who reprimanded the client king Deiotarus for his conduct
during the civil wars, while Philipp us seized as hostages the
children of Antipater of Derbe, a lesser dynast who had prob-
ably been established by Pompey. It was in the next year that
the ultimate fate of the main part of the province was fore-
Syme, op. cit. 324.
1
• Cicero, Ad Fam. Xil. IS. v: 'usque Sidam, quae extrema regio est provinciae
meae' . (written by Lentulus Spinther, acting governor of Asia).
3 Dio XLIl. 35. v.
4 Op. cit. 306 If.
shadowed. Q. Cornificius, governor of Cilicia, was entrusted

also with the command of Syria and the war against the
Pompeian Q. Caecilius Bassus. If Cornificius took any measures
against Bassus, nothing is recorded of them, and he left the pro-
vince at the end of the year. The available evidence points to
the separation of the two provinces in 45 and the allotting of
Syria to Antistius Vetus and of Cilicia to a certain Volcatius.
What happened after this is still more obscure: union with
Syria is a possibility, and, as Professor Syme points out, I there
is no mention of Cilicia in the terminology of 43, when Cassius
seized the east: 'Cilicia has come to an end'. Of the two regions
from which the province derived its name, Pedias was attached
to Syria; Tracheia, which had never been an integral part of
the province, was to take a different path.
Provincia Cilicia had disintegrated, and after Philippi Antony
had to dispose of the fragments. There is no record until the
reign of Vespasian of the existence of an independent province
of Cilicia;2 Antony had found another, eminently suitable,
solution to the problems of the road, the eastern frontier, and
the under-developed territories in southern Asia Minor. Strabo
says of Tracheiotis 3 that it was a region which it was better to
entrust to a king than to a succession of Roman governors
who could not always be on the spot and might not have arms
at their disposal. It was for this reason that in 39 B.C. portions
of the dismembered province were given to the client kings
Amyntas and Polemo. 4
The client kingdom system had long been flourishing in Asia
Minor. One of the more important examples of it was Galatia,
which, in the settlement of Pompey, had been divided among
three chieftains according to the old division into the three
Gallic tribes. s By 47 the smooth and unscrupulous Deiotarus
had, by a series ofjudicious marriages followed up with murder,
reduced the three to two. Three years later he used Caesar's
death as an opportunity of seizing the whole of Galatia. What
he had taken by force he secured by bribery. Thanks to Antony
and Fulvia he remained king of Galatia until his death in 41.
lOp. cit. 323. 2 See Magie, Roman Rule II. 1419 f.
3 XIV,p. 67!.
4 Appian, Bell. Civ. v. 75. For the development of Amyntas' kingdom, see
A. Zwintscher, De Amynta Rege 36 ff.
5 Magie, Roman Rule I. 373 f., 426; Zwintscher, op. cit. II If.
His secretary Amyntas is first heard of at Philippi, where he

changed sides; I it was probably on this occasion that he brought
himself to the notice of Antony.
The energy that Amyntas displayed so prominently in his
later activities must have been manifested in the first three
years of his reign in northern Pisidia, for when king Castor of
Galatia died in 36, Antony took the opportunity of making some
rearrangements in the client states, so that the position of the
more successful dynasts was improved; and although Castor's
sons inherited Paphlagonia, Amyntas was created king of
Galatia, with additional territories: 'parts of Lycaonia and
Pamphylia'.2 Lycaonia was taken from the kingdom ofPolemo,
who was given some territories in the north of Anatolia in
compensation: first eastern Pontus, then Lesser Armenia and
Colchis as well.3 Without these portions of Lycaonia Amyntas'
kingdom would have been a very unmanageable shape. The
possession of this region, dreary and infertile as it is, gave his
dominions body and coherence. Amyntas made full use of it.4
Much more problematical are the parts of Pamphylia that
Amyntas was given. s The existence of silver which seems to
have been coined by Amyntas at Side6 suggests, but does not
prove, that he possessed the whole of the Pamphylian coast.
It may mean only that he had a line of communication from
the coast at Side to his main dominions. Such a line could
lead only up the valley of the Melas to the south-west corner
of Lake Caralis, a route which was surely too near the haunts
of the Homanadenses to be very valuable. 7 It is more likely
that Amyntas was given a large tract of the coastal plain,
stretching as far east as, and contiguous with, the coast of
Tracheiotis.
Amyntas held this kingdom for five years, until the fall of
Antony. At Actium he once again displayed his flair for
Dio XLVII. 48. ii.
I Z Dio XLIX. 32. iii: AVKuovtus IIu",<pv)..{as T~ nva.
Strabo XII, p. 578; DiOXLIX. 25. iv (Poutus) ; Dio XLIX. 33. ii (Lesser Armenia) ;
3
Strabo XI, p. 499 (CoIchis).
4 Strabo XII, p. 568.
5 See Syme, Klioxxx (1937), 227, note 1.
6 BMC Galatia, etc., pp. xviii, 2 f.: legend: BA:EIAEO:E AMYNTOY; HN 704'
747. No coins of Amyntas have been found at Side, but the resemblance between
his tetradrachms and those of Side in weight, workmanship, and type is so great
that both series must surely have been produced by the same mint.
7 Cf. the problem of the line of march of P. Servilius, above, pp. 22 f.
choosing the winning side, with the result that, according to

Dio,I he was one of the only two dynasts who did not lose the
territories assigned to them by Antony. From Octavian, who,
in spite of what he had said in his propaganda against Antony,
recognized as clearly as his rival the value of this economical
method of providing for eastern defence and pacification,
Amyntas received Cilicia Tracheia, since 36 B.C. the property
of Cleopatra. 2 The extreme south-east corner of Tracheiotis,
however, remained under the control of the Teucrid house of
Olba)
The kingdom of Amyntas now extended over a wide area of
central and southern Asia Minor. It fell into two main parts.
Firstly, Galatia proper, containing the Gallic tribes; Amyntas
had no difficulty in establishing his rule here. Secondly, regions
to the south and south-west, namely parts of Lycaonia, includ-
ing Isaurica,4 Cilicia Tracheia,5 much of Pisidia proper, and
Phrygian Pisidia;6 the minimum south-western extent of the
kingdom is indicated by the fact that both Sagalassus and
Selge7 and probably Apollonia 8 were included in it.
This second part of the kingdom was easier to bestow than
to rule; Amyntas had to conquer much of it for himself. It was
ILl. 2. i; Dio exaggerates the changes made by Octavian. For the defection of
Amyntas, see Zwintscher, De Amynta Rege 33 ff.; for the client kings under
Augustus, see G. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World 42 ff.
2 Strabo XIV, p. 671.
3 Strabo XIV, p. 672, with Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 202 ff., and Magie,
Roman Rule II. 1143 f., for the history of the dynasty and the extent of their
dominions.
• Strabo XII, p. 569.
5 Ibid. XIV, p. 671 ; cf. XII, p. 535. 6 Ibid. XII, p. 569.
7 Ibid. XII, pp. 569 and 571. On Selge, however, see Zwintscher, De Amynta
Rege 37.
8 Strabo XII, p. 569. Strabo says that Amyntas' territories extended ,ulxpLi:lrroAA",",-
d30s T7)S rrpas :4rra,uEil[. The preposition ,ulXP' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether
Apollonia was included in the kingdom or not. However, Strabo's use of the
preposition elsewhere suggests that he intended it here in an inclusive sense, and
Amyntas' function as protector of the east-west highway makes it probable that
this important station was under his control. The military road constructed in
6 B.C. (the Via Sebaste) passed through Apollonia (see below, p. 39) ; Zwintscher
(loc. cit.) based one of his arguments for the inclusion of Apollonia on Strabo's
statement (XII, p. 567) that the whole of Amyntas' kingdom had been united
in one province: Apollonia belonged to that province. Zwintscher also noted
that while Strabo attributes the town to Phrygia, Stephanus of Byzantium calls
it Pisidian, probably because it was part of Amyntas' kingdom 'cuius stirpem ipsam
Pisidiam fuisse vidimus'.
doubtless after his acquisition of Lycaonia that he attacked
Antipater of Derbe, a rival less astute than himself. l Strabo
contrasts Derbe with Isaura, which Amyntas received from the
Romans and which he was fortifYing at the time of his death.:"
It seems that Amyntas began his operations, as was natural,
in the west, in his original dominions, and that Cremna fell
in the earlier part of the reign. The control that Amyntas
secured over Isaura prepared the way for his attack on the
Homanadenses. This was to have made him the real master
of the whole of his kingdom. It turned out otherwise. Passing
on to the Homanadenses, says Strabo, when his rule was estab-
lished over most of his realm, he also succeeded in killing their
'tyrant', but was in turn treacherously captured by the latter's
widow. Strabo, in writing these lines, was evidently aware of
the irony of Amyntas' fate. As a result of mere mischance, the
arrangement so wisely made by Antony and confirmed by
Augustus had broken down just when it seemed about to
achieve its greatest success. With the death of Amyntas, the
Romans, for the third time within seventy-five years, were faced
with the problem of dealing with southern Anatolia. This
time it was to be treated with thoroughness and determination.
, For the site of Derbe, see M. Ballance, Anal. Stud. vn (1957),147 fr.
Z XII, p. 569.
IV
PROVINCIA GALATIA AND THE

FOUNDATION OF THE COLONIES
HE Romans annexed Amyntas' kingdom and created a
T new province: Galatia. It is natural to suppose that these

measures were taken as soon as possible after the death of
the king in 25 B.C., and that this was the case seems to be im-
plicit in the narrative of Dio, which is dated to that year: 'On
the death of Amyntas, Augustus did not entrust his realm to
his sons but reduced it to the status of a province.'! We may
feel some sympathy with Amyntas' heirs; whether their father
succeeded or failed, they had little hope of inheriting the king-
dom. Pacified, central and southern Asia Minor would even-
tually come under direct Roman control; unpacified, it needed
a strong and warlike monarch. Another Amyntas was not to be
found, it seems, among his descendants. Rome annexed, and at
once. A governor, Marcus Lollius, was hastily dispatched to the
east. 2 The creation of Provincia Galatia was thus carried out
as an emergency measure. There is no other way of explain-
ing the extraordinarily unwieldy shape of the new province.
Amyntas' kingdom had been bestowed on him piecemeal; it
was taken over, as we shall see, wholesale. 3
It is clear that, to some extent at least, the boundaries of the
new province corresponded to those of the kingdom it succeeded.
How far this was the case has been disputed. Strabo twice
states explicitly that the whole of Amyntas' kingdom was in-
corporated in the new province. 4 As these events took place in
Strabo's lifetime, it seems reasonable to accept his account,
although in one respect it is not quite correct.S Ramsay
I LIll. 26. iii. For the date, see Appendix I.
• Eutropius VII. 10.
3 For Amyntas' legal position, see Appendix VI.
+ xu, pp. 567 and 569. So Ramsay, ]RSXVI (1926), 201, note 1.
5 Amyntas' possessions in Gilicia Tracheia were assigned to Archelaus of
Gappadocia (Strabo XII, p. 535). Ptolemy (v. 5. iii and viii) attributes certain towns
in the extreme west and north-west of Gilicia Tracheia to the nap.1>vAlas 8.,Its. In
30 PROVINCIA GALATIA AND
preferred that of Dio. I Strabo, he says, is describing, and not very

accurately, the province as it existed after the Homanadensian
war; Dio, though his account has been misunderstood, is correct.
Now Dio elsewhere on the province of Galatia is not scrupulous:
he completely ignores Pisidia, which was clearly a part of the
province, as Strabo's remarks about the inclusion of Selge and
Sagalassus show.
However, there is no real conflict between the two sources.
Dio's account of the fate of Amyntas' dominions, if it is read
without prejudice, likewise implies that they were incorporated
more or less in toto into the province of Galatia. Dio mentions
the large and important districts of Galatia and Lycaonia, but
does not trouble to list the smaller areas which were also in-
cluded. The province doubtless embraced all the dominions
of Amyntas listed in the previous chapter, with the exception of
eastern Tracheia; there exists a problem as to the extent of the
province only where there exists one as to the extent of the
kingdom. This was so only in the case of Amyntas' Pamphylian
possessions, and it is the last clause in the passage of Dio that
describes the creation of the Galatian province, the clause re-
lating to Pamphylia, which has caused most disagreement.
What became of the parts of Pamphylia that had belonged to
Amyntas? The most probable meaning of the phrase Dio uses Z
is that these districts were 'assigned (or restored) to their own
province'. The question then arises, which province?
Th. Mommsen and H. Dessau 3 thought that Dio meant that
Pamphylia now became a separate province. Scholars who hold
this view admit that the province would be an extremely small
one, but plead its importance in any campaign against the
Taurus mountaineers; this would account also for the fact that
the time of Cleopatra, Tracheia had extended as far west as Hamaxia (Strabo
XIV, p. 669); but under Tiberius, Syedra, a town fifteen miles south-east of
Hamaxia, begins to issue imperial coins (HN 729). Jones accordingly concludes
(Cities oj East. Rom. Provo 438) that the extreme west of Cilicia was not included in
the kingdom of Archelaus, but was attached to Galatia when Amyntas was
killed. The deposition of Archelaus in A.D. 17 may have been another occasion
for altering the boundary between the Galatian province and the client kingdom
in Cilicia.
I Buckler 201.
2 LIlI. 26. iii: 'T~ [Slip })oJ.L~ a7T€o68TJo

3 Th. Mommsen, Provinces, 1. 324 and 336; H. Dessau, Geschichte der riimischen
Kaism;eit II. ii (Berlin, 1930), 612. For others, see Syme, Klio XXVlI (1934), 124,
note 5.
THE FOUNDATION OF THE COLONIES 31
it was under a consular governor, L. Calpurnius Piso, in

I3 B.C.I Some support is lent to this theory by the phraseology
used by Dio in describing how Claudius treated the Lycians: 2
he says that they were assigned to the province of Pamphylia.
This seems to indicate that the province of Pamphylia existed
before Claudius' new arrangements came into force in A.D. 43.
However, there is no other evidence in favour of this view, and
its exponents can produce no other governors of Pamphylia
before Piso; admittedly, this is an argument ex silentio, but,
taken in conjunction with the extraordinarily small size of
the province and the fact that it nevertheless claimed the atten-
tion of a consular governor, it makes the hypothesis of a separate
province of Pamphylia a good deal less attractive than it seemed
at first sight. 3
T. R. S. Broughton4 adopted an alternative view, that the
province to which Pamphylia was joined was Asia. The union
of these two regions, ifit took place in 25 B.C., had a precedent,
for it is probable that Caesar added Pamphylia to Asia after the
battle of Zela. 5 Tempting as this theory was, the discovery of an
inscription at Attaleia 6 has made it untenable. This inscription
honours a legatus Augusti pro praetore, M. Plautius Silvanus, un-
doubtedly the consul of 2 B.C.7 A man referred to in these terms
cannot be the governor of the senatorial province of Asia. Only
two possibilities remain open: one, that Silvanus was the gover-
nor of a distinct province of Pamphylia, is unlikely for the
reasons given above. The other is that he was the governor of
the Galatian province, of which Pamphylia, like the rest of
Amyntas' dominions, formed a part.
This is in fact the proposal brought forward by Professor
I Dio Lrv:.?4 .• vi;,PI~2 C 289. , " ,
2 LX. 17. 1lI: €S TOV T1]S Ilap.4wil,as vop.ov €GEypa.pev.
3 Another argument brought against this view (by Syme, op. cit. 124 f.) is that
it makes Dio imply that there was already a province of Pamphylia in existence in
Amyntas' lifetime, which is most unlikely if Amyntas was in possession of Side
and any considerable portion of the plain. It is better to agree with Broughton that
there had never yet been an independent province of Pamphylia (AJP LIV
(1933), 139 ff.). On the other hand, Dio's wording, as Mr. F. A. Lepper suggested
to me, may imply no more than the existence of a separate province of (Lycia-)
Pamphylia in his own day. 4 AJP LIV (1933), 139 ff.
5 Cicero, Ad Fam. XII. 15. v, shows that in May 43 it was part of Asia: 'Classem
fugientem persecuti sumus usque ad Sidam, quae extrema regio est provinciae
meae.' However, the resemblance between the Asian and Pamphylian calendars,
'cited by L. R. Taylor, AJP LIV (1933), 127 f., as evidence for the union of the
two regions under Augustus, proves nothing. 6 SEC VI. 646. 7 PIR' P 361.
Syme,1 and it should be accepted. In support of it there is, as
Professor Syme pointed out, the phraseology ofDio, who avoids
making any contrast between the fates of the various parts of
Amyntas' kingdom; this would be natural enough if the fate
of Pamphylia had been the same as that of Galatia and
Lycaonia. 2 Where, after all, could the boundary between Pam-
phylia and Galatia have been drawn? Even when Pamphylia
was combined with Lycia there was a tendency to extend the
coastal province northwards into the mountains.3 That was
after a hundred years of Roman rule; in 25 B.C. Pisidia pre-
sented a single unified problem; it cannot have been split
between Galatia and Pamphylia or any other province. The
greater part of Pamphylia, it is safe to conclude, was united
with Galatia in the province of Galatia-Pamphylia.
Evidence is insufficient to determine the area of the southern
extremity of the Galatian province with any greater precision.
It seems, however, that it stretched along the coast to include
Attaleia, for Pliny mentions the Attalenses in his list of Galatian
communities. 4 The consular L. Calpurnius Piso, like M. Plautius
Silvanus, was probably a legatus Augusti pro praetore of Galatia
and similarly honoured in his own province. These are not the
only traces of his governorship that we possess. Pylaemenes,
perhaps a son of Amyntas, presented Piso with a helmet,S most
probably in connexion with some kindness shown by the
governor during his tenure of the province. 6
Augustus was no doubt well aware (and if he was not, the
dispatches of Marcus Lollius will soon have enlightened him)
that the foundation of the province, by itself, would achieve
.nothing; it would have to be followed up by other, more con-
crete measures aimed at the subjugation and above all the
I Klio XXVII (1934), 122 ff.

• In order to obtain this meaning more clearly, Professor Syme emended Tcjl
ISlip vO/Lcjl to Tcjl mlTo/ VO/Lo/, which is tempting, but, as Anderson implied (Klio
XXVII (1934), 125 f.), difficult. Professor Syme's later view (Klio xxx (1937),227,
note I) was that Dio had simply blundered.
3 See below, p. 164, and S. A. Jameson, Lycia and Pamphylia from Augustus to
Diocletian (Oxford D. Phil. thesis, 1965), 74 ff.
4 Nat. Hist. v. 147. 5 Anth. Pal. VI. 241.
6 The conclusion that Ramsay reached in studying the nomenclature of
Lycaonia, 'that there was in the early first century a governor of Galatia named
Calpurnius Piso Frugi' (]HSxxxvlII (1918), 173), supports the view adopted here.
The consul of IS B.C. was, however, not a Frugi (see R. Syme,]RSL (1960), 12 ff.)
civilization of its mountainous parts. These measures were taken

and proved to be twofold. They were, firstly, the foundation of
veteran colonies and, somewhat later, the completion of the
war against the Homanadenses undertaken by Amyntas. Both
the dates and the mutual relationships of these events are un-
certain; assumptions have been made which it will be necessary
to question. For instance, it is usually supposed that all the
colonies, with the exception of Antioch and possibly Lystra,
were founded at the same time, that they are intimately con-
nected with the Homanadensian war and with the construction
in 6 B.C. of a system of Pisidian roads, and that in consequence
the Homanadensian war was an operation of major importance.
Before discussing these questions, it will be as well to decide
which were the colonies founded by Augustus in southern Asia
Minor. The emperor himself claimed I to have founded colonies
in 'Pisidia'. At this time Pisidia, unlike the other areas men-
tioned in Augustus' list, was not a province proper, and it did
not in fact become one until the reorganization carried out by
Diocletian. Pisidia was a genuine geographical concept, without
possessing any political status of its own. It should, at any rate,
have been a clearly defined region, with the possible exception
of the eastern side, which merged into the Taurus range proper,
for it was a compact unit, neatly divided from the rest of
Anatolia by the conformation of its mountain chains. 2 Within
this area the only colonies founded by Augustus were Comama,
Cremna, Olbasa, and Parlais. But the object of colonizing
southern Asia Minor was to subjugate Pisidia proper, and it
was for this reason, as Ramsay saw,3 that all the colonies can
be called Pisidian. It was only by an illegitimate extension of
this licence that Augustus described them as being 'in Pisidia'.
Five colonies-Antioch, Cremna, Parlais, Olbasa, and
Comama-are unanimously admitted to belong to this group.
I Res Gestae XXVIII.
2 Cf. Vittingholf, Riimische Kolonisation 131, note 4. Strabo XII, p. 577, knew that
Antioch was only 0) 7fPOS IIw<SIq.. On the linguistic borders of Phrygia and
Pisidia in the region near Antioch, see MAMA VII. ix If. Antioch is 7fo;\tS IIw<81as
in Ptolemy v. 4. ix.
3 ]RS VI (1916), 84: 'The fact that the intention of them all was to restrain the
mountain tribes of Taurus, loosely called Pisidians •.. , led to their being classed
as Pisidian colonies'; omitting Ninica, with Ramsay, I should regard Pisidia
proper, rather than 'the mountain tribes of Taurus', as the target of the colonies;
this view is based on their siting.
uruG D
34 PROVINC1A GALATIA AND
Lystra is regarded by Professor M. Grant as separate from the

rest, I while Ninica and Germe would be included by Vitting-
hoff and Broughton. 2 On balance, however, the evidence seems
to suggest that Lystra belongs to the group, while Ninica and
Germe were not founded until the reign of Domitian. The
towns with which we are concerned, then, are Antioch, Cremna,
Parlais, Comama, Olbasa, and Lystra. What are their founda-
tion dates?
The name of the settlement at Antioch, Colonia Caesarea,
has caused some confusion, and has led several distinguished
scholars3 to a view which receives some support from analogies
in north Africa,4 that the colony was founded before the first
princeps adopted the title Augustus-that is to say, before
27 B.C., during the lifetime of Amyntas and within his territory.
But it is not difficult to explain the name Caesarea; a change
of name does not necessarily mean a change of status, and
client kings were not reluctant to re-name cities after their
patron at Rome. s A good example of this, exactly parallel to
the case of Antioch, is that of Mazaca in Cappadocia, which
was given the name Caesarea by the client king Archelaus
some time between 13 and 9 B.C. 6
The orthodox view7 is that Antioch was founded at about
the same time as Province Galatia, and the other colonies
during the last decade of the first century B.C. The question of
Antioch's foundation is bound up with that of Galatia,S and
I See Appendix II and below, p. 37.
Z See Appendix III. 3 e.g. O. Cuntz, ]OAI xxv (1929), 77.
4 Ch.-A. Julien, Histoirede I'Afrique duNord (ed. 2, Paris, 1951),124f. ;cf. L. Teutsch,
Das Stiidtewesen in Nordafrika (Berlin, 1962), 190 ff., who writes (222, note 706):
'Der Analogieschluss ••. , dass die romischen KolOllien in Pisidien eine 1ihnliche
politische Rolle gespielt haben wie die Kolonien in Mauretanien und schon unter
der Regierung des Amyntas bestanden haben, ist ... sehr naheliegend.' But the
Mauretanian colonies were founded between 33 and 25 B.C., when 'wahrschein-
lich iibernahm Augustus selbst die Herrschaft iiber dieses Land' (192).
5 Suetonius, Div. Aug. LX. 6 Magie, Roman Rule II. 1353.
7 Accepted, e.g., by Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 135; first found ad EE
V (1884), 584, no. 1367.
8 Consequently, if Ramsay's arguments for 20 B.C. as Galatia's foundation year
(see Appendix I) are accepted, the foundation of the colony will likewise have to
be brought down five years; this view is adopted, not only by Ramsay himself,
but by Vittinghoff, Romische Kolonisation 132, note 4, and by Grant, From Imp. to
Auct. 250. Ramsay's doubts of 25 B.C. were developed late in life. In his article
in ]HS L (1930), 263 f., he adhered to the orthodox view, abandoning it only
in Buckler 203, and Social Basis 62 and 92.
we may regard 25 B.C. as the terminus post quem for the foundation
of the colony. Further, if we take a colonial coin of Vespa sian I
as a centenary issue, we may claim to know the precise year
of the foundation:
IMP VESPASIANO CAESAR I AVG COS VII P P. Bust of Vespasian, r.,
laureate.
LEG von 1. upwards, CC .•. (?) on r. upwards; eagle standing, with
wings spread, between two military standards.
The resemblance of this coin to one issued in the reign of
Augustus 2 is close:
CAESAR r. Head of Augustus, r.
COL CAES, above. Two legionary eagles between two standards;
between the eagles, AV/GVS and perhaps in a third line on the
edge TVS.
Vespasian held his seventh consulship in A.D. 76, and if the
coin issued under him was a commemoration piece, struck to
celebrate the centenary of the colony, the foundation year would
be fixed to 25 B.C., a likely date which would just allow time
for the news of Amyntas' death to reach Augustus, for the
decision to colonize to be taken, and for the arrangements to
be made.3
Against this interpretation of the coins it may be objected
that the two reverses are not exactly alike: the coin of Augustus
bears two legionary eagles and the name of the Princeps, that of
Vespasian one eagle and the numbers of the legions. But,
granted that the earlier issue was inaugural, there is still no
need to suppose that the Flavian mint-masters were attempting
to copy it. The resemblances and the differences between the
two coins are best explained by assuming that they celebrate
the same event, that the coin of Vespasian commemorates the
centenary of the foundation; there is certainly nothing to con-
nect it with Vespasian's reorganization· of the eastern provinces,
which was in any case several years past. 4
Once this evidence is accepted, we may turn to the other
colonies to see whether they present any similar phenomenon.
At Cremna this is certainly the case. Cremna issued coms
'NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914), 305, no. 13.
2 KMu. 358, no. 9; NC, Ser. IV. vol. XIV (1914), 303, no. II.
3 See Ramsay, ]HS L (1930), 264, note 3.
4 See Magie, Roman Rule 1. 572 ff.
PROVINCIA GALATIA AND
inscribed DIVO AVG; the first issue l came under Marcus Aurelius
(A.D. 161-80), the third 2 under Aurelian (A.D. 270-5). If
Cremna was founded in 25 B.C., these may be taken for second
and third centenary issues. Both the Marcus Aurelius specimen
and that of Aurelian make very definite reference to the founda-
tion of the colony: they are of the 'colonus ploughing' type,
and in the background of the Aurelian reverse is a vexillum and
Roman eagle between two standards.
This interpretation is open to two objections. Firstly, Aurelian
did not survive the year 275, so that the exact centenary of the
foundation could not have fallen in his reign. But it is by no
means impossible that the over-eager colonists and their energetic
mint-masters should have anticipated the correct date by a few
months. 3 If Cremna had reason to feel gratitude towards the
central government, it would be anxious to emphasize the
ancient connexion with Rome. That there were such reasons is
suggested by the appearance of a series of coins, also issued
under Aurelian, which seem to show that a gift of corn was
made by him to the colony. 4 The second and more serious
objection is that there was another issue of this type, during the
reign of Valerian (A.D. 253-60), one which cannot be inter-
preted as a centenary issue. s I know of only one specimen of
this coin, and indeed of no other types struck at Cremna during
this reign. This suggests that it, too, may celebrate a special
occasion, though not an anniversary. Twenty years before the
third centenary proper, Valerian passed through Anatolia on
I KM U. 382, no. 5: 'IMP CAES M AVREL ANTO links, NINVS AVG rechtshin.
Brustbild des bartigen Marcus mit Gewand rechtshin ..... 0 AVG oben, COL CRE
im Abschnitt: Colonist, mit dem Cinctus Gabinus bekleicjet, hinter einem Gespann
von Zebuochsen stehend und pflilgend.'
• NZ XVI (1884), 276, no. 113: 'IMP. C.S.L.DOM.AVRELIANO. Brustbild
Aurelian's, mit Lorbeerkranz und Gewandung, rechtshin. DIVO AVG. COL. und im
Abschnitt CRE. Priester rechtshin hinter einem Zebugespann. 1m Hintergrunde,
Vexillum und romischer Adler zwischen zwei Standarten.'
3 As it is more likely that the colonists anticipated their anniversary by two
months than by ten, this coin may be used as evidence in support of the view of
L. Homo, Essai sur Ie regne de l'empereur Aurelien (Paris, 1904), 335 ff., followed by
P. H. Webb, Rom. Imp. Coin. v. i. 253 f., that Aurelian was not murdered until
the end of August 275, and that there was no interregnum of eight months before
the accession of Tacitus.
4 See below, p. 152.
5 SNG (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5115: 'Valerian im Lorbeerkranz; IMP
CAES P LICINI VALERIANO PF •• ,os, Koloniegriinder (Augustus) in Toga mit zwei
Buckelochsen; DIVO AUG COL CRE.'
his way to the east.! Was this coin struck in his honour? In spite
of objections, the balance of the evidence seems to favour the
hypothesis that Cremna was founded as early as 25 B.C., rather
than in about 6 B.C., and this fits in well with the conclusion
reached above on more general grounds, that Cremna was one
of the earlier conquests of Amyntas. To allow so strong a position
to slip back into hostile hands would be unthinkable; im-
mediate colonization with a group of veterans was the obvious
solution.
An examination of the coinage of Lystra2 leads to a similar
conclusion. On the reverse of a coin struck under Augustus 3
the colony's titles appear with unusual fulness:
IMPE A VGV2TI: Head of Augustus 1., laureate; behind, cornucopiae.
COLIVL
FEI GEM
Priest, veiled, ploughing to 1. with yoke
[L]VSTRA (in exergue) of humped oxen.
This is exactly repeated on a coin of Marcus Aurelius. 4 On no

other reverse is the title given at such length, and the name
Lystra so clearly subordinate. The conclusion seems inescapable
that Lystra, like Antioch and Cremna, was founded in 25 B.C.S
Raising the date of the deductiones at Cremna and Lystra to
about 25 B.C. does not necessarily affect the foundation dates
of the other colonies. That the colonies were all founded to-
gether remains an unwarranted (but natural) assumption. 6
I H. M. D. Parker, History of the Roman World from A.D. 138 to 337 (ed. 2,
rev. by B. H. Warmington, London, 1958), 390 f.
• Ramsay supposed that Lystra, like the other minor colonies, was a founda-
tion of 6 B.C. (Social Basis 184).
3 BMC Lycaonia, etc., 10, no. J.
~ Mann. grec. 347, no. 121: 'IMP.CAES.M.AVR.ANTONINVS. Buste laure et drape
de Marc-Aurele a dr. [CEOLL.IVE]L

F .G M.
et a l'exergue, LVSTRA. Colon conduisant un
attelage de deux :dbous a gauche.' -
S For Cremna, 25-24 B.C. is the terminus ante quem: Aurelian died in 275; for
Lystra a date as late as 20 B.C. is theoretically possible; this assumes the death of
Amyntas in 25 as the terminus post quem (above, p. 34).
6 Pliny's mention of Antioch alone of the colonies (Nat. Hist. v. 94) may seem
a serious objection to the chronology proposed (see Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo
134 f.), but can Pliny be trusted? His list of African communities is notoriously
inaccurate (Broughton, Romani;:;ation of Africa Proconsularis (Baltimore, etc., 1929)
49 ff.). We may assume, for example, that· his source for the area is earlier than
12 B.C., that it dates back to the time of Polemo (39-36 B.C.). To tell him that
Pisidian Antioch was a colony, Pliny would need no source at all.
PROVINCIA GALATIA AND
The foundation in 25 B.C. of Antioch, Cremna, Lystra, and

perhaps the other colonies as well, guaranteed the security of
the lands surrounding the Pisidian triangle and thus achieved
what must have been one of the prime objects of M. Lollius.
But within the triangle there remained at least one hostile and
untamed tribe, to which Augustus and his government would
turn their attention in due Course. Amyntas would have to be
avenged and the Homanadenses subjugated once and for all;
but the task was not an urgent one.
The importance of the colonies' foundation date in relation
to the problem of the Homanadensian war is obvious.! If at
least three of them were founded between ten and twenty years
before the war, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that
they were not directly connected with it-and this conclusion
in turn will affect our estimate of the importance of the war,
so that the subjection of the Homanadenses will be seen as an
essential preliminary to a much greater task, the taming and
civilizing of the whole of Pisidia, in which the colonies were to
playa vital part. That this view is correct is suggested not only
by the date of the colonies but by their siting. The foundation
of the colonies threw a cordon, not round Lake Trogitis and
the Homanadenses, but round the whole of Pisidia. 2
Not long before 12 B.C. the consular L. Calpurnius Piso
became governor of Galatia ; and this might mean that Augustus
was contemplating an attack on the Homanadenses. 3 If so, the
attack had to be postponed: Piso was called away to a more
urgent war' in Thrace. His presence in Pamphylia does not
make it certain, in any case, that war was imminent in 12 B.C.
Galatia was a new, unwieldy, and difficult province; there is
nothing surprising in its committal to a consular in these early
years of its existence.
Not until 6 B.C. did Augustus take further measures for the
pacification of Pisidia. That was the date of the construction
of the great road-or of part of it-which linked the colonies.
Cornutus Arruntius Aquila was the legate who carried out the
I For the territory of the Homanadenses, the date and significance of the war,
and the career of Sulpicius Quirinius, see Appendix V.

2 Ramsay's map at the end of JRSVII (1917), while illustrating the Homana-
densian war, by no means completely illustrates the Via Sebaste or the colonies.
See Syme, Klio XXVII (1934), 136.
3 Dio LIV. 34. vi; see Syme, op. cit. 127 fr.
task, and the road was called the Via Sebastel-the character
of the cities it served is reflected by the hybrid name. The pivot
of the road was Antioch. From this town two branches skirted
the sides of the Pisidian triangle. The more westerly ran by way
of Apollonia 2 to Comama, where one of the original milestones
has been found,3 Olbasa, and presumably Cremna. 4 A paved
road leading past the site of Parlais, and an inscription of
Severan date, probably a milestone, on the site, suggest that
this colony, too, was included in the system. On the eastern
side the road went through Neapolis 5 and skirted the shore of
Lake Caralis. One branch turned directly eastward towards
Pappa Tiberiopolis; it is along this stretch of road that mile-
stones of Augustus' reign have been discovered. 6 Further to the
east, at Klzllviran, there was another fork, Iconium and
Lystra each claiming a branch of the road. 7 This system by
I JHS XXII (1902), 102, no. 7 (Yonuslar), nos. II and 12 (Selki Saray), and
GIL III. 6974 (Comama). It is worth noting that the name is attested only for these
stretches of the road. It is convenient to describe here the whole Roman road
system in Pisidia, but how much was built in 6 B.C. remains uncertain.
Z Milestones at Kumdanh (GIL III. 6964: Xl from Antioch), Gen~ali (B. Pace,
Annuario III (1921), 51, nos. 39 f.: no. 39 is XXVIII from Antioch (from Apollonia,
according to Pace), dated to A.D. 202; GIL III. 6965-7: XXIX from Antioch, dated
to A.D. 128, and XVIII from Apollonia, of Constantine) ; Yasslviran (GIL 1II. 6970-2 :
Hadrian(?), Constantine, and fourth-century); Biiyiik Kabaca (WE 588 = GIL
III. 6969 MAMA IV. 233: xx from Apollonia, of Constantine; WE 587 = GIL
III. 6968 = MAMA IV. 234: XII from Apollonia, of A.D. 122) ; 3 kms. west of Apollo-
nia (MAMA IV. 148, of about 203) ; about six miles west of Apollonia (JRS XVI
(1926), 105, of 198); Ke~iborlu (GIL III. 14201, of 198).
3 GIL III. 6974: Glom from Antioch.
4 Milestones at lIyas (WE 617 = GIL III. 7174 = ILS 663: Constantine; WE
618 = GIL III. 7175: Constantine and his sons); an hour and a half east of lIyas
(WE 610 = GIL III. 7176: I from lIyas, fourth century, with two others un-
inscribed); Duver (Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 89, no. 34: Licinnius; ibid. 80, no. 24:
III from Lysinia, of Constantine) ; Yen ice Qiftlik (ibid. 102, no. 61: of Constantine).
The figure on the milestone at Comama exactly fits the route Antioch-
Comama via Apollonia and lIyas (cf; Mommsen ad GIL. III;- 6974). But, as Pro-
fessor Bean points out, the low figures of the lIyas milestones cannot relate to
a through road (Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 81): 'All the maps show a Roman road
passing down the north-west side of Lake Burdur through lIyas; it should perhaps
be considered whether in Imperial times this road did not rather run -along the
other side through Burdur, with short branches joining it from IIyas and Lysinia.'
5 Milestones at Manarga (EJ 178-81 = GIL III. 6962-3) set up under Dio-
c1etian, and in A.D. 337-40.
6 See above, note I. There are also milestones at Klyakdedekoy (WE p. 196;
JHSXXII (1902),108, where XXIX (?) is read).
7 MAMA VIII. xi. GIL III. 144ooa, a broken inscription from Lystra, may be
another one of the original milestones; see Anal. Stud. xv (1965), 56 f. The route to
Lystra probably passed over Kavakhkoz pag by Bulumya (H. S, Cronin, JHS
itself would have left free much of the eastern flank of Pisidia,
but the road from Antioch that skirted Lake Caralis drove on
in a south-easterly direction past Trogitis until it reached
Isaura Vetus. 1 From Misthia, on the south-east corner of
Caralis, another branch road made for Side in Pamphylia. 2
In 6 B.C., then, Augustus must have had preparations for the
Homanadensian war well in hand; not only because the con-
struction of the road system would make the conquest easier,
but also because the soldiers (brought perhaps from Syria) who
were to fight the war must have been those who built the road.
The building of roads is a valuable act in itself, but it serves
another purpose: it toughens those who take part. The Syrian
legions were not always maintained at fighting pitch.3 Cornutus
Arruntius Aquila completed his important task and handed
the army over to Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the distinguished
consular who was to conduct the war. Energy, loyalty, and
experience of tribal warfare made Quirinius the obvious man
to choose. Making Pisidian Antioch his base, he marched south
down the Via Sebaste past Lake Caralis to the region of
Trogitis and the Homanadenses. A series of sieges, extending
over two or three years, at once avenged Amyntas and com-
pleted his work. Four thousand male ,prisoners were distributed
amongst the neighbouring tribes.
As far as this section of the Taurus was concerned, the war
put an end to brigandage for nearly 300 years:~ True, Isauria
was soon in revolt,S Claudius had to annex Lycia,6 and there
were repeated disturbances in Cilicia Tracheia;7 but the Pisidian
XXII (1902), 109 f.). For the road system east of Iconium and Lystra, see Ballance,
Anat. Stud. VIII (1958), 223 ff.
t It passed through KireH Kasaba (]HSXXII (1902), !IO: 'a milestone of large
size'). The course of the road between Caralis and Trogitis has been elucidated
by Hall (Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 122 f., with a map). There are milestones at Biiyiik
Homa (WEp. 186), Kolkorum (WE 308 f. = CILIII. 6960 f.), Bayaf~ar (WEp. 186
and Hall, op. cit. 123), between Bayafpr and KIzIica (Hall, loco cit.), Kavak
(WE 265 = CIL III. 6958; WE 261: before A.D. 259), Boyah (WE 294= CIL III.
6959), and Akkise (JRS XIV (1924), 76, no. 110: XIV, presumably from Isaura
Vetus, of A.D. 202). Z Magie, Roman Rule II. 1140.
3 Tacitus, Annals XIII. 35. 4 Cf. Aelius Aristides, Els 'PwP:'1V 29.
5 Dio LV. 28. iii (under A.D. 6); on the identity of these uIauvpo" see Syme,
KlioXXVI (1934),140. 6 Suetonius, Div. Claud. xxv; Dio 14.17. iii.
7 Tacitus, Annals VI. 41, and XII. 55; see also A. E. Gordon, Quintus Veranius,
Consul A.D. 49, 248 f. As Syme remarked (loc. cit.), it was not the case that 'the
Taurus tribes as a whole were fully pacified in the Roman sense' (so Ramsay, JRS
VII (1917), 261).
triangle itself was now to enter a long period of peaceful de-

velopment in which the Via Sebaste, created by Augustus for
military reasons, took on another aspect as a section of the
southern highway; the branch that led to Comama (and any
others there may have been) would link the interior of Pisidia
with the great east-west trade route. A parallel for this function
of the Via Sebaste, and for its name,I is to be found in Spain,
where Augustus developed the old highway on the west coast
mentioned by Polybius 2 and Strabo,3 and probably completed
a branch that led into Baetica by way of Castulo, Corduba,
Hispalis, and Gades. This system was called the Via Augusta,4
and it is clear, both from Strabo and from the action of Tiberius
in driving a branch up into the mining area of the Sierra
Morena,s that its importance was commercial.
I The Via Augusta of ILS 5373 f. was a street leading from the Via Annia
to Falerii and paved by generous magistri Augustales.
• III. 39. 3 III, p. 160.
4 GIL n. 4697 (= ILS 5867) ; 4701 (= ILS 102) ; 4702 ff. (2 B.C.) ; 47 12; 4949;
4952 f. See C. H. V. Sutherland, The Romans in SPain (London, 1939), 109 and
149 f. 5 Sutherland, op. cit. 171.
v
SITES AND TERRITO RIA
T has been usual to regard Augustus' Pisidian colonies, with
I the possible exception of Antioch, as a group rather than

as individual entities, each with its own character. There
are obvious reasons for this attitude: firstly the lack of evidence
for any continuous history; secondly the assumptions discussed
in the previous chapter, that the colonies were founded at the
same time and for the same purpose. It is indeed clear that
there was one ultimate aim-the civilization of Pisidia-in all
these foundations; but a closer examination of their sites re-
veals slight variations in the methods which were to achieve
this ultimate purpose. The conclusions which were reached in
the previous chapter make it easier to take this closer and more
detailed view of the colonies; another consideration, that of
their topography, makes it essential. A glance at any photo-
graphs of the sites reveals this at once. Positions so striking in
their dissimilarity cannot have been chosen with an identical
object in view.
The site of Antioch, almost at the apex of the Pisidian tri-
angle, on the supplementary road from Apollonia to Iconium,
was bound to make it, strategically as well as commercially,
a town of importance. It dominates the southern highway, on
which, because of the nature of the country, most of the minor
roads in Pisidia tended .to converge. The town was built on
one of the outermost foothills of the Sultan Dag, and on the
north, south, and west overlooks the surrounding countryside.
The colony had its back against the wall of the Sultan Dag;
attacks on it could come only from the interior of Pisidia. On
the other hand, a few miles to the south of the colony a pass
leads over the mountains and gives access to Philomelium and
to the north-east section of Phrygia Paroreios. I The style of
Philomelium's coins shows that the influence of Antioch spread
over the pass and made itself felt on the other side of the
I For the Antioch-Philomelium road, see MAMA VI!. xix.
SITES AND TERRITO RIA 43
mountains. A colony at any point on the inner road would
have served to protect it, but Antioch stood at the junction
with the road from Egridir Gol, and dominated the valley
which leads down to the lake. It was a splendid position, re-
cognized as such by Seleucids and Romans alike.
Only at the north-west corner of the hill on which the colony
stood do any traces of the city wall remain; but on the west
side are the ruins of the Triple City Gate, and in the east the
colony's shape is dictated by the valley of the river Anthios.
The city wall, then, probably ran round the foot of the hill;I
if this is the case, it enclosed an area of about I 15 acres: Antioch
was thus a colony of moderate size. 2 Neither Antioch nor any
of her sister colonies could boast the symmetry of design of an
Aosta, a Timgad, or a Sarmizegethusa; such regularity was
hardly to be expected of colonies constructed-in some cases
on pre-existing settlements, in none on the site of a legionary
camp-in the mountainous terrain of Pisidia. Whether such
symmetry would have been spoilt, as it was in other cities,
by ribbon development outside the walls, it is impossible to de-
termine from the present remains. Buildings may have sprung
up outside the town proper, but the position of the Severan
Triple City Gate shows that it was not found necessary to
extend the circumference of the walls in a westerly direction
at any rate.
The hill of Antioch has been called a plateau, and this is
1 See the map by F. J. Woodbridge, published by D. M. Robinson in The
Art Bulletin IX. i (1926), facing p. 6. Mr. Michael Ballance, who surveyed the site
in 1962, kindly informs me that the scale on this map, which cannot be read, is
I :10,000. The Triple City Gate lies midway between the southern and northern
extremities of the colony.
Z In Britain, Camulodunum covered 108 acres, Lindum originally only 41.
Compared with some of the colonies and other towns of Gaul, Pisidian Antioch
was a dwarf: Lugdunum covered 31.4 acres, Nemausus 790. (These figures are
taken from R. G. Collingwood, The Archaeology if Roman Britain (London, 1930),
92.) In northern Italy, the walls of Augusta Taurinorum enclosed 127 acres
(Collingwood, loco cit.), those of Ariminum 212 (G. A. Mansuelli, Ariminum
(Roma, 1941), 61), and those of Augusta Praetoria, which was founded in the
same year as Antioch, 102 (I. Beretta, La romanizzazione della valle d'Aosta (Milano,
etc., 1954),33). Philippi in Macedonia, where there was more than one deductio,
covered 157 acres (P. Coli art, Philippes, ville de Macldoine (Paris, 1937), Plate II).
Regarded as an Anatolian town, Antioch appears to be of medium size. Priene
covered 105 acres (A. von Gerkan, Griechische Stiidteanlagen (Berlin, etc., 1924),
Taf. 9), Miletus 230 (ibid., Taf. 6), Aspendus 58 (Lanckoronski, Stiidte I, Plate
facing p. 85), Perge 151 (ibid. 34, fig. 26), Attaleia 205 (ibid. 8, fig. 4), Side 112
(ibid., Plate facing p. 125).
44 SITES AND TERRITO RIA
certainly the appearance it presents from the north. 1 It is a de-

ceptive one, however, for the colony was tilted towards the
area it was intended to supervise. The hill is neither flat nor
unbroken. It rises towards the east and on that side falls sharply
down to the river Anthios, which, in winter and spring, flows
past the colony, affording a first line of defence in the form of
a moat, and providing it with a rudimentary water supply.
This eastern side is too steep and rocky to need artificial protec-
tion, and it was not walled. 2 On the eastern bank of the Anthios
rises another, higher hill, and beyond this the peak of Kara
Kuyu, on which stands the temple of Men Askaenos, the god
who rules over Askaia. 3 His dominion over the surrounding
countryside came to an end when the Romans broke up the
organization that served him.
How far the territorium of the colony extended is not certain:
in the north and east, probably as far as the boundary of
Galatia. 4 Ten miles to the north-west a stele built into the
fountain of Gorgiiler village bears the Roman name Crispina
Cissonia. 5 Another Cissonius, one of the original colonists, a
veteran of the seventh legion, is mentioned on a stone from
Dyiiklii, five miles south-west ofYalva<s.6 At Kuyucak, the same
distance from the town on the road to Karaaga<s, Sterrett found
an inscription which honours an official of the colony, L. Cor-
nelius Marcellus,7 and at SagIr, high up in the Sultan Dag
behind Gorgiiler, one of the subscribers named in the Tek-
moreian lists was a member of the colonial ordo; in another
list the son of a councillor appears. s Evidently these local
dignitaries lived on their country property, outside the city. In
the north-east the effective boundary of the territorium might be ill-
defined, because the barren Sultan Dag range would be subsecivum,
unlikely to interest either Antioch or her neighbour Philomelium.
In the north-west the territory of the colony probably ex-
tended as far as Hoyran Gol. One possible boundary line in
I Plate la. See Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, Plate X.

2 Arundel!, Discoveries II. 269, describes the ruins of the city wal! as 'abruptly
terminating where the hill became so precipitous as to require no defence'.
3 JRS II (1912), 93, no. 22: i1uKa{7jS T"" fL,Slov'Tt 8E"".
4 So Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 140 f. S WE 364.
6 WE 391 = GIL III. 6826.
7 EJ 105 = ILS 7199 (cf. EJ 182, from brkenez).
8 WE 376, line 2; WE 373, line I I (f!OVAEVTO{) i1V'TtOXlwv).
this direction is formed by the Elek Su, which rises near

SagIr, but it is likely that the colony also commanded Hoyran
Ova, the small plain north of the lakes through which the Via
Sebaste passed. I We may assume that the territorium of the
colony extended to the shore of the lake as far south as (and
including) the plain of Gelendost. 2 The mountain south-east
of the town of Gelendost, the ancient Dabenae, may be taken
as the boundary between the territorium of Antioch and the
Cillanian plain,3 which included Neapolis (Karaaga<;:) and
other towns. Also in the south-west were the estates at Kireli
Kasaba. 4 With these boundaries, the territorium of Antioch
would have covered about 540 square miles. This is indeed
a relatively modest size, within the normal range for colonial
territoria, but at the lower end of the scale.5
1 Antioch may have possessed the strip of plain that surrounds Hoyran Gol
even as far as Gen~ali, where milestones have been discovered, one XXIX from
Antioch, another XVIII from Apollonia (ClL III. 6965 If.). The view adopted in the
text is not compatible with Ramsay's interpretation of an inscription found at
Apollonia (WE 548). The inscription, variously read and restored, appears to
honour a man who awarded Apollonia three tracts of territory which the people
of Timbriada had previously held. Ramsay, ]HS XXXVIII (1918), 139 If., and
Klio XXIII (1929-30), 246, identifies the Ovpap.p.a x';'pav of the inscription as the
area round Gelendost, the ·OpEWS KE<paA»v as the spit ofland which divides Hoyran
from Egridir Gol, and the )1uAwva '7'6V Kan!.yoV'7'a rrp6S MWVAWt as the pass which
carries the highway round the north-east corner of Hoyran Gol. Jones, Cities
of East. Rom. Provo 141 f., follows Ramsay without hesitation, but these identifi-
cations are by no means certain: it is unlikely that a small town like Timbriada,
which lay south-east of Egridir Gol, would have any claim on Hoyran Ova,
at the northern extremity of the lake. The date Ramsay assigned to the award
('immediately after the foundation of Galatia') is arbitrary. The inscription is best
left out of account in any attempt to determine the boundary of Antiochian
territory.
• W. S. Sterrett, WE 397, found a citizen of Antioch recorded on a stone at
Yaka, in the south-east corner of Gelendostova. See also below, p. 65, note 3.
3 Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 415 f.; Calder, MAMA VII. xiii; Ballance,
MAMA VIII. xiv f.
4lGR III. 243, cf. Cronin, ]HS XXII (1902), 104f.; dated by Ramsay, Klio
XXIII (1929-30), 251-4, to the first century B.C., but on insufficient evidence.
S The territorium of Philippi, as defined by Collart, Philippes 276 If., covered an
area of about 730 square miles; those of the Gallic civitates were enormous: C.
Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule n (Paris, 1921), 16, implies an average of one million
hectares (3,859'375 square miles). In Cisalpine Gaul the average territorium was
about 600 square miles (G. F. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul (Oxford, 1941),46); for the
Venetian and Lombard plains (i.e., excluding cities which extended into the
mountains) the average was lower: 1,000 square kilometres or about 390 square
miles (ibid. 48). The limits of the territoria of colonies and civitates in Britain are
not yet established (see A. L. F. Rivet, Town and Country in Roman Britain (London,
1958), 131 If.). Great variety was possible even within the same administrative
The site of Antioch suggests very strongly that military ex-

pediency was the prime motive for the foundation of the colony;
that of Cremna proclaims it aloud. Neither the name nor the
epithet applied to it by Strabo nor its situation I leaves any
doubt but that the town was founded in the first place and later
colonized by the Romans for the sake of its strong position
alone. It has already been suggested 2 that the Romans thought
it dangerous to leave such a site unsupervised, and settled
veterans there as soon as they could. The site itself has few
advantages beyond its commanding position and magnificent
view.
Cremna stood on a plateau which Count Lanckoronski 3 well
described as having the shape of the head and shoulders of
a flying eagle, with the beak towards the east. Only on the east.,
ern side, across the neck of the eagle, is the site easy of access.
Here the ground falls away in a gentle slope. Along the whole
length of the southern side run narrow ledges backed by steep
cliffs, and it is on one of these that the south gate is placed. 4 An
enemy who tried to enter by this gate would be at the mercy
of the defenders above on his left. The plateau is cut off on the
approachable western side by a line of fortifications running
right across its width. Outside this wall is the cemetery; within,
a site of about ninety acres.
Today it is still difficult to reach Cremna. From Bucak on
the main Antalya-Burdur road, it is a drive of an hour and
a half up a winding track of the roughest kind, which leads
through dense pine woods. This remote, inaccessible, and
isolated colony dominated no important route. To the east is
the Cestrus valley, but the road north from Attaleia has never
made use of it; it has preferred the more broken route to the
west of the Cremna range, and it is from this western side that
the colony is so difficult to reach. There were, it is true, roads
leading to Cremna, but they crossed the grain of the moun-
tains and they served no purpose integral to the structure of
the Pisidian triangle. The roads were built for Cremna, not
area: for Gaul, see JuIIian, op. cit. 20; for northern Italy compare the 1,234
square miles of Augusta Praetoria (Beretta, La romanizzazione della valle d' Aosta
26 ff.) with the 545 of Ariminum (MansueIIi, Ariminum, Plate 18).
I See Plate lIa; KP7)fLVOS means 'a beetling cliff'; Strabo (XII, P.569) calls
Cremna U1TOpOT)TOV.
• Above, p. 37. 3 Stadte II. 162. 4 See Plate lIla.
SITES AND TERRITORIA 47
Cremna for the roads. Why, then, was Cremna selected as
the most suitable place for a Roman colony, rather than, for
example, the more important Sagalassus, further to the north
on the same range? Clearly because it was Cremna the 'un-
sacked', a fortress town that the ruling power must have under
its control. l
It is hard to say how far in this mountainous country the
territorium of the colony stretched. The pleasant little valley im-
mediately to the north-west, where there are the remains of
several ancient buildings, undoubtedly belonged to it. To the
south-west, about ten miles from Cremna, a town called Hyia
is known;2 twelve miles due west of the colony, just off the
modern Burdur-Antalya highway, is lncirlihan, probably the
site of the ancient Cretopolis.3 Cretopolis and Cremna will
have shared a common boundary,4 but it must have run nearer
the colony than the town of Cretopolis, perhaps at the sum-
mit of the steep mountain ridge, Bogadl<; Dag, which divides
Cremna from the plain of Kestel Gol. Towards the south-west
Cremna's neighbour was Sia and towards the south a city
near Melli which has been identified with Ptolemy's Milyas. s
It is unlikely that the boundary of Cremna's territorium ap-
proached Sia very closely: the two towns are eighteen miles
apart and separated by mountains. Melli is both nearer-only
twelve miles away-and more accessible. Cremna was set on
the east-facing slopes of BogadH; Dag. This fact, and the lack
of sites in the Cestrus valley, make it natural to suppose that
I G. Radet, RA, Ser.III, vol. XXII (1893),217, lays greater emphasis on Cremna
as a centre of communications. There are routes whi<;:h pass the city; even today
the San Ke<;ili nomads migrate from the Korkuteli region by way of Bucak and
Bogad,,_ Dag to Egridir; when they return in the autumn they follow the longer
route by the banks of Burdur Gol (Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 196 and fig.
14) ; but this is not an important route. Planhol, op. cit. 72 and 427 f., emphasizes
Cremna's domination of the Cestrus valley (Pambuk Ova).
2 Visited by the present writer in 1955 and by Professor Bean in 1959; see
Professor Bean's article, Anat. Stud. x (1960), 80. The topography of Pisidia
remains obscure (see Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 416), but much has recently
been elucidated by Professor Bean. On the question of the availability of land for
colonization, see Appendix VI.
3 Bean, op. cit. 52 f.
4 A coin (Waddington 3691) bears the legend Kp1Jl-'vewv Kat K<paELTWV, and Creto-
polis may be identified with the city of the Ceraitae (Jones, op. cit. 126).
5 BCHxV1 (1892), 436 ff.; see now Bean, op. cit. 74 ff. Professor Bean considers
it safer to leave the site near Melli without a name. Ptolemy's city of Milyas is
in the Cabalia, Pamphylia, section (v. 5. v).
the colony's territorium extended eastwards from the town and

occupied some part of the Oestrus valley, perhaps with the
river itself as its eastern boundary. Immediately to the south
of the citadel, at the foot of the cliff, the ground falls away
sharply-Zosimus can speak of , very deep chasms' I-but farming
could well have been carried on here by the colonists, as it is
today by the villagers of Girme. Eleven miles to the east, on
the road which led to Neapolis past Lake Caralis, the little
town of MaHus might claim some of the Oestrus valley for its
own; but we may be sure that the territorium of the Roman
colony was much larger and extended several miles to the
south, perhaps as far as the Qocuk Dere. Cremna's possessions,
thus circumscribed by mountain ranges and rivers, will have
extended for about 170 square miles.
The position of Olbasa was also one of great strength, and
of strategic importance as well. The town was situated on the
outermost slopes of the ridge of mountains immediately east
of the Makron Pedion, which it dominates. 2 The valley was
then, as now, an important line of communication, and it was
well protected by Olbasa, which stood, besides, at the entrance
to a route into the mountains.
From the south the colony has the shape of a large straw hat
resting on the ground. The gently sloping brim is covered with
statue bases and the foundations ofancient buildings. The crown
is a steep and rocky acropolis, ringed near the top with a natural
wall of stone which is almost perpendicular. 3 The remains of
the fortifications, described by the Abbe Duchesne4 as of
'appareil hellenique', can still be seen guarding the summit.
The water supply is plentiful and very pure. Two streams run
towards the plain,one on the eastern, the other on the western
side of the colony. The town must have been bounded by the
deep ravine that contains the western stream;5 the other runs
I I. 69: xupaopu, (jUO,sTUTU'.
2 See Plate IVb, Magie, Roman Rule I. 462, attributes whatever importance
Olbasa may have had to its position on the Lysis valley route. Jones, Cities of
East. Rom. Provo 416, says: 'Both Comama and Olbasa are in very secluded
positions.' But it is noteworthy that of the six colonies only Comama and Olbasa,
besides Antioch and Cremna, issued the 'eagle and standards' type which
reveals that Roman armies passed them on their way to the east (see C. Bosch,
Arch. Anz. XLVI (1931), 426 f., and below, p. 102, note 2).
3 See Plate IIIb. 4 BCH I (1877), 333; see below, p. 182.
S See Plate IVb.
SITES AND TERRITO RIA 49.
north and then west, taking advantage of the sharply falling

ground on the northern side of the acropolis, where the straw
hat has quite lost its brim. The area between the streams, from
the acropolis to a line running through the building furthest
to the west, amounts to about ninety acres. I
The colonists of this splendid site would have no difficulty
in finding farmland to work. Behind them was a mountain
range, but in front spread the rich soil of the Makron Pedion,
almost empty of towns and only partially occupied by estates,
imperial or privately owned. 2 It is in this region that we may
look for the territorium of Olbasa; indeed, an inscription in Latin,
surely set up by a colonist, has been found by Professor Bean
at Kerner, seven miles up the valley,3 In the north the boun-
daries will have marched with those of Cormasa4 and Polyetta,
respectively fifteen and eleven miles distant from the colony.
Towards the north-east another ancient site lies between the
villages of Akviran and Ak<;aviran. 5 It is unidentified and may
represent no more than a hamlet in the colony's. territorium.
A more certain limit is provided in this direction by the city of
Hadriani, nineteen miles from Olbasa. 6 It is possible that a city
of this name was a completely new foundation of the second
century, but it is more likely that it merely changed its name
in honour of the emperor. It is at any rate highly improbable
that he founded a city on land carved from the territorium of a
Roman colony. It remains to decide where the boundary be-
tween Olbasa and its neighbours is most likely to have run.
No boundary stones have come to light, but it would be reason-
able to assume that the river Lysis itself and its tributaries
marked the dividing line between the possessions of some
of these cities. Professor Bean has argued convincingly that
the Lysis formed the boundary between Cormasa and Had-
riani and that a tributary stream divided Sagalassus from
I This figure, like those for Comama and Lystra, is a very· rough one: it is
based only on my sketch map, and I saw no traces of the city wall.
2 See Appendix VI. For the imperial estate on which the village of Tymbri-
anassus stood, and of which the existence has now been confirmed by Professor
Bean, see Anal. Stud. IX (1959), 86 if. For the richness of the soil, see Planhol, De
La plaine pamphylienne 4 I 9 f.
3 Op. cit. 100, no. 54. 4 Near Egne~ (Bean, op. cit. 91 if.).
5 Ibid. 100 if.
6 Ibid. 108 if. For Ramsay's view that Hadriani was identical with Olbasa,
see Bean, op. cit. 110, note 71, and below, p. I8~, note 5.
nun E
50 SITES AND TERRfTORfA
Tymbrianassus. Three more tributaries of the Lysis cross the

I
Makron Pedion between Hadriani and Olbasa, the most import-

ant of them, now called the Elmaclk Qa y, fifteen miles north-west
of the colony. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we may
assume that the boundary ran along this stream. The Lysis itself
(Boz Qay and Eren Qay) may have divided the territory of
Olbasa from that of Poly etta and Cormasa. It must be admitted
that a boundary so far to the east would have limited the
colony's possessions to the foothills of the mountain range on
which it stood, and it is tempting to think that at least part
of the plain of Tefenni was assigned to Olbasa. On the other
hand, Tefenni itself and Karamanh seem to have been centres
of the Ormelian estates,2 and it is safest to regard the Lysis as
forming the boundary of the territorium in the west and south-
west. Olbasa will then have possessed a long, rather narrow
strip ofland on the eastern edge of the Makron Pedion, amount-
ing to something under 200 square miles.
Little more than twenty miles away to the east, on the other
side of the mountains, lies Comama, a colony which it is natural
to think of in connexion with Olbasa, not only because of their
closeness to one another, but also because they seem to have
had much in common: the cult of the veiled goddess, for
example.3 There is a pass over the mountains to the north of
the two colonies and communication between them would not
be difficult.4
Unlike its neighbour, Comama is not perched on the edge
of a mountain range, but sits squarely in the middle of a very
flat plain,s at a place where two roads meet. The colony must
have stood in relation to this valley as Olbasa did to the
Makron Pedion. The road from Attaleia, crossing the third
of the western ranges near Termessus, must touch Comama
before it reaches the Makron Pedion by way of the pass north
of the colony. Secondly, the modern road from Korkuteli to
Bucak, near Cremna, following its ancient predecessor, still
runs only about a mile from the tepe of Comama.
lOp. cit. I 10 (Cormasa and Hadriani) and 87 f. (Sagalassus and Tymbrianassus).
2 fGR IV. 887 ff. Inscriptions have been found not only at Tefenni and Kara-
manh, but also at Sazak and 'Edja', which are situated between these two towns,
towards the west and the east respectively (BCH II (1878), 53); 'Edja' will be Ece.
3 Nomisma VIII (1913), 18 f.; RN, Ser. Ill, vol. IV (1886),447 .
• For this pass, see Bean, op. cit. 115 f. 5 See Plate Vb.
The site is necessarily far weaker than that of Olbasa. Out

of the plain rises the shallow oval mound on which the town
stood. 1 Here there is neither grandeur nor strength. The mound
itself covers only about thirty-five acres of ground, but the
town may have spread well beyond it; I saw no trace of city
walls. Little danger could have been anticipated for this colony,
and conversely the native city could not have been a threat to
Roman rule in Pisidia. Comama was founded primarily as
a centre of Roman culture, to spread it along the routes on
which it stood and to influence the development of the super-
ficially hellenized neighbouring cities.
The existence of these cities will have restricted the size of
the colony's territorium. Comama was surrounded by the towns
of Pogla, Andeda, Sibidunda, and perhaps Verbis. 2 In the
north-east, at Kaynar Kale in the mountains behind Kestel
Gol, is another centre, possibly Colbasa.3 The territorium was
probably bounded by these towns, by the mountain ridge in
the west, and by the lake in the north. It would thus possess
the plain south of Kestel Gol, a neat and well-defined stretch
of territory. This conjecture is confirmed by an inscription dis-
covered by Professor Bean at Ytiregil, a village three miles
north of the site of Comama: the honorand is a colonial duovir. 4
This part of the plain is empty of cities, as far as is known.
Half-way between Comama and Pogla flows a branch of the
Taurus river which may mark the boundary of the colonial
territorium. If it does, Comama will not have possessed more
than fifty-six square miles of the plain.
The colony which has most outward resemblance to Comama
is Lystra, about twenty-four miles south of Iconium. Lystra,
too, was built on a small hill which rises suddenly from the
surrounding plain. The tepe of Lystra, however, is the less con-
spicuous of the two, because the countryside that surrounds it is
less flat. In the west, in particular, a ridge of hills cuts off the
view from the colony. Towards the north, before the plain of
Konya is reached, a series of rolling hills has to be crossed.
The tepe itself is only about sixteen acres in extent, but it was
I See Plate Va.
• For these towns, see Bean, Anat. Stud. x (1960), 55 ff.

3 Visited by the writer in 1955 and by Professor Bean in 1957 (see Anat. Stud. x
(1960),47 ff.).
< Op. cit. 51, no. 100.
52 SITES AND TERRITO RIA
evidently no more than the acropolis of the town: I on the

western side a gradual slope leading down to a small stream
is covered with blocks and small fragments of limestone, the
. remains of buildings.
Lystra is to the east of the outermost of the mountain ranges
which form the Pisidian triangle, and was thus cut off from the
other colonies, if not in time, as Professor Grant would claim,2
then in space. It is natural to ask why this was so, and Professor
Grant would reply that Lystra was a settlement intended to
protect the route to the east. Now Strabo's highway passed
nowhere near Lystra and the road through the town cannot
have borne a very high proportion of the east-west traffic.
A colony at Laodiceia Catacecaumene, for example, would
have served this purpose better than one at Lystra. The choice
of this site can be accounted for in another way. It was Ram-
say's opinion3 that all six of the colonies were intended for the
suppression of the Homanadenses; this number should be
reduced to one: Lystra. A colony within easy reach ofIconium,
on the eastern side of the mountains, was admirably placed
to contain the tribe or to be the base for a second attack on it
from the east. Ramsay pointed out4 how easy it was for Lystra
to be made into a strong fortress, one well suited to the purpose
of keeping in check the tribes south and west of it. In this sense
it was certainly planted for the protection of the highway-
and indeed of all roads in this area. Lystra's outlying position
in relation to the other colonies is to be explained in this way
rather than by supposing that it was founded at a different
date from the rest. Homanadensian territory could be entered
either up the valley of the Qaqamba Su or in the direction of
Lake Caralis (Bey~ehir Gol). It is difficult to think that there
can have been any other reason for settling a Roman colony
in this remote valley-apart from the circumstance, equally
applicable to all the other colonies, that land was available
there.
As for the territorium of Lystra, it could have been extensive.
1 See Plate VIa, and compare the 5i-acre site of the acropolis of Prostanna
(Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 126).
• See Appendix II.
l e.g.JRSVl (1916), 86f.
4 The Chur.ch in the Roman Empire 50; cf. Magie, Roman Rule I. 463: 'The choice
of this place ... as a colony ... is difficult to explain.'
In the north Iconium, in the west the mountains, in the south
the Qaqamba Su and Isaura Vetus were obvious limits; but
it is not likely that a large territorium was necessary for a com-
paratively minor colony, and the absence of towns in the neigh-
bourhood makes it difficult to decide on a reasonable boundary.
The 'tribes of the colony' are mentioned on an inscription from
Bayat, on the road to Konya, I and there is an epistyle block
inscribed in Latin in the yard of the mosque at Kavak, five
miles to the south-east of the colony,2 as well as a miliarium from
the same place. 3 Ktimse, three miles south-east of Hat unsa ray,
is also rich in inscriptions, though they are built into the bridge
and may have. been brought from some distance away. There
is a Latin inscription 'in the fountain at Tchalam Khan,
situated near the summit of the pass in Abbas Dagh called
Tchalam Bel, on the direct road from Khattin Serai to Konia,
and one and a half hours from Khattin Serai'. 4 How many of
these stones are in their original positions in relation to the
colony, and how many of them are reliable evidence for the
extent of its territorium, it is impossible to say; but if the possessions
of Lystra were limited by the mountains in its immediate neigh-
bourhood they cannot have extended for more than about
a hundred square miles.
Parlais comes last: the most difficult foundation to explain.
The site has little in common with those of the other colonies. 5
Here there is no mound rising from the surrounding plain, no
military garrison planted to defend a vital route, no neighbour-
ing towns to be influenced by the Roman colony. For these
reasons Ramsay refused 6 to consider Barla as the site of Parlais,
but preferred a site on the corner of Lake Caralis, where he
had seen Latin inscriptions; Barla has now been vindicated
by Professor Robert.7 I was not able to determine the area of the
ancient town, of which little remains but some heaps of rubble
and two or three inscriptions mentioning a 'benefactor and
I ]HSx:xxv (1904), 113, no. ISO; the stone may have been moved.
2 WE ~64 = GIL III. 6798 = Social Basis 190, no. 186.
3 WE ~65 = GIL III. '6958.
4 WE ~69.
S See Plate Vlb.
6 Hist. Ceog. 390 fr., cf. ABSA IX (I90~-3), 261 fr.
7 GRAl 1948, 402: boundary stones with the name of the colony above the
village of Bedre; Hell. VII (1949), 78; cr. also SEC II. 745, a Greek inscription that
mentions dUiJuiri.
54 SITES AND TERRITORIA
founder of the colony' and a 'patron of the colony;'1 it was

situated on the gently sloping stretch of open country which
runs from the difficult mountains west of Lake Egridir down to
the shore. This beautiful site, unique in the district, must have
been chosen for its special characteristics. Here the country is
pleasant; to the south, and a mile to the north, it is much
wilder. The modern village is built over the steep side of a ravine
which winds its way into the mountains. 2 Parlais itself was use-
less for military purposes. The founders ignored the easily de-
fensible knoll behind the town and built on the exposed slope
a few hundred yards from the shore of the lake. Parlais is hemmed
in by mountains on the west, and it is still as easy and more
usual to approach from the lake than by road from Egridir;
the 'ship' reverse of the colonial coins 3 would still be appropriate
for Barla. Even this means of communication is often inter-
rupted by the storms which spring up over the lake.
When these topographical considerations are borne in mind
it is difficult to see what the function of Colonia Parlais can
have been; surely not the protection of the roads that wound
their way round the shores of the lake. Perhaps it was the
convenience of the colonists that was of importance in this in-
stance. 4 They could hardly have found a pleasanter site for
their settlement than the shores of Egridir Gol, which so closely
resembles the lakes of southern Switzerland and northern Italy.
To judge by its inscriptions and coinage, Parlais was always
the smallest and most insignificant of the colonies.
The town was enclosed by mountains; the strip of ground
between them and the lake can hardly have been large enough
for its territorium, and the mountains themselves are of course
useless for farming. On the southern edge of the lake the city
of Prostanna5 prevented the expansion of the colony's territorium
in that direction. There would be fishing, 6 but the colonists
may have had a detached territorium elsewhere, perhaps in the
plain of Baris (tsparta), or even on the opposite shore of
Egridir G61, south-west of Antioch, with which, as the types
I Tpo~'aKul KT{aT'Yjv -r7]S KOA(wvelas) and 1Ta-rpwvu -rfjs KDAwvElas (see L. Robert,
Hell. (1949), 78).
VII
2 On the right in Plate Vlb. 3 KM II. 420, nos. 3 f.
+ This possibility was suggested to me by Mr. E. W. Gray.
S Ballance, Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 125 If.
6 See Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 63.
and style of its coinage show,r it was very closely connected.
Communications between the two colonies would be easy and
quick: a gap in the mountains gave access to Egridir Gol, and
the journey would be completed by boat. Without such a de-
tached territorium, Parlais' possessions must have been very
meagre: the narrow coastal plain of Egridir GOl, stretching
from Bedre in the south, where boundary stones mark off the
territorium of the colony from that of Prostanna, 2 perhaps as far
as Akke<;ili, where the coast bends westwards in the north: not
more than thirty-five square miles.
I On coins of L. Verus, for example (Mian. Supp!. VII. 148, no. 8), Men is
represented not with the pine cone usual at Parlais, with which he reappears under
Commodus (GRM 200, no. 3 = RS XIV (1908),88), but with the Nike who in-
variably accompanies him on the reverses of Antioch.
2 Robert, eRA! 1948, 402.
VI
THE ORIGIN OF THE COLONISTS
HE sites chosen by Augustus or by his advisers for the
T settlement of veterans in southern Asia Minor were, as we

have seen, healthy and pleasant enough, but all of them,
with the exception of Antioch, were remote and lonely. Indeed,
the whole conception of this little group of Roman towns
founded, not only in the Greek east, but in one of the most
inaccessible districts of the interior of Anatolia, and cut off
from all the influences which might keep alive their Italian
character, is at first sight a strange one. Yet the idea was not
altogether new: there had been earlier, Julian, colonies in Asia
Minor, some abortive and some successful. 1 Voluntary settle-
ment by private individuals had a much longer history, in
Spain and Africa as well as in the east, and although such
communities did not have the official sanction of the Roman
government or the privileges of colonies, they were not com-
pletely unlike the latter, either in their character or in their
relation to the society in which they grew up. The existence of
these communities, spreading across the Aegean and into Asia
Minor, with the development of transmarine colonization in
the late Republic, makes the foundation of the Pisidian colonies
seem a natural sequel. z
Most of the settlers were negotiatores, and it was only to be
expected that they should appear earliest in one of the most
important business centres of the Aegean, Delos. 3 Apart from
a few individuals mentioned in scattered references of the third
century B.C., the first 'Romans'-as the Italian negotiatores were
always called-began to settle in Delos towards the end of its
period of independence. From 166 onwards these settlers, who
came mostly from southern Italy, were an important element
I See above, p. 5.
2 On the wide extent of migration to the provinces in the last fifty years of the
Republic, see Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 170 fT., Syme, Colonial Elites 10 fT., and
A. J. N. Wilson, Emigrationfrom Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (Manchester,
'9 66 ),9 fT. 3 J. Hatzfeld, BCHxxxYI (1912), 5 fT.
THE ORIGIN OF THE COLONISTS 57
in the Delian population, and by the end of the second century
they had probably acquired special rights. At the same time
they had become numerous enough and rich enough to build
themselves a new agora. Their professions were many: as actors,
bankers, merchants, and industrialists they penetrated into
every sphere of public and private business activity. The
Romans in Delos suffered severely in the Mithridatic wars,
and the community never really recovered the prosperity it
had enjoyed at the turn of the century. By 50 B.C. the last
negotiatores had abandoned the island, which was now itself in
decline.
Too many Roman nomina which cannot have been acquired
from governors or generals occur round the coasts of the Aegean
for us to suppose that the settlement in Delos was an isolated
phenomenon, and there is no reason why it should have been.
Roman nomina arc found, for example, in a dedication to Nero,
Agrippina, and Octavia set up by the fishermen and fish-
mongers at Ephesus;1 and a list of names from Mytilene con-
tains not only Iulii and Pompeii, but a Lanius, a Tetranius, and
a Canuleius. 2 On the southern coast of Asia Minor, in the town
of Attaleia, where there was a strong settlement of negotiatores,3
there occur the names Caetranius4 and Crepereius,s as well
as several other, more common, nomina, and a little inland, at
Perge, there are names which are certainly those of genuine
Italian immigrants. 6
These precedents help to set the colonization that followed
Amyntas death into its place in the eastern world. Italians
were accustomed to living amongst the orientalized Greeks of
the Aegean; to settle amongst the hellenized orientals of the
interior of Anatolia was not a great advance, although the
Italians who had to take the step might think itgreater than
it was. For them, and for the natives amongst whom they
settled, the introduction of a few civilian negotiatores, Romans
who had spent their time dealing with Greeks and orientals,
might well lessen the starkness of the project. Whether a pros-
perous negotiator would wish to take part in the settlement of
I ]OAIxxVI (1930), Beiblatt 51 ff. 2 IC XII. ii. 88.
3 SEC VI. 646. 4 Belleten XXII (1958), 31, no. 18.
5 ICR III. 777; cf. PlR' C 1567.
6 Notably that of the Plancii; see A. M. Mansel, Arch. Anz. LXXI (1956), lI8 f.,
and S. A. Jameson, ]RSLV (1965), 55.
58 THE ORIGIN OF THE COLONISTS
remote Pisidian towns is doubtful; he might be tempted by the

prospect of becoming a landowner. At Antioch, on the busy
southern highway, there were probably negotiatores already.
By the time of Claudius Antioch at any rate had an influential
Jewish community, which would be engaged in commerce. I
The distribution of one rare name, that of Crepereius, illus-
trated the way in which the negotiatores spread through the
Aegean to the southern coast of Asia Minor; it may also be
evidence of a pre-colonial settlement of business men at Antioch,
though it seems more likely that the name came to the colony
as that of a veteran soldier from central Italy, independently
of the other members of the gens. 2 It was certainly commerce
that brought a Crepereius to Delos at the end of the second
century B.C) C. Crepereius was the patron of T. Crepereius,
who was in turn the master of Antiochus Crepereius Titi 1.
Later, members of the family seem to have settled in Attaleia;
by the end of the Julio-Claudian period others have emerged
at Pisidian Antioch. s
There is another factor which will make the settlements seem
far less alien to their surroundings than they might at first sight:
the antecedents of the colonists. Many of them may have spent
several years in the east. Two legions settled veterans at
Antioch: V Gallica and VII.6 The most convincing interpreta-
tion of the name and the numbers is one which identifies V
Gallica as a legion of Antony's, later known as Macedonica, and
VII as a legion raised by Octavian in 44 B.C.7
The composition of these legions at the time of the foundation
of the colony is an obvious subject for inquiry. We know the
original composition only of VII : Caesarian evocate legionaries
and recruits, mostly from Campania, in an undetermined ratio.
After the battle of Philippi the armies both of the Triumvirs
and of the Liberators were reorganized. Legio VII, which took
part in the battle, was involved in this reorganization, V Gallica,
if it was still in Gaul, was not. More than half the men who
I Acts XIII. 14 If.
, See JRS LIV (1964), 104, and cr. the Avellii (SEG VI. 564) of Pompeii,
Puteoli, and Ostia (GIL x. 901 f., 1608, etc., and XIV. 4626, etc.)
3 BGHxxxvI (1912), 31. 4 IGR 111.777. 5 JRS LIV (1964),98 If.
6 GIL 111.6825(= ILS 2238) and 6826, respectively; cf. NG, Ser. IV, vol. XIV
(1914), 305, no. 13; Zfur NxxxvlII (1928), 56; Cahn LX (1928),1792.
7 For discussion, see Appendix IV.
fought at Philippi for the Triumvirs were discharged;I many
of those who, like the core of Legio VII, had been recalled to
the colours from Caesar's Italian settlements, will have been
released. Units of the army of the Liberators, perhaps as many
as 40,000 men,2 were incorporated in that of the Triumvirs,
but Professor Schmitthenner has pointed out that the origins
of the two armies were not dissimilar: the legions of Brutus
and Cassius also had a Caesarian background. 3 There was
further disbanding after the Sicilian Mutiny of 36.4 To replace
these men and other losses, Octavian had the manpower of
Italy and the west at his disposal; the treaty of Brundisium
guaranteed Antony equal recruiting rights in Italy,s but this
clause was a dead letter: the 2,000 Italian troops that Octavia
brought him in 35 6 were the last that Antony was to receive.7
There is no doubt that if Antony was to keep his legions up to
strength, especially after his eastern campaigns, it was necessary
for him to depend on recruiting men from the eastern half of
the Empire-members of Italian trading families and natives;
what we do not know is how the new recruits were distributed
amongst the legions, or how many there were. S
When and where were the men who settled in Antioch re-
cruited? Discharged in 25, they must have been in the service
for some considerable time; Antioch was not founded in the
haste of the demobilization that followed the battle of Actium.
Dio describes Augustus as yielding something to the demands
of the soldiers in 13 B.C. when he fixed the length of service for
I W. C. G. Schmitthenner, The Armies of the Triumviral Period (thesis submitted
for the degree of D.Phil. in the University of Oxford, 1958; unpublished), I. 62.
2 Ibid. I. 58; for the theoretical ratio between triumviral and ex-Republican
soldiers in the reconstituted legions, ibid. II. 200, note 12.

3 Ibid. 1. 59; Appian, Bell. Giv; IV. 89.
4 Appian, Bell. Giv. v. 129; Dio XLIX. 1.4. i.
5 Appian, Bell. Giu. v. 65, cf. 93; Dio L. 1. iii.
6 Plutarch, Vito Ant. Lm. 2.
7 J. Kromayer, Hermesxxxm (1898), 20 fr., 30.
S T. Rice Holmes, Architect of the Rom. Empire I (Oxford, 1928), 147, estimates
the proportion of orientals in Antony's army at the time of Actium as two-thirds;
Cuntz, lOA/xxv (1929),70 fr. regards most of Antony's soldiers as 'orientalischen
Peregrini' ; Kromayer, op. cit. 68, note 1, thinks one-third were oriental; Schmitt-
henner,op. cit. I. 133, speaks of 25 percent. Cf. W. W. Tarn, GQXXVI (1932), 75 ff.,
who gives reasons for doubting whether Antony adulterated his veteran legions
with oriental recruits (V Gallica in the late thirties B.C. would count as a veteran
legion). Tarn's conclusions are criticized by Schmitthenner, op. cit. II. 245, note 60.
legionaries at sixteen years. I Under the late Republic they

did not sign on for any fixed period of years, though sixteen
seems to have been the normal length of service, at least in
standing armies. 2 Legio VII had been constituted in 44-nine-
teen years before the colonization of Pisidian Antioch. Even
if we allow for the reorganization that took place after Philippi
and for the loss of many soldiers who were discharged after the
Sicilian Mutiny, it is conceivable that many of the original
Campanian recruits, if not of the Caesarian evocates, remained
to receive their discharge in 25; the other colonists can hardly
have joined the legion after 35; some perhaps had taken the
place of those discarded after the mutiny.
The obscurity of the origin of Legio V makes it unwise to
guess at the homes of the settlers it sent to Antioch. What is
certain is that, although the legion had spent many years in
the east, the proportion of orientals among them was small: even
if Antony did recruit in the east, the majority of the men dis-
charged in 25 must have been enrolled before the losses sus-
tained by Antony in the Armenian campaign of 36 made any
large-scale oriental supplements necessary.
Both V Macedonica and VII are found in the Balkans after
A.D. g.3 They may also have fought there under Crass us, who
triumphed in 27 B.C. A triumph should be the precursor of settled
conditions: this may be why Augustus could dispense with
veterans of these two legions in 25-not that their services
to Rome were over. After the Balkans, Pisidia and its moun-
tains cannot have seemed so strange to them.
The overwhelming majority of the colonists, then, were born
in Italy, or at least in the west. A study of the nomenclature
I LlV, 25. v f.
2 R. E. Smith, Service in the post-Marian Roman Army (Manchester, 1958), 29 ff.;
conira, P. A. Brunt, JRS LII (1962), 80 f.
3 Syme, JRS XXIII (I 933), 28 ff. Professor Syme suggests that these legions
may have been brought from Syria-Legio V settled veterans in Berytus. This
may have been a return journey: were two of Crassus'·legions moved temporarily
into Galatia in 25 B.C., to supervise the creation of the new province, and taken
thence to Syria, leaving some of their veterans behind in the colony at Antioch?
H. Pflaum, Les Procuraieurs equestres sous ie HaUl-Empire ramain (Paris, 1950), 17 ff.,
relying on the high proportion of Galatians who served in Legio VII before A.D. 42,
considers that this legion and V Gallica constituted a permanent garrison in
Galatia. E. Ritterling, RE XII (1925), 1573, postulates two expeditions to the
east for V Macedonica: one in 20 B.C., the other in I B.C.
of Pisidian Antioch I should help to fix the origin of some of
the settlers more accurately. Most of the names they bear are
common and cannot be confined to any given district of Italy:
to examine every name would be fruitless. I shall take only the
.rarest, beginning with some belonging to men who are known
·to have taken part in the original deductio, and try to discover
whether they reveal the home districts of the families who
bear them.
T. Campusius C. f. Ser. was a veteran of the fifth legion;z
even if this were not known, the want of a cognomen would have
been a clear indication of early date. No other Campusii are
known from the epigraphy of Antioch, and the name may have
vanished from the colony with the death of this veteran. It is
a very rare nomen indeed, and apart from Rome is known only
at Potentia, Lucania. 3 The complex of names to which Cam-
pusius belongs is, however, native to southern Etruria: there
are Campinei, Campasius, Capatine, Campatius, and so on;
according to Schulze,4 the exchange of sand t, which occurs
with Campasius and Campatius, is characteristic of Etruscan
name formations. On the other hand, a part of the Campilii,
whose name evidently belongs to the same complex, is Gallic. s
There is a similar problem connected with the name Cis-
sonius. Three Cissonii settled at Antioch in the time of Augustus;
one, T. Cissonius Q. f. Ser.,6 was a veteran of the fifth legion;
another, T. Cissonius Ser. f. Ser., of the seventh. 7 (Again we
note the lack of cognomina, and the different praenomina of fathers
and sons.) This name was perpetuated in the colony, for it
occurs, admittedly in connexion with some outlandish native
names, on a stele now built into a fountain at G6rgUler,8 and
on an unpublished soros in Sahr Mahalle, Yalva<;. The original
Cissonii were not brothers, but it is possible that they were
quite closely related-perhaps first cousins-and highly prob-
able that they came from the same region and even from the
I For any inquiry of this kind Professor E. Birley's paper 'The Origins of
Equestrian Officers: ProsopographicaJ Method', Durham University Journal, June
1951, 86 If. = Roman Britain and the Raman Armf 154 If., is indispensable.
2 ILS 2237. 3 GIL x. 154.
4 Lat. Eig. 115.
s Schulze, loco cit., note 3; cf. A. Holder, Alt-Geltis,her Sprachs,hatz I. 723.
6 GIL III. 6825 ( = lLS 2238).
7 GIL III. 6826. 8 WE 364.
same town. Here again both Etruscan and Gallic influences

have been detected. The feminine form Cissonia appears at
Fanum Fortunae with the masculine Cisso,I and Holder re-
gards the name as Celtic2 because of its occurrence as a sur-
name of Mercury at V-esontio and elsewhere) On the other
hand, the ending -onius is distinctly Etruscan, and a Cissonius
is known at Trebiae. 4 Unfortunately it was a Celtic habit to
add respectable Etruscan endings to Gallic names: the name
Togonius Gallus, borne by an upstart senator deservedly
crushed by the Emperor Tiberius,s affords a good example of
this deceitful practice. Cissonii occur also at Pompeii and
Puteoli. 6
The names of most of the other veterans of whom we have
some record are too common to give much help in defining
their owners' place of origin. There remains Tiberius,7 a name
common as a praenomen but unusual as a gentilicium. The
Etruscan origin of the names is confirmed by its occurrence
at Clusium. 9 A cognate form, Tifernius, is twice found not far
away at Tifernum Tiberinum. 10
No member of the well-known Caristanius family, whose
rise will be discussed in a later chapter, is mentioned on any
inscription as being a veteran of one of the colonizing legions,
but the first known Caristanius Fronto, the praefectus to whom
the colony erected its first honorific statue, is so early that his
1 GIL XI. 6229, cf. 6253. 2 Op. cit., s.v.
3 Cf. the Deus Cissonius who appears on an altar from the Mithraeum at Konigs-
hofen (AE 19:W, 128) .
• GIL XI. 5001. 5 Tacitus, Annals VI. 2.
6 GIL IV. 659 ;x. 1757 (= ILS 2057), and 2516. Another native of Antioch whose
nomen has the characteristic Etruscan termination -onius is Autronius Marcellus
(unpublished inscription in the Konya Classical Museum). Namesakes are to be
found at Capena (GIL XI. 3957), Intcramna (ibid. 4184), Luna (ibid. 1357a),
Ocriculum (ibid. 4105), Narnia (ibid. 4128), and Asisium (ibid. 5459). But
Autronii also occur in Cisalpine Gaul (GIL v. 1052, 1915, 1984) and at Narbo
(XII. 4511, 4532, 4565(?), and 4610). The name Ultonius (rc5.ros OiJATWVLOS
Mc5.g'fLoS: ]HSXXXII (1912), 135, no. 38) has a similar range. There is an Ulsonius
at Caere (GIL XI. 76oo)-another sand t exchange-and variants of the name
occur at Nepet, Sutrium, and Florentia (ibid. 3208, 3254, 1617 (= ILS 6604),
respectively); Volturnii are found in the territory of Mediolanum (GIL v. 5639,
5646) and at Novaria (ibid. 6518 (= ILS 6740a)). Albucius (GIL Ill. 6829
(= ILS 5070)) is another name which might indicate either an Etruscan or
a Gallic origin. Schulze, Lat. Eig. 119, connects it with the Etruscan Albinius, but
it occurs more frequently in Cisalpine Gaul and Narbonensis than anywhere else.
7 TAPA LVII (1926), 227, no. 56. 8 See Lat. Eig. 247, note 5.
9 ILS 6611. 10 GIL XI. 5940, 5949.
father must have taken part in the settlement. The name

Caristanius is extremely rare-so ntre that all those who bear
it may with confidence be assigned to this family, which
originated in Italy. There the stock died out, while the branch
that was transferred to Antioch flourished. C. Caristanii occur
at Rome and Sutrium;1 there are liberti at Capua and Capena. 2
Caristanii outside Italy are later in date and will be connected
with the family from Antioch. In this case the evidence is quite
plain: the Caristanii came from southern Etruria. 3
St. Pescennius L. f. Ser., who was praifectus for Drusus,4 is
a citizen whose high position very early in the history of the
colony makes it certain that he was one of the original veterans.
Unfortunately, the name is too common to give any clue to his
first home, though it may have been in Campania. s Pescennius'
praenomen, Statius, is native to central Italy and occurs on Oscan
inscriptions; but it, too, spread well beyond the boundaries of
Samnium and Campania. 6
From these same regions came the Oscan gentilicium7 Staius,
but its home is much more sharply defined-by an arc of towns
running from Casinum8 through Sulmo,9 Larinum,Io Luceria,Il
and Aeclanum 12 to Pompeii. 13 In the hills within this arc the
name is fairly evenly distributed; outside, it scarcely occurs
at all. Borne by negotiatores, it was carried from Campania to
DeloS.1 4 Eventually it came to Pisidian Antioch, and by the
end of the third century it had yielded the cognomen Staianus. ls
I GIL 10347, 14406-7 ;.XI. 3254, respectively.
VI.
2 x. 4417; XI. 7769, respectively.
3 A. Stein, Rom. Ritterstand 402, note 4, regarding this view as 'eine unsichere
Vermutung', seems unduly sceptical.
4 ILS 7201.
5 cr. GIL x. 4280 ff., and AE 1958, 267 (Capua). If Pescennius is of Campanian
origin, the veteran who bore this name is surely to be associated with the recon-
stitution of Legro VII in 44 B.C. (see p. 58 above). For another possible native
of Campania or a neighbouring region, see ]HSXXXII (1912), 135, no. 37: Aufus-
tius. This name is found at Atella (GIL x. 3741), Capua (ibid. 4028), Trebula
(ibid. 4567), Venafrum (ibid. 4971), and Nola (ibid. 8165), but although it is
rare in Italy (Lat. Eig. 2 I I, note 2) it is by no means confiried to Campania.
6 RE IlIA (1929), 2213 f.
7 EEu (1875), 188, nos. 79f. ; see RE IlIA (1929),2136, and Syme,Roman Revolution
(Oxford, 1939),91. 8 GIL x. 5199 and 5289.
9 GIL IX. 3080 (= lLS 885). 10 GIL IX. 6251.
II GIL. IX. 816 (= ILS 6479). 12 GIL IX. 13II.
13 CILx.817 (= ILS5726), 824 (= lLS6382), 893, 921, and 924 (= ILS6381).
14 BCHvI (1882), 45. IS ]RS III (1913), 289. no. 17.
The Flavonii became prominent at a much later period than
the Caristanii. 1 Their name is equally rare, and is known else-
where in the Empire only in Africa. 2 In Italy the name occurs
on pottery,3 which yields nothing for our purposes, near Had-
ria;~ and at Rocca d'Arce near Arpinum. 5 The ending -onius
and the family of names to which Flavonius belongs (Flavell-
nius, Flavenus, Flavius), most of which occur in the towns of
Etruria, indicate an Etruscan origin for this gens; nothing more
definite than that can be said.
The fact that the Caristanii and Flavonii were the most dis-
tinguished families the colony produced makes it of some
interest and importance to know their origin. A few names be-
longing to less prominent families will now be examined briefly.
Firstly, the Verrii. One representative of this gens is known at
Antioch. 6 They seem to centre on Rome7 (though this proves
little enough), and Tusculum;8 but they occur at Nursia,
a little to the north-east, as well. 9 They may be assigned an
origin in one of the towns of Latium.
T. Visennius Maximus and his son, who had a stele inscribed
to mark their devotion to the god Men,1O must have been de-
scended from a colonist of Etruscan origin. II The name occurs
at Sentinum,12 with variants at Sestinum,13 Tuficum,14 Nursia,Is
and Clusium. 16
The Vaternii,17 again, seem to belong to Etruria, for although
their inscriptions are found at Fanum, Pis aurum, and Vicetia,IB
the related name Vatronius is common at Praeneste. 19
I ]RS LVIII (1958), 74 If. 2 elL VIII. 14827.
3 elL IX. 608234. 4 Ibid. 5047.
5 elL x. 5674.
6 M. Verrius Alexander, ]RSXIV (1924), Ig8, no. 31; perhaps Miip. Ovdpnov
MapK,av6v of ]RS III (1913), 294, no. 23, and Ov'p{a .d6fLva of E] 145 are Verrii,
though Sterrett (ad lac.) calls the latter name 'indigenous'.
7 eILvr. 14420,28598 (= ILS 7905).
8 elL XlV. 2755. 9 elL IX. 46°3.
10 Unpublished inscription in Konya Classical Museum.
II Lat. Eig. 255 f. Il elL XI. 5737(= ILS 4215).

13 Ibid. 5996 (= ILS 5519). 14 Ibid. 5709.
IS eIL IX. 46°4. 16 elL XI. 2300, 2484, and 717g.
17 TAPA LVII (1926), 228, no. 59.
18 eILxl. 80g5, 6390, and v. 3118, 32°4.
19 Lat. Eig. 250: 'in dem stark etruskischen Praneste'; cf. Syme, Histaria V
(1956), 20g. We find a Vaternius as procurator in Achaea, c. 35-44 (E. Groag,
Rom. Reichsb. v. Achaia 140 f.), and his son (?) Q. Vaternius as proconsul of the
same province under Nero or Vespasian (ibid. 47 f.).
The ending -tius may be regarded as Etruscan, and Schulze I

claimed the forms Nero, neru, Neronius, and Nerutius for
Etruria. At Antioch there occurs a L. Nerutius Q. f.,2 who
must also be of ultimately Etruscan origin.
Evius is a very rare nomen indeed: it is found only at Antioch
and in the surrounding countryside,3 at Rome,4 and on the
Rhine,s but its cognate forms are numerous, and they, too,
point unmistakably towards Etruria. 6
Vehilius is a name which is not mentioned by Schulze, but
which appears at Antioch,7 perhaps as that of a colonist. In
Italy a Vehilia M. f. is recorded at Praeneste,8 and this, like the
form of the name and the appearance of a libertus of the gens
at Sutrium,9 again indicates an origin which is ultimately
Etruscan.
In the heart of the Apennines, amongst the Sabellian tribes
of central Italy, and further north in Umbria, there are sporadic
occurrences of a name with a characteristic termination lO-
Caesidius. Found at Ravenna II and Ariminum,12 at Tifernum
Tiberinum,13 Pitinum Pisaurense,r4 and Suasa ls in Umbria,
1 Lat. Eig. 67 f.
2 GIL III, 6855. A Nerusius is known at Rusellae (XI. 2619).
3 Twice from Antioch: TAPA LVII (1926), 221, no. 44: Mag'f4oV "HovEtov
Llof4{TLOV OvaA<p,avov raiov; and in an unpublished inscription in the Konya
Classical Museum: T. "Hov<ws MapKos Ka, MapK€AAOS. Here the use of Marcus as
a cognomen is unusual and raises doubts about the interpretation of the first letter on
the stone as the initial of a praenomen; but for a parallel see MAMA VIII. 43 (from
Lystra): :4. MapKos. For other Evii, see WE 331, republished in MAMA VIII.
376 (from Salur, north of Bey~ehir Gol): M. 'Hov~tos 'OvaA<p,avos, and Ath.
Mitt. VIII (1883), 74, no. 2 = MAMA VIII. 352 (from Karaaga,,) : ratOV 'Hov~to ..
'Hov7)£avov et al. Ramsay (Ath. Mitt., loco cit.), like Robinson (TAPA, loco cit.),
regarded the name as Pisidian, Calder suggesting that it is a graecized form of
Ovtw. In all cases but one, the name is surrounded by purely Roman forms of
nomenclature, and its conversion into a cognomen is surely conclusive evidence
that we are dealing with a Roman nomen. (This view also was mentioned by
Robinson.) 4 GIL VI. 838.
5 Gorpus lnscriptionum Rhenanarum, ed. W. Brambach (Eberfeldae, 1867), no. 1765.
6 Lat. Eig. 161, with citations from GIE 2074,3105.
7 GIL III. 6860 = ]RS XIV (1924), 199, no. 36. 'The nomen is Praenestine'
(Syme, Historia V (1956), 209). In Historia XIII (1964.), 124, Professor Syme regards
M. Vehilius as a governor of Galatia-Pamphylia, identical with a homonymous
proconsul of Cyprus (AE 1928, 17).
8 GIL XIV. 3293 f.; pre-imperial, cf. I. 157.
9 GIL Xl. 3274.
10 Syme, Roman Revolution 93; Schulten, Klio III (1903), 241 fr.
It GIL Xl. 228. 12 GIL Xl. 434. I, GIL Xl. 5946.
14 GIL XI. 6033. IS GIL XI. 6170.
814259 F
amongst the Marsi, Aequi, and Marrucini at Lucus, I Alba

Fucentia,Z and Teate3 respectively, and near Sabine Nursia,4
the gentilicium recurs at Pisidian Antioch,s carried thither by a
veteran recruited from central or north-west Italy during the
civil Wars.
The examples of rare nomina presented here-rare perhaps
because they belonged to the very lowest class of Italians, who
did not figure much in epigraphy6-seem to show that the
colonists came from central and northern, Italy, chiefly from
Etruria, with an admixture possibly from· Cisalpine Gaul and
certainly from Campania. 7 Although the results of this brief
and selective survey of the nomenclature of Pisidian Antioch- .
for the minor colonies, as might be expected from their smaller
size, are not productive of rare nomina8-may seem meagre, it
would not be wise to push the inquiry further. The method is
useful in giving a broad indication of the area from which any
I GIL IX. 3896. 2 GIL IX. 3977.
3 EEVlII (1899), 27, no. II9. 4 GIL IX. 4623.
5 ]HSXXXII (1912), 131, no. 21.
6 Some Antiochian names are so rare as to remain enigmatic. Neither Mordius
(TAPA LVII (1926), 237, nos. 75 f., cf. M6p(€)ow[s] [sic], ibid. 221, no. 43) nor
Pepius (]RS XIV (1924), 177, no. 2, and xv (1925), 254) nor Netrius ([N]':TPLOS
]HS XXXII (1912), 140, no. 57) nor Vacarnius ([O?].JaKupv[t?]os: ibid. no. 58)
nor'Oevovvao[s] (ibid. 141, no. 63) figures in Lat. Eig. or GIL. Mordius may be akin
to Murdius and Murredius (Lat. Eig. 196), and Pepius to Pequius (GIL. XII. 4225,
from Baeterrae, which, like Antioch, was colonized by a Legio VII), or to the
Samnite (see RExVIIl. iii (1949), 1075) Papius, a more common nomen also found at
Pisidian Antioch (]RSII (1912), 96, no. 25a; ]RS III (1913), 289, no. 17). Whether
'Oevotlvaos is akin to the Etruscan Vennonius or to the Phrygian O.Jevavia (MAMA
I. 234; v. 243; VII. 100) or to neither, remains uncertain.
7 For recruitment from these areas for the Republican army, see Brunt, ]RS
LII (1962), 85. Notice L. Coelius L. f. Ani., mil. leg. VII (GIL III. 6827), who died
before he could be discharged from the army and enrolled in the colony. The
tribe Aniensis is found at Vercellae, Cremona, Ariminum, Carseoli, and Capitulum
(W. Kubitschek, Imp. Rom. Trib. Descr. 270).
8 Lystra has an Ancharena Secunda, an Ancharena Quintilla, et al.(GIL III.
6789; WE 253 = Social Basis 192, no. 191, where Rarnsay regards it as aromanized
form of a Lycaonian name Anchar). This name is found at Antioch (]RSn (1912),
102, no. 35; XIV (1924), 197, no. 28), and it is widespread in southern Galatia.
It and "its variants are undoubtedly Etruscan (Lat. Eig. 122), and they occur at
Perusia and Clusium (GIL XI. 2029 and 2225 = ILS 7830b). Etruscan origin is
confirmed (Lat. Eig. 149) by the enlistment from Laranda of aT. Cillius (GIL III.
2818: the name is a variant of the Etruscan Cilriius), as well as a T. Ancharenus
(ibid. 2709 = ILS 2252). Livineius (Lystra: ]HS XXIV (1904), 117, no. 162)
is ultimately Etruscan (Lat. Eig. 181) but is mOre commonly found in the regions
to the south-east of Rome: among the Ligures Baebiani, at Saepinum, Abelli-
num, and Capua (GIL IX. 1455, 2539; x. II62, 4206, respectively).
given family came, but it is not applicable to every name and
it is not infallible. For example, it cannot exclude the possibility
of unrecorded movements of Italian families with rare nomina
from one district to another or from Italy to the province~.
Only in a small proportion of cases can it be regarded as
affording real proof of a man's origo.
VII
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NTIL this point, it has been possible to rely on evidence
U of various kinds: numismatic, epigraphic, literary, and

topographical. With the veterans once settled, the avail-
able material becomes more homogeneous and in fact consists
almost entirely of local inscriptions and coins. III the case of
some of the colonies-Parlais, for example-there are few of
either; Antioch is exceptionally rich in both: more than 450
inscriptions are known, and the total number of reverse types
on the coinage struck by the colony is fifty-three. Even so, the
lack of any literary record is serious. One of the worst limitations
of epigraphic evidence is that so few inscriptions can be dated
with any confidence. The criterion afforded by the style of the
lettering, always unsafe, is especially so in a remote and bar-
barous region. Here the coinage may provide a valuable check,
for each issue can be dated to a period of a few years. This kind
of evidence has its own limitations-it is, for instance, an ex-
pression of the official policy and interests of the town-but it
will prove useful in discussion of the cultural life and pre-
occupations of the colonies.
In this chapter the numerous inscriptions from Antioch will
provide a full picture of the offices, both secular and religious,
which could be held by its citizens. The evidence from the
minor colonies is. too meagre to justify separate treatment;
offices and priesthoods known to have existed in them will be
mentioned at the appropriate moment in the description of the
Antiochian machinery.
It is important first to discover who, if anyone, took part in
the operation of this machinery besides the colonists themselves
and the their direct descendants. What became, after their
arrival, of the Greek and Phrygian inhabitants of Antioch? The
relationship of natives and Roman settlers, whether or not it
was regulated by law, varied in each case with the circumstances
and object of the settlement, the condition and attitude of the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 69
previous inhabitants of the site, and probably with a number
of lesser factors at which we can only guess. Between complete
exclusion of the natives, physical as well as legal, and their
wholesale incorporation in a single, integrated society, Roman
policy ran the gamut.
The earliest evidence on this subject comes, naturally enough,
from Italy, where there is plenty to show that dual communities
existed side by side. At Circeii the political organization of the
Roman colonists ran parallel with that of the natives. 1 The
distinction between the two communities was maintained at
Minturnae 2 by a physical division. At Antium, on the other
hand, part of the native population had joined the colony at
its foundation. 3 Later, in 317, the remnant of the Antiates was
placed under the protection of patroni from the colony.4
Business men who settled in the east and elsewhere were
anxious, as J. Hatzfeld showed,s to join in the life of the city
in which they settled rather than to hold aloof from it in in-
dependent organizations of their own; they intermarried with
the indigenous inhabitants, united with them in setting up
honorific dedications, and held local magistracies. It was only
when regularly constituted parties of settlers were sent out
by the state that a problem arose, and it was met by diverse
solutions.
At Carthage, according to Appian, 6 3,000 Roman settlers
formed the core of the colonists; the rest were taken from the
perioeci; here a policy of extreme liberality was followed, and
integration was apparently complete. Within a few years, too,
the peregrini who still lived in the neighbourhood of the colony
were absorbed in it.7 The perioeci at Carthage received special
treatment: their total incorporation in the colony is not to
be wondered at if they were indeed the descendants of the earlier
I Dionysius Hal., Ant. Rom. VIII. 14.
2 J; Johnson, Excavations at Minturnae II. i (Rome, etc., 1933), 85; cited by
Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 76, note 3. "
3 Livy VIII. 14. viii.
4 Livy IX. 20. X; see the interpretation of Sherwin-White (op. cit. 77).
5 Trafiquants 294 ff. 6 Punica 136.
7 Cf. T. R. S. Broughton, The Romanization qf Africa Proconsularis (Baltimore,
etc., 1929), 57. The view that Augustus set up independent peregrine civitates in
the territory of Roman colonies in North Mrica has been refuted by L. Teutsch,
Revue internationale des droits d'antiquiti, Ser. III, vol. VIII (1961), 281 ff., and Das
Stiidtewesen in Nordafrika 81, 104 f., 149, 152 ff., and 235.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Gracchan settlers;I yet in the period of time which had elapsed

since that venture they may have come to resemble the in..
digenous population more closely than the community they
joined.
Rivalry and strife between two communities was the less
likely to occur in Africa because there were so many examples
of double politeumata in the province, if not of that which Pro-
fessor Broughton 2 calls the 'colonia and civitas' type, at any
rate of Roman pagi and civitates and of unofficial settlements
of Roman citizens in peregrine communities.
In Spain a transition from the double-or rather, in this
case, triple-politeuma was noticed by Livy.3 At Emporiae, he
says, there were two towns, Greek and Spanish, divided by
a wall; a third, consisting of Roman settlers, had been added
by Caesar, but in Livy's time they were all mingled together
in one; first the Spaniards and finally the Greeks too had re-
ceived Roman citizenship. The same process may have been
gone through at Colonia Agrippinensium, where the Ubii, ac-
cording to Tacitus,4 had become thoroughly romanized; but,
to judge by the way he words the passage, they had been in-
corporated from the start, like the perioeci at Carthage.
Some Roman politicians were aware that colonization could
be used as a means of enlarging the citizen body-and their
own clientelae. C. Gracchus slipped the names of Italians into
the list of colonists destined for Junonia. 5 Marius was allowed
to offer Roman citizenship to a certain number of persons in
each of the settlements established by the Lex Appuleia. 6 This
was a popularis policy, urged on Caesar by the pseudo-Sallust,7
and aptly put by Tacitus into the mouth of the radical emperor
Claudius. s
I Broughton, op. cit .. 21 ; cf. Vittinghoff, Riimische Kolonisation I l l .

Z Op. cit. 211.
3 XXXIV. 9. i If. (in a mWlicipium).
4 Histories IV. 28; cf. the speech of the Tencteri to the concilium Agrippinensium
and the reply they received (ibid. 64 f.).
5 Appian, Bell. Civ. I. 24.
6 Cicero, Pro Balbo 48, where the manuscripts have temos and Ihne emends
to trecenos; cf. Parker, CR Lll (1938), 8 f. For an earlier example of a viritane grant
on foundation of a colony, see Cicero, Brutus 79.
7 Ad Caes. II. 5. vii; 7. ii.
B Annals Xl. 24: 'cum specie deductarum per orbem terrae legionum additis
provincialium validissimis fesso imperio subventum est.' For Claudius as the people's
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 71
Practice often lags behind liberal theory. In strong and un-

pleasing contrast to the cases we have been considering are
two settlements from opposite ends of the Empire. In Britain,
only a few years after Claudius' speech, the inhabitants of
Camulodunum were driven from their homes and their farms
by the brutal greed of the Romans who settled in that un-
popular colony. 1 Camulodunum was, if not an exception, an
extreme case, and a notorious one; yet a century earlier a settle-
ment at Heracleia Pontica had come to an equally bloody end. 2
Heracleia, which may not have been a properly constituted
colony, was a double politeuma in which no attempt had been
made to assimilate or even to reconcile the two parties; the
Romans were set upon and massacred.
No consistent pattern, then, can be discerned in the relations
between Roman settlers and native populations;3 they were
strictly ad hoc, and while they were normally dictated by a
desire either for integration or for the preservation of civitates
which were already in existence, they might be radically affected
by reasons of discipline or expediency. The circumstances that
regulated them were so diverse that it would be unrealistic
to expect uniformity. Sometimes it was a question of admitting
peregrini to a colony; sometimes a community of cives Romani
grew up within a peregrine town. In this case, especially if the
Roman citizens are natives of the town and have acquired
citizenship by military service, there is no distinction between
the two kinds of inhabitants; they form a single community.4
Sometimes a distinction is drawn between two bodies of men
living within the same city wal1;5 sometimes the two com-
munities, destined to unite, are even physically distinct. One
emperor, see, e.g., Suetonius, Div. Claud. XII (pointed out tome by Mr. C. E. Stevens).
It should be noted that a 'provincialis' can be 'a Roman citizen domiciled in
the provinces' (Dig. L. 16. 190), and Tacitus makes Seneca describe himself as
'equestri et provinciali loco ortus' in Annals XIV. 53. However, the context in which
it occurs in the present passage makes it plain that here at any rate Tacitus is using
the word in the sense of 'peregrinus' ; it is so taken by Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 192.
I Tacitus, Annals XIV. 31. F. Hampl, Rhein. Mus. xcv (1952), 68, attributes this
to 'einem Exzess der verwilderten Veteranen im fernen Britannien'.

2 Strabo XII, pp. 542 f.; cf. Magie, Roman Rule II. 1268.
3 Hampl, op. cit. 52 If., argues that the normal Roman policy was to integrate
the old inhabitants of a town into the new colony; for the more sceptical view, see
M. 1. Henderson, ]RSXLllI (1953), 140f•
• Sherwin-White, op. cit. 211.
5 As at Rapidum (ILS 6885).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
may absorb the other, or they may be compounded into a com-

munity whose status differs from that of either. In all cases
there can be no doubt that provincials who had been given the
citizenship formed a unifying bridge between the two com-
munities. 1 If Augustus sought precedents from elsewhere in
the Empire to guide him in his treatment of the Pisidian com-
munities-even ifhe sought it only from recent colonial founda-
tions-he was left with virtually unlimited freedom of choice.
Certainly nothing precluded his opening the colonies to the
better class of natives, Greek and oriental though they were.
Caesar, as it appears from Strabo,2 had already admitted to
the citizenship and to his colony at Comum 500 distinguished
Greeks. It remains to be seen, then, whether Caesar's heir
followed his example in dealing with cities in the heart of Asia
Minor.
An inscription very plausibly attributed to Antioch shows
that by 200 B.C. it was a fully developed Greek polis. The organs
of government mentioned in this inscription are the boule and
demos, strategi and grammateis.3 On colonization by Roman
veterans anyone of several fates may have befallen the citizens
of the Greek town and their institutions. Either their property
was bought up or expropriated and they were compelled to
leave the region altogether; or they were allowed to remain as
persons without citizen rights in the colony, the old institutions
of the polis being utterly abolished;4 or they maintained an
independent and parallel existence, so that there were virtually
two cities on the same site;5 or, finally, some of the old citizens,
if not all, were admitted to the town to enjoy equal rights with
its Roman inhabitants in institutions which bore Roman names
t Sherwin-White, op. cit. 213 .
• v, p. 213; for the difficulties of this passage, see Sherwin-White, op. cit. 176.
3 O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maean,der 79 fr., cf. SEG IV. 505;
M. Holleaux, REA III (1901), 126 f.; cf. Robert, Rev. de Phil., Ser. III. vol. 1 (1927),
I 16 f. Magie, Roman Rule n. 1316, suggests that a monument set up by tbe boule to
one Secundus "",1 'TV a'Tpu'TT/ylq, (EJ 96) dates from a time before the foundation
of the colony. But Secundus is evidently the Saturninus Secundus of JRS II
(1912), 86, no. 5, which calls him AUI'",p(6TUTOV) and speaks of v1T'I)I<6wv. The
strategia must be his governorship of Pisidia, some time in the fourth century.
• So Ramsay, Apostolic Church 352 ; JHSX:XXII (1912), 168; JRS VI (1916), 92.
For the use of the word incolae in these passages, see below, pp. 74 f.
S So Jones, Greek City 173, and Magie, op. cit. II. 1269, who places weight on
the presence of incolae; see below, pp. 74 f.; Strabo's words (XII, p. 546) imply tbat
this was what happened at Sinope.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 73
but which were also equivalents of the boule and demos and their
magistrates. I This last alternative would involve a considerable
improvement in their status, one which might reconcile them
to the material disadvantages and social inferiority which
the deductio would bring them: they would become Roman
citizens.
The first, most drastic possibility may be dismissed in a few
words. Caesarea Antiochia and its citizens had done Rome
no harm. The motives of its original founders had been identical
with those of Augustus: the defence of the southern highway
from marauding Pisidians, the safeguarding of an important
trade route. Antioch had grown strong and prosperous; to have
destroyed this city and scattered its inhabitants, substituting
for them a colony of a few thousand veterans, which might or
might not take root, would have been as shortsighted and
cruel as it was unnecessary.2 There was land available at
Antioch: the property of Men Askaenos;3 the conclusion that
this was the source of the colonists' allotments is irresistible.
The overwhelming majority of citizens of the polis remained
on the site, whether as members of a separate body politic
or as citizens or attributi of the colony. Are we then dealing with
a double politeuma?4
There are indeed numerous inscriptions in Greek which
speak of a boule and bouleutae. 5 This seems at first to indicate
that the old organization survived alongside the new, but it is
equally possible that Roman instruments of government are
being given Greek titles. In the 'boule' inscriptions, for example,
the town is described as metropolis, which implies a post-
Diocletianic date. When it was more difficult to translate a
Latin term, transliteration was used instead.6
More impressive are the two examples of Greek titles which
I Jones, Greek City '7g, regards this as 'not improbable ... in the later founda-
tions, when colonial status was beginning to be granted to Greek cities without
colonisation' .
2 Even the remnant of the savagely treated Salassi (Strabo IV, pp. 205 f.; Dio
LIII. 25. iii ff.) were admitted as incolae to the colony of Augusta Praetoria (ILS
6753)·
3 Strabo XII, p. 577.
• Vittinghoff, ZSS, Ro·m. Abt. LXVIII (1951),443 ff., will not entertain tliis possi-
bility; cf. his views on Carthage, Riimische Kolonisation I II.
S For the boule, see above, p. 72, note 3; for the bouleutae, below, p. 79, note I.
6 As in ]RS III (19Ig), 237 ff., nos. 12 ff.; XIV (1924), 201, no. 39.
74 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
occur in Latin inscriptions: the gymnasiarchus I and the gram-

mateus. 2 The first of the gymnasiarch inscriptions is broken, so
that it is impossible to tell what other offices were held by the
subject; but he was patron of the colony. The other gymnasiarch
seems to have held the colonial flaminate. The career of the
grammateus L. Cornelius Marcellus is given in some detail by his
niece: he was aedile, quaestor, grammateus, and finally duovir. In
other words, the post was evidently one which was held as part
of the normal colonial cursus. In spite of his unauthentic sounding
name, there is no sign that Marcellus belonged to any distinctly
Greek community in the town; on the contrary, he reached the
highest magistracy that the Roman colony had to offer.
Evidence for any separate and parallel organization of Greeks
in the colony fails to stand up to examination; the grammateus
turns out to be a normal officer of the council and a man of
some seniority in the colonial cursus. By the Antonine age the
grammateus had attained considerable importance in city admini-
stration,3 and we may best explain the appearance of this Greek
title in the colony (and probably that of the gymnasiarch as
well) as the result of imitation: so important had the official
become that he seemed indispensable, even to Roman Antioch.
The absence of any sign of an independent Greek political
organization indicates that Antioch is not a case of a double
politeuma. Its native inhabitants possessed either citizen rights
as colonists or no rights at all. One inscription certainly draws
a distinction between two classes of inhabitant, coloni and in-
colae: both are required by a well-known edict to declare to the
magistrates how much corn they have in stock. But the date
of this inscription is about 93 A.D.,4 and there is no reason why
, JRS VI (1916), 106, no. 6, fig. 10; XlV (1924), 198, no. 32, cf. xv (1925), 261.
For the duties of the gymnasiarch, see Jones, Greek City 221 if.
2 ILS 7 I 99; unfortunately not datable. This grammateus is to be distinguished
from the grammateus of the sacred treasury discussed below, p. 86.
3 Magie, Roman Rule I. 645 and II, 1510 f. He is not to be confused with the
scriba frequently found in Italian and provincial towns, who is merely an assistant
to the magistrates (ILS 6087, sections LXII, LXXXI) ; a scriba of this type appears very
early in Antioch's history as a colony : JRSVI (1916), 90,no. I: 'L. Pomponio Nigro,
vet. Leg. V Gal. scribae Q. Vrbanvs 1. et Viviae.' Pomponius, one of the original
colonists, was evidently a scriba attached to the colonial quaestor (for another
view, see Dessau, Ramsay 135 if., and Ramsay, Social Basis 61 f., no. 43). Perhaps
scribae quaestori rather than quaestorio should be understood; advancement from
scriba to quaestor, though unusual, is not unprecedented (ILS 6498).
4 JRS XlV (1924), 179 if., no. 6. For other references see Gren, Kleinasien 62, note 9.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 75
the incolae should not be later immigrants who had not been
granted citizenship of the colony.l Their status would not prove
anything about that of the original inhabitants.
In view of the apparent political integration of the colony,
then, the third alternative would have seemed the most accept-
able: that those who enjoyed the citizenship of the Greek polis
were admitted to that of the Roman colonia. There is, however,
one remaining piece of evidence that tells strongly against
this view. Of more than 280 persons from Antioch whose gentile
names are known, only sixteen are Iulii and only two are Lollii,
while no less than seventy-two either are known to have been
veterans or bear names which make it highly probable that
they were descended from the original colonists or were de-
pendants of these men's families. 2 The enfranchisement en
masse of the citizens of the old polis would surely have meant
that a very high proportion of cives bore the name of the founder
of the colony3 or of the first governor of Galatia. There may
well have been a group of Roman negotiatores resident in Antioch
at the time of colonization; they will have been added to the
citizen roll; but it is most unlikely that many of the native in-
habitants of a city that was an enclave in a client kingdom had
received the franchise before colonization and so already pos-
sessed the tria nomina. The nomenclature suggests a more gradual
assimilation of the natives into the colony: we have seventeen
t See Dig. L. 16. 239. 2; Cod. lust. x. 40. 7; Hampl, Rhein. Mus. xov (1952),
52 fr. In the Lex Malacitana (ILS 6089) there are 'incolae qui cives Romani Latinive
cives erunt'. The word is used also in the Volubilis inscription (AE 1916, 42) and
in the Lex Ursonensis (ILS 6087, section om), where the bronze reads: 'colon(os)
incolasque contributos'. If the text is sound, we have a class of natives of inferior
status; but Dessau's note ad loc., rejecting '-que', is surely correct. See further
Sherwin-White, op. cit., l86, and Henderson, JRS XLIII (1953), 140, against
Vittinghofr, Romische Kolonisation 25.
Z The limitations of this form of evidence are obvious : not all Roman citizens
residing at Antioch were citizens of the colony. Moreover, the figures given above
will have been swollen by the inclusion of liberti and of several members of the
same· family. But since it is only rarely that a person's status and kinship with others
of the same gentile name are certain, it would be even more misleading, e.g., to
exclude all Caristanii except one, the original veteran, and to leave in all Calpurnii
because nothing is known of their status, origins, and relationships. Another
objection is that behind Greek names may lurk Roman citizens who remained
faithful to the old form of nomenclature; but in a Roman colony the tria nomina
would be a source of pride, to be used on all possible occasions.
3 This phenomenon was noticed by Beretta at Augusta Praetoria; see La
romanizzazione della valle d' Aosta 44.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Claudii, eighteen Flavii, and two Ulpii; in addition there are

thirty persons who may have derived their nomina from men who
governed Galatia before the reign of Hadrian. 1 In the face of
this evidence we must admit that the numbers of those who
were admitted to the colony as full citizens on its foundation
were small. Probably only the highest class in the polis, and
the wealthiest, obtained the civitas. With the passage of time,
direct grants of the citizenship and the manumission of slaves
will have increased the proportion of coloni who were not of
veteran stock. Against these newcomers what maintained the
superior position of the original colonial aristocracy was not
a legal but a social barrier, namely the awareness of its superior
origin.
The new colony was divided into vici or wards, and at its
centre there were two plateae: Augusta, which may have re-
ceived its name at the dme of the foundation, and Tiberia,
built or renamed late in the reign of Augustus or during that
of his successor.2 The only other colony in the group thought
to have been divided in this way is Lystra, and there the evidence
depends on the restoration of a fragmentary inscription. 3 The
vici were more than simple divisions of the city area; their in-
habitants erected sets of dedications in honour of senatorial
patrons or generous fellow citizens, either by decree of the city
councilor at the request of the people assembled in the theatre,
or both. 4 The honouring of individuals by vici followed a pre-
cedent that went back to Republican Rome. s
That is not all that was Roman about the vici. The
dedications they set up reveal the names of seven: V enerius, 6
Aedilicius,7 Velabrus,8 Patricius,9 Tuscus,IO Cermalus,II and
I There are seventeen Calpurnii; for L. Calpurnius Piso, cos. 15 B.C., as governor
of Galatia, see Syme, Klio XXVII (1934), 127 If.
• Augusta: JRSVI (1916),106, no. 6; Tiberia: XiV (1924),180, no. 6.
3 Published in JHSXXIV (19°4),115, no. 158; GIL III. 1440oa; Social Basis 184,
no. 170. See Anat. Stud. xv (1965), 56f.
4 Decretodecurionum: series dedicated to Novius Rusticus Venuleius Apronianus;
postulante populo in theatro: Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus series; both:
Dottius Plancianus series. Se.e Anal. Stud. xv (1965),58 f.
5 Seneca, De Ira III. 18. i; Cicero, De Off. III. 80; Pliny, Nat. Hist. XXXIII. 123;
XXXIV. 27.
6 JRSu (1912), 101, no. 33; VI (1916), 130, fig. 13. There was a Vicus Venerius
at Mediolanum (GIL v. 5804); cf. the Vicus Veneris Almae at Rome (ILS 6073).
7 GIL III. 290, cf. 68 II. 8 Ibid. 289, cf. 6810.
[Footnotes 9, 10, II are on the opposite page.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 77
Salutaris. There may have been only seven vzcz, one to cor-
1
respond to each of the seven hills on which the colony was built,2
or there may have been more, ten or twelve. 3 The names of
three vici have an obviously emotive significance; the other
four are intimately connected with the topography of Rome.
There were two Vici Salutares at Rome: one in Regio X, the
other in Regio XIV.4 The Velabrum was a street on the Aven-
tine Hill, between the Vicus Tuscus-whose reputation made
it a strange model for an Augustan colonys-and the Forum
Boarium. 6 At Antioch the Vicus Velabrus may have been, as its
namesake was at Rome, one of the main shopping centres.
Cermalus or Germalus was a depression in the Palatine Hill,
towards the Tiber, a part of the Septimontium; it was named
after the germani, Romulus and Remus, who were washed
ashore there.?
It has been assumed that the vici of Antioch took the place of
9 Ibid. 6812 (= ILS 7198). The Vicus D .••. (GlL III. 6814 = lLS 8976a, cr.
]RSxTV (1924),189, no. 10) may be a doublet of the Patricius; Robinson read
PA .••..•. on the stone (]RS xv (1925), 259). For Corduba as Colonia Patricia see
Vittinghoff, Riimische Kolonisation 73, note r. Mommsen, Staatsrecht III. i. I I 4,
note 4, associates this vicus with the Esquiline Hill at Rome.
10 GIL III. 297, cf. 6837. 11 Ibid. 296, cf. 6835.
I Ibid. 6836.
2 RE XVI (1935), 2295; Ariminum, Nemausus, and Constantinople shared this
feature.
3 TAPA LVII (1926), 236, no. 72, mentioned a vicus, but unfortunately is
mutilated, and ]RS XLVIII (1958), 75, one of the Novius series, has been broken
off near the bottom; but this stone is probably the upper half of ] RS II (1912),
104, no. 40, which Ramsay (]RSvr (1916),133) would unite with GIL III. 6815.
The Vicus Herculis (JHS L (1930), 272 f.) is surely spurious. There were at least
ten vici at Alexandria Troas (lLS lOI8), possibly twelve at Lystra (see above,
p. 76, note 3), only seven at Ariminum (ILS 6663 f.). E. Bormann suggested that
the seven vici represented half the fourteen regiones of Rome (GIL XI. i, p. 77);
but this division into fourteen was not made untiI7B.a. (REIA (1920),482); see
Anat. Stud. xv (1965),57. R. P. Duncan-Jones, HistoriaxIIl (1964), 204, thinks the
vicani of Ariminum are 'a series of exclusive groups, not merely an organization of
the plebs'; but his evidence (the juxtaposition of vicani and collegia in GIL XIII.
377) is not conclusive.
4 lLS 6073-
5 ILS 7575; Livy II. 14. ix; Tacitus, Annals IV. 65; Plautus, Gure. 482; Horace,
Sat. II. iii. 228.
6 ILS 7485; Plautus, Gure. 483; Gapt. 489; Horace, Sat. II. iii. 229; Propertius
IV. ix. 5; Martial XII!. 32.
7 Varro, Ling. Lat. v. 54. There was a Vicus Germalus and a Vicus Velabrus
at Ariminum (ILS 6663,6661, respectively); Vicani Salutares occur at Mogunti-
acum (ILS 708~).
78 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
the phylae that probably existed in the old Hellenistic town,I

and this view receives support from the fact that there were
phylae at Lystra. z It would have been a strange metamorphosis,
although phylae were not infrequently based on the ward
divisions of a city.3 One would have expected the phylae to have
been succeeded by tribus, as seems to have been the case at
Corinth4 and Iconium. 5 An inscription from Antioch which
mentions a tribus Romana shows that this was indeed what
happened. 6 What the names of the other tribes were, and how
many there were, we can only guess. 7 Their function is less
obscure; the citizens were divided into tribes for electoral pur-
poses. s This was essential in a colony, for all its citizens were
enrolled in the same Roman tribe, the Sergia. 9
The existence of tribus and vici alongside one another illus-
trates the intentions of those who planned the colony: to create
a little Rome on the border of Phrygia and Pisidia, a town
built on seven hills, the names of whose districts, whose very
voting procedures, were to remind the settlers of the city they
represented, its institutions and preoccupations.
Not only the electoral system but the organs of government
follow the Roman pattern. The governing body of the city was
the ordo usual in a Roman colony.lO This replaced the old boule,
while the demos became the populus, whose chief political func-
tion appears from inscriptions to have consisted in acclaiming
1 See Calder, JRSu (1912), 102,followingRamsay,Hist.Comm. Gal. 204; on the
later reversion of vici to phylae, see Ramsay, Social Basis 185; cf. Jones, Greek City
172 and 338, note 30.
• JHS XXIV (1904), I 13, no. 150 (though this stone may belong to Iconium);
Social Basis 167f., no. 164 = MAMA VIII. 3.
3 Jones, Greek City 158 and 172.
• Corinth: Results of Excavalions Conducted by the American School if Classical Studies
at Athens VIII. i. (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), p. 133, no. 222 (.pv[,>,as?]); ii, p. 159;
E. Szanto, Die griechischen Phylen (Wien, 1901), 16.
5 lLS 9415. 6 Anat. Stud. xv (1965), 53 fr.
7 Twelve at Lilybaeum (ILS6770 a, b); twenty-four curiae at Lanuvium (Hermes
XXVI (1891), 150, note I, but cf. lLS 6199), and probably at Turris Libisonis (ILS
6766). At Corinth tribus are named after Augustus' friends and relatives (Corinth
vm. ii. loco cit.); Hadriana Herculana and Augusta at Iconium (ILS 9415, ClL
III. 14399b, Ath. Mitt. xxx (1905), 325).
8 cr. the Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliae (ILS 6087), section CI.
9 or the minor colonies, Comama seems to have belonged to Fabia (ClL III.
6885) ; there is no evidence for the others. The colony at Berytus was also enrolled
in Fabia (Kubitschek, De Romanamm Tribuum Origine et Propagatione 130).
10 Restored in ClL 1II. 6841.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 79
its benefactors in the theatre. 1 At Lystra the populus is found
united with the decurions in passing a decree in honour of
a leading citizen,2 and at Antioch on at least one occasion it
was as tribes instead of as wards that they set up their dedica-
tions. 3 Presumably the populus elected the magistrates, as the
Flavian constitution of Malaca prescribes;4 the colonies were
founded some forty years before the Roman people lost that
privilege,s and even at Rome the form of election by the people
was continued after A.D. 14.6
As at Parlais, Olbasa, Lystra, Cremna, and Comama,7 the
chief magistrates were duoviri; they fulfilled the functions of
the Roman censors as duoviri quinquennales,8 attested also at
Comama, Olbasa, and Cremna. 9 Magistrates whose terms of
office were especially successful were rewarded by their fellow
citizens: a certain Saturninus was honoured at the request of
the whole people for his fair and equitable administration. IO
Another magistrate, Maximianus, who during his duovirate
gave a two-day gladiatorial show and wild-beast hunt, was
evidently honoured in a similar way. II This was the kind of bene-
faction which, even if it was not compulsory, was expected of
a magistrate, and the inscriptions may have been set up to
those who exceeded their obligations. So at Parlais, the people
, For the boule at Antioch, see above, p. 72, note 3. For Cremna, GIL III. 6883:
~ f3ov>'~ TOV ofjl-'OV; for Comama, IGR III. 402, republished in an improved version
by Bean, Anal. Stud. x (1960),55, no. 102; GIL III. 6886. Decuriones at Antioch:
JRS II (1912), 103, no. 38; GIL III. 6838 f. (= ILS 7200, 7200a), and 6840.
f30V>'€vT~S: EJ 95 (to be restored); GR XXXIII (1919), 2, no. I; at Olbasa:BJ 59.
2 MAMA VIII. 12: 'd(ecreto) d(ecurionum) et po[p](uli)'.
3 Anal. Stud. xv (1965),53 ff.
4 ILS 6089. For transfer to the decurions of the elections at Ostia, see R. Meiggs,
Roman Ostia (Oxford, 1960), 183.
S Tacitus, Annals I. 15.
6 As the Tabula Hebana shows (AEI949, 215).
7 Parlais: Annuario III (1921), 46, no. 33; Hell. VII (1949), 78. Olbasa: GIL III.
6888 (=ILS 4062) and 689I. Lystra: GIL III. l44oob. Cremna: GIL III. 6873 f.,
6877. Comama: Anat. Stud. x (1960), 51, no. 100.
8 Duoviri: JRS II (1912), 99 and 102, nos. 31 and 34; III (1913), 297, no. 26;
XIV (1924), 197, no. 27; GIL III. 6833 (= ILS7199), 6835 ff., 6843 f. (= ILS7201 f.),
and 6845; Buckler 206, no. 3; TAPA LVII (1926),237, no. 74, is surely a quaes-
tor; the ex-duovir OVo.V<PLK6s in Greek: GIG 3979. Quinquennales: JRS II (1912),
102, no. 34; GIL 111.6835 ff., 6843 (= ILS 7201); TAPA LVII (1926), 225, no. 51.
9 Comama: Anat. Stud. x (1960), 51, no. 100. Olbasa: IGRIII. 4I1 ff. Cremna:
GIL III. 6874.
10 ILS 7202 ; cf. the wording of an inscription set up at Brixia, ILS 563 I.
11 JRS III (1913), 297, no. 26.
80 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
honoured a duovir as fosterer and founder of the colony. 1 That

the tenure of high office was connected in an intimate way with
the conferment of benefits and buildings on the colonists is
suggested by the construction of several buildings at Cremna
during the reign of Hadrian by a man who was twice duovir
and three times duovir quinquennalis;2 and atComama a man
who was duo vir and duovir quinquennalis is said to have performed
all the offices and liturgies that pertained to his rank magni-
ficently, and to have provided the sum of 30,000 denarii for
perpetual distribution. 3 In this respect there was nothing un-
usual about the colonies: their magistrates followed the same
pattern of behaviour as those at Rome itself and in provincial
cities throughout the Empire.
There is one anomaly in the duovirate which should be
noticed. The duo vir from Comama is described as having held
the 'first' duovirate. 4 This, in the second century A.D.-the
lettering of the inscription and the mention ofa cult of the
Augusti make an early date impossible-, cannot be the first
duovirate ever to be held in the colony; as Professor Bean
suggests, 'first' must denote precedence in rank rather than in
time. s This distinction between the duoviri will not have been
written into the colonial charter; the Roman consuls them-
selves were on a footing of legal equality with one another ilt
least until the reign of Tiberius. 6 But they did not enjoy equal
prestige, and as time went on the colonists too, living as they
did in a country and an age in which cities themselves struggled
to be 'first',? found equality unsatisfactory, and came to acknow-
ledge that one of the two magistracies must carry the greater
prestige. What made a man's duovirate superior may have
I VII (1949), 78.

Hell.
GIL III. 6874.
2
, Anat. Stud. x (1960), 51 f., no. 100.
4 aptav-ra r0v . . 11'PWTTjV ovavop[lJav.
5 At Iconium, the IIvir. primo col. (ILS 9414) is presumably the first such magis-
trate that the colony had after its foundation by Hadrian; cf. ILS 6087, section
LXIII. SO the duovir prim [us] at Herculaneum, AE 1960, 277.
6 Mommsen, Staatsrecht II'. i. 89 f.
7 Sagalassus, for example, claimed to be the 'first' city in Pisidia (]RSu (1912),
96 f., no. 25). The duovirate may have been influenced by Greek magistracies; see
Magie, Roman Rule II. quoting from Le Bas-Wadd. III. 656 the phrase <'f.pgas 1509,
-r~v 7TpdJT7]v u-rpa-r7]y[av, and cf. ABSA XVII (19IO-1I), 209, no. 6 (from Yelten).
For Greek feeling about Roman magistracies, see Plutarch, Moralia 470 c.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
been the securing of a greater number of votes in the tribes,

age, social condition, or the status of husband and parent. I
The duovir's term of office might be extended into a second
year. Apart from a number of men who are known to have been
duovir several times, though not perhaps consecutively,2 there
is the case ofDrusus, whose tenure of the magistracy was purely
honorary, and whose praefectus in the second year was St. Pes-
cennius. 3 Other eminent Romans who heightened the splendour
of the office were Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the father of
Nero,4 P. Sulpicius Quirinius, conqueror of the Homanadenses,
and his friend M. Servilius. 5 It was G. L. Cheesman's view that
Quirinius' tenure of this office was more than an honorary one,
and that the colony was in this way put under a dictatorship
for the duration of the Homanadensian war. With the reduction
of that war to a position of minor importance in the history of
the Galatian province, it is no longer necessary to adopt this
view. There is no reason why Quirinius should not have
honoured the colony by holding its chief magistracy after his
successful conclusion of the war, and indeed after the end of his
governorship.6
I Notice ILS 6089, sections LII (whichever of the duoviri is maior natu is to hold
the elections) and LVI (procedure to be adopted when two candidates for an
office secure the same number of votes: here a man's status as husband and father
is decisive). In the Lex Iulia described by A. Gellius, II 15, other conditions being
equal, age determined which consul should be first to take up the fasces. U. Hall
(Historia XIII (1964), 290) is certainly right in thinking that the Romans attached
importance to the order in which magistrates were declared elected: Plutarch,
Vito Gaes. v, G. Gracchi III; Cicero, Pro Murena 18; In Pisonem 2 ('praetorem pri-
mum') ; see L. R. Taylor and T. R. S. Broughton, Memoirs of the American Academy
in Rome XIX (1949), I ff., and J. Linderski, Historia XIV (1965), 423 ff. The consul
prior had been elected first, held the fasces first, and was named first in the Fasti.
2 Paullinus, duovir twice, four times quinquennalis (JRS II (1912), 102, no. 34);
Cn. Dottius Plancianus, twice quinquennalis (GIL III. 6835 ff.) ; D. Iunius (Anat. Stud.
VIII (1958), 219); Munatius Plancus (unpublished). At Cremna: Longus, duovir
twice, quinquennalis three times (GIL III. 6874). At Lystra: duovir three times
(MAMA VIII. 12).
3 ILS 7201. For examples from other towns, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht 113. ii.
828, note 5.
4 ILS 2696. 5 ILS 9502 f.
6 See Dessau, Klio XVII (1921), 252 ff. His view (255 f.) is that Quirinius was
elected when he was in the east with C. Caesar. Because M. Servilius held the
duovirate it has been supposed that he was legate of Galatia at the time of the
Homanadensian war (G. L. Cheesman, ]RS (1913), 257 f.). But there may be
another explanation of these honorary duovirates: all who held them were friends,
proteges, or relatives by blood or marriage of Tiberius; the future emperor may
have formed a connexion with the colony on his way to Syria in 20 B.C. Note
814259 G
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Besides the duovirate, there were also the usual minor

magistracies to be filled. Quaestors and aediles, functioning in
much the same way as their Roman namesakes, are both
known at Antioch. 1 Only in two cases does the same man
hold both offices (aedileship first);2 normally they may have
been alternative rather than successive steps in the cursus, but
there is no evidence that either was introduced into the con-
stitution as an afterthought. 3 Aediles, like duoviri, were acting
correctly if they conferred some benefit on the colony during
their term of office. 4 T. Baebius T. f. Ser. Asiaticus laid down
3,000 feet of paving at his own expense, probably in the Tiberia
Platea, where the inscription honouring him was set up.s Again,
it was as aedile that Modestus exercised the fair and equitable
jurisdiction that earned him the acclaim of the entire council
and populace. 6 The practice of honouring a successful and
generous aedile was continued even when official inscriptions
of the colonia could be written in Greek. 7
the dedication to Drusus (JRS II (1912), 100, no. 32, with Calder's note), the
prefect of Germanicus' son-in-law Sulla (TAPA LVII (1926), 225, no. 51), Cre-
pereius Gallus,familiaris Agrippinae (JRS LIV (1964), 98 if.), and the sale of a slave
to Claudius by the Caristanii (JRS III (1913), 258, no. 3). The imperial family
had dealings with the leading men of Antioch; hence perhaps the relatively early
rise to senatorial rank of its first family. "
I Quaestors: ILS7199f., 7202; CILIII. 6845; JRSvI (1916),90, no. I ;XIV (1924),
197, no. 27; Buckler 206, no. 3 (quaestor III); TAPA LVII (1926),237, no. 74; at Lystra :
MAMA VIII. 12. The Ti. Claudius Paullinus of ILS 7777 appears from an inscription
found at Pergamum (AE 1933, 269) to have been aVTLTap,{a, T'i, KOAWV€ta" i.e.
proquaestore; the last six letters of the title are restored. The parallels cited by Th.
Wiegand (Zweiter Berickt uber die Ausgrabungen in Pergamon 1928-32: Das Asklepieion
(Berlin, 1932),42, no. 2) refer to senatorial, not to colonial or municipal officials.
There are proquaestors at Pisae (ILS 140, line 59), but the absence of other
parallels is suspicious, and it is strange that the name of the colony to which
Paullinus belonged should have been omitted in an inscription set up in a distant
town. For these reasons it seems best to restore the mutilated word as J1vTLoxda,:
after the foundation of the colony, Antioch would be distinguished from other
towns of the same name as much by its title as by its position 7Tpd, IIwLlJtq.. Aediles:
CIL III. 6833 and 6839 ( = ILS 7199 f.), 6840 f.; JRS III (1913), 297, no. 26;
XIV (1924),177, no. 2, cf. xv (1925), 254; TAPA LVII (1926), 235, no. 71.
Z GIL III, 6833, 6839 f. (= ILS 7199 f.).
3 JRSXIV (1924), 177, no. 2 (aedile), looks early, and JRSVI (1916), 90, no. I,
shows that the quaestorship was instituted within the lifetime of the original
settlers (above, p. 74, note 3). Quaestors are not provided for in the Caesarian
Lex Ursonensis; for their introduction into Italian colonies at the end of the Re-
public, see Meiggs, Roman Ostia 176. For the quaestorship and aedileship as
alternative posts, see E. G. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters (Oxford, 1912), 102,
note 15. 4 ILS 6087, sections LXX and LXXI.
5 TAPA, loco cit. 6 GIL III. 6841. 7 TAPA LVII (1926), 221, no. 44.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Although venationes and gladiatorial shows were the enter-

tainment provided by ambitious magistrates,1 the gymnasiarchus
must have been in charge of an education which included
games of the Greek type, a certamen gymnicum like that provided
for in the will of the duo vir C. Albucius Firmus, to be held on
the days of the Moon Festiva1. 2 The xystarches; a man from
Aphrodisias in Caria,3 must likewise have been president of a
Greek athletic association; it may be that all the apparatus
that was needed to maintain a full Greek cultural life had been
left intact. As more and more persons of Hellenic culture were
admitted to the citizenship of the colony, these devices acquired
official status and became part of the regular machinery. There
is no need to assume that the Greek games ever replaced the
Roman shows; they will have existed side by side. The gymnasi-
arch Cn. Dottius Plancianus is both munerarius 11 and agono-
thetes perpetuus certaminis quinquennalis talantiaei. 4 The presence of
an agonothetes in a Roman colony should not be seized on as
evidence for its hellenization; agonothetae were to be found else-
where in the Empire, even in the west,S and in any case the
Greeks themselves were increasingly attracted to gladiatorial
shows and wild-beast hunts. 6 At Antioch there can be no mis-
taking the enthusiasm the inhabitants felt for the Roman
munera, nor their gratitude to L. Calpurnius Longus, who pro-
mised a munus from the profits of his harvest, built an amphi-
theatre of wood within two months, and gave wild-beast hunts,
gladiatorial shows, and sparsiones for eight days, bringing the
merry-making to its climax (according to Ramsay's restoration)
with a banquet for the people. 7
I e.g. ]RS III (1913), '297, no. '26. 2 ILS S070: diebusfestis Lunae.
3 Le Bas-Wadd. Ill. 1620a, cf. GIG '281 I b and MAMA VIII, 4'21, set up in
Aphrodisias A.D. 161-9. This is the~only example known at Antioch: thexystarches
may be a late innovation in the colony, and he probably held office for life: see
IGR IV. 1'21S, correctly punctuated by Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon
(ed. 9, Oxford, 1940), s.v., and IG XIV. 110'2 (Rome), and GGIS 714, note 6.
For the office at Rome,see also IGR 1. ISO If.
4 ILS S081; cf. Mommsen, EE VII (189'2), 401, note 3.
5 ILS 1399 (Tarraco); GIL v. 7914 (Nicaea, Alpes Maritimae); XII. 410 and
p. 812 (Massilia).
6 Philostratus, Vito Ap. IV. 22 (Athens); see Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans l'orient
grec (Paris, 1940).
7 WE 397; cf. GIL III. 683'2; ]RSXIV (1924),178, no. S (Ramsay);xv (I92S),
2S4 (Robinson). The date of the inscription is in dispute; it seems to belong to the
first or second century.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
A good parallel for the kind of games for which Dottius was
responsible may be observed at Olbasa. 1 At this colony in the
third century there existed a festival called the 'Severan Augus-
tan Capitoline Quinquennial Civic Games', which was under
the care of the duoviri quinquennales and of an agonothetes. Which
of these two parties was responsible for financing the games is
not recorded and is not really important, since in one case at
least the agonothetes is also one of the duoviri.2 The title of these
games indicates that they were an imitation of those instituted
by Domitian at Rome, which had themselves been borrowed
from Greece. 3
Acts of generosity were rewarded above all by the conferment
of the title patronus coloniae, and by adlection into the ordo
decurionum. Holders were sometimes men prominent in local
government, sometimes senators or knights, either natives
of the colony whose rise had brought it lustre or tangible
benefits, or officials who had shown themselves well-disposed
towards it in the course of their duties. 4
The protection of the colony's food supply was a major task
of the local authorities at Antioch as elsewhere; by the late
third or early fourth century at any rate the town had a curator
annonae. 5 Before that difficulties had to be met as they arose.
The edict with which L. Antistius Rusticus, governor of Cap-
padocia-Galatia, coped with a year of famine in the early
nineties of the first century is revealing. 6 The colony and its
territorium were theoretically a part of Rome, independent of
the rest of the province, governed by their ordo and magistrates. 7
In fact the latter were, in a moment of crisis, quite unable
to coerce the citizens and turned to a higher authority, the
I lGR Ill. 411 ff. 2 Ibid. 414.
3 Suetonius, Dom. IV. On the character of these games, see J. D. P. Bolton,
CQ.XLII (1948), go.
4 CIL Ill, 6810 ff. (= ILS 7198), 6817 (= ILS 998), 6820,6834 ff., 6837 (= ILS
5081). AE Ig10, 36 (stolarch of the fleet at Misenum) ; JRSIIl (lgI3), 28g, no. 171;
XIV (lg24), Ig8, no. 32; XLVIII (1958), 74; Anat. Stud. xv (lg65) 53. On the patro-
natus, see Hardy, Three SPanish Charters 42 f., and on the ties of Antioch with
governors of Galatia, below, p. 123. 5 JRS III (1913), 295, no. 25.
6 JRSxfV (1924), 180, no. 6; xv (lg25), 255 ff.; CRAl 1925, 227 ff.
7 Antioch (Dig. L. 15.8.10), Cremna (H.N708, cf. Social Basis 221), and Olbasa
(lLS 4062), have ius ltalicum; possibly ParIais (RS XIX (lgI3), 92 f., no. 264); in
Asia Minor also Alexandria Troas (Dig. L. IS. 7; IS. 8. g), Parium (L. IS· 8. g),
Sinope and Apameia (L. 15. 1. 10), Selinus and Traianopolis (L. IS. 1. II). Note
the reception accorded to Pliny at Apameia (Ep. x. 47).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
emperor's legate, to maintain order in the town and prevent a
disastrous famine. Antioch thus presents an example of cen-
tralized interference in local affairs in Asia Minor two decades
earlier than the work of Pliny in Bithynia.
On the other hand, nothing is known of any financial diffi-
culties at Antioch, and finance, as Pliny's mission showed, was
one of the most serious problems of the provincial city. Honorific
inscriptions, set up 'by decree of the decurions', are as common
here as elsewhere, and as useful a source of income for the city.I
The only peculiarity of the financial arrangements at Antioch
seems to have been the curator arcae sanctuarii,2 a personage
whose existence raises the question of the administrative re-
lationship between the colony and the hieron above on the hill
of Kara Kuyu. The regular financial business of Antioch was
the province of the quaestors; the hieron was clearly something
apart, which had to be treated separately.
The curatorship was held by two members of the same
family, L. Flavius Paulus and his son L. Flavius Longus. Both
attained the aedileship and quaestorship, which suggests that
the office of curator was part of the colonial cursus, but in each
case it occupies a different position in relation to the other
magistracies: Paulus' cursus looks as if he held it after· the
quaestorship, Longus' as if he held it before. This, and the
fact that it was held by father and son, suggests that it may have
been a position occupied for life and possibly hereditary.3
Other considerations, too, make it likely that the sanctuary was
run by the colony. Firstly, the breaking up of the old priestly
organization, mentioned by Strabo: 4 the sanctuary whose
future would have to be decided was obviously within the lerri-
lorium of the newly founded colony, one of whose functions
was to spread Roman culture; this centre of a religious organiza-
tion whose priesthood had been disbanded, which was not only
non-Roman but non-Greek, would not be left uncontrolled.
Secondly, the clientele of the temple seems to have come from
the neighbourhood of Antioch. The absence of the pseudo-
praenomen Aurelius from an extensive series of inscriptions, some
I e.g. GIL III. 6838 f. (= ILS 7200, 7200a), and 6840.
2 GIL III. 6839 f.; cf. ]RS XIV (1924), 190, nos. II, I Ia; xv (1925), 259.
3 There is a curator sacrae pecuniae at Naples (ILS 6456), and the curator tempii
at Tarraco (ILS 6946) probably had charge of temple finances.
4 XII, p. 577.
86 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
of them very late, is especially noticeable when they are com-
pared with the Tekmoreian lists, where this praenomen is the
rule rather than the exception: the dedications at the hieron
had been set up by persons who held the citizenship before the
time of Caracalla's edict. Moreover, at least one of the early
fourth-century agonothetae of the games at the hieron, C. Caesen-
nius ProculusStaianus, was also augur and patron of the colony. I
We may conclude, then, that in 25 B.C. the administration of
the temple on Kara Kuyu was handed over to colonial officials. 2
Only one piece of evidence seems to tell against this conclu-
sion: an inscription found at Qank Saray and so restored by
Ramsay as to mention a man whQ was successively procurator
of the Cillanian plain and grammateus of the sacred treasure. 3
Ramsay explained the existence of two separate officials in
charge of the treasury by supposing that, although the colony
was responsible for its administration, its revenue came from
the imperial estates. But this is a complicated situation, and it
seems more likely that the lands belonging to the temple were
confiscated to provide allotments for the colonists of Pisidian
Antioch, and that thereafter the temple revenue came largely
from fees charged for initiation and permission to set up votive
tablets in the shrine. The very mention of the treasury in the
inscription depends on Ramsay's restoration; only one letter
of the word is original.
According to Strabo, there were two centres of the cult of
Men in the district, and scholars have found that this requires
some explanation. The two temples, if they were not to com-
pete against each other for devotees and revenue, must have
differed in function and clientele. J. G. C. Anderson4 thought
that the primitive centre of the cult was some distance away
and that the temple beside Antioch was constructed at the time
of the foundation of the city in the third century B.C. to serve its
population. Saglr as a possible site of the original sanctuary
was suggested by Ramsay.s Assumption of control over the
, JRS III (lgI3), 28g, no. 17.
Z Cf. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World 52, and Broughton, Studies in
Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan· Chester Johnson 244 f.
3 ABSA XVII (lgII-12), 77 If.; cf. EJ 176; republished in MAMA VIII. 364;
see also JHSLXX1V (lg64), 214.
4 JRS III (lg13), 268.
5 ABSA XVIII (lg1 1-12),72 f.; JRSVIIl (lgI8), II3.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
temple by the colony would be quite natural if Kara Kuyu
had always had a quasi-municipal character; and this would
also explain why in later times the clientele of the temple
came largely from the colony. On the other hand, there may
never have been more than one centre of the theocracy. There
is no evidence that the hellenistic founders of the city were so
devoted to Men as to demand that a new centre be constructed
just outside the city walls, and it is very remarkable that in
a well explored area no trace of the second temple has been
found; the only evidence for its existence is the text of Strabo,
and this may well be corrupt. 1
The sanctuary beside the city provides us with our only pic-
ture of the colonial government in action. This consists of an
inscription recording the decision to establish games there, to-
wards the end of the third century A.D., probably in the form
of an acclamation by the populus of a decree promulgated by
the ordo. 2 The first agonothetes and founder of the festival,
C. Ulpius Baebianus, was 'augur and priest for life of the ances-
tral god Men and of the goddess Demeter'.3 Later there were
two agonothetae, both to hold office or title for life; they were
also 'high priests for life'.4 At a still later stage there was again
a single agonothetes and high priest. s Evidently on the death of
their founder the organization of the games was divided be-
tween two officials, perhaps as being too burdensome for one
man. As enthusiasm for the games, and perhaps the cult, waned,
the task devolved once again upon a single individual.
The colony still continued, even at this late date, to keep up
the Roman priesthoods established either at the time of its
foundation or during the first century A.D. The augurs have
already been mentioned;6 the pontificate, too, survived. 7 This
title was held· by a man who was simultaneously archiereus of
Men; this alone is enough to prove that it has nothing to do
with that cult. The pontificate was instituted in the earliest
I Sir R. Syme kindly made these last two points to me.

2 ]RS III (1913), 284 If., no. 1 I.
3 Ibid. 287, no. 12: lepd)s OtU f1Lov ToD 1TaTplov Beof) M7)VOS Ka~ DeBs A1}P.'Y}TPOS.
• Ibid. 289, no. 17.
s Ibid. 291, no. 20. Another official mentioned, the epistates, is probably the
trainer of the successful athletes (290 ff., nos. 19, 19a).
6 See also ]RS II (1912), 99, no. 31; TAPA LVII (1926), 225, no. 51.
7 ]RS III (1913), 291, no. 20. At Lystra: MAMA VIII. 12.
88 LOCAL GOVERNMENT
period of the colony as part of the regular colonial constitution

and on the Roman model. I
Flamines and sacerdotes are frequently mentioned, at Lystra,2
Parlais,3 and Cremna,4 as well as at Antioch. s The son of the
younger curator arcae sanctuarii, L. Flavius Crispinus, held the
position of sacerdos lovis Optimi Maximi, a god whom Ramsay re-
garded as a disguised form of Men;6 but there is no evidence
that this cult either is anything but purely Roman in character.
Besides the sacerdos I.O.M. there was a sacerdos Augusti,7 later
followed up with a sacerdos Imp. Caesaris Vespasiani Aug., 8 and per-
haps by a sacerdos Deae Iuliae Augustae. 9 With the high-priesthood
of 'the most manifest god Dionysus', 10 held by an ex-duo vir, Ulpius
Tatianus Marcellus, and probably a late, hellenized innovation
in the Roman colony, we come to the end of these priesthoods,
reserved for members of the ordo and monopolized by magis-
trates. They are in fact no more than positions of honour, the
ornament of the wealthy and well-born, and as such hardly to
be distinguished from the secular offices open to decurions.
The colony possessed the usual sevirate, which, as the names
of the two known members show, was intended for persons who
may have been wealthy but who belonged by birth to the lower
social classes. About the middle of the first century, Ti. Claudius
Epinicus, procurator et praegustator et a secretis Augusti, was sevir
Augustalis.u L. Mordius Threptianus belongs to a later date. I2
'lLS 9502 f. Also in ]RS XIV (1924), 201, no. 39, and 178 f., no. 5 (=GIL III.
6832), where Ramsay regards it as 'the old priesthood of Men-Mannes'. For colonial
pontifices and augurs, see the Lex Ursonensis (ILS 6087), section LXVI.
2 Sacerdos Martis: GIL III. 14400.
3 <l>Aal-'Lva on an inscription seen by Professor Robert on the site (see GRAl

1948,402) and later by the present writer.
• Sacerdos ............ e coloniae (Stiidte II. 232, no. 236 = GIL III. 6874).
5 Flamines at Antioch: ]RS VI (1916), 106, fig. 10; XIV (1924), 197, no. 27;
GIL III. 6835 f., 6837(= ILS 5081); TAPA LVII (1926), 221, no. 44.
6 lLS 7200 a, cf. ]RSxlv (1924), 178 f.
7 GIL Ill. 6848.
g ]RS II (1912), 102, no. 34. For a high priest of the Augusti at Comama, see
Anal. Stud. X (1960), 51, no. 100.
9 Buckler 206 f., no. 3 ;]RSLIV (1964), 99. Another feinale sacerdos, Mummia, wife
of a duoDir quinquennalis, is known from an inscription datable to the early years of
Hadrian's reign (Anat. Stud. VIII (1958), 219 ff.). The title is unqualified, which is
a little unusual (cf. lLS 5512, 7159); she may have been holding the same priest-
hood of Iulia Augusta. Note also PAULLINA/SAC[ of GIL III. 6842. Male sacerdotes
of unspecified cults also occur (GIL III. 6831, 6841) ; both may be sacerdotes I.D.M.
I. IGR IrI. 299. For a possible priest of Asclepius, see below, P.125.
l [ ]RSm (1913), 258, no. 3. 12 TAPA LVII (1926), 237, no. 76.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 89
Such were the officials who took part in the secular and
religious administration of Antioch; there can be little doubt
that, sketchy as the evidence is, the machinery of the other
colonies followed the same pattern; there was little enough
in it that was extraordinary, and in almost all cases where an
official from one of the minor colonies is mentioned, he is found
to correspond to one at Antioch.
The only significant exception is the irenarch of Comama, I
a man of distinction in his colony, as this official usually was,
and chosen by the governor of the province from a list submitted
to him by the city counci1. 2 The title and post are Greek, and
the office of irenarch must have been established in Comama
some years after the foundation of the colony.3 As such it is
one of the few developments and modifications in this system of
local government that can be traced. In creating the positions of
gymnasiarch, grammateus, and irenarch the colonies were try-
ing to have the best of two worlds, to enjoy the prestige of
possessing both the highest city status in the Roman world and
the most up-to-date Greek magistracies. These few concessions
.to snobbery are all that we can find of Greek influence in the
constitutions of these colonies. The fact that the titles of the
council and its members begin to appear as boule and bouleutae
does not reveal anything of the changes that may have been
going on behind those names. One inscription, which has letter-
ing of a late form,4 mentions a 'councillor and curator of the
metropolis of the Antiochians', a combination of offices which
cannot be earlier than the late third century and probably
belongs to the fourth. The curatorship, which is found at
Parlais as well,s was now a regular office and could be held by
a member of the town council; it no longer involved inspection
by an outside authority. There will have been other changes,
in tone as well as in nomenclature, which gradually reduoed
I Anat. Stud. x (1960), 51, no. 100.
2 Magie, Roman Rule 1. 647.
, The irenarch of the colony of Iconium (ILS 9414) is probably a survival from
the polis. Irenarchs begin to appear in Asia Minor during the reign of Trajan
(0. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1913),602). For an irenarch at Comama's
neighbour Pogla, see Ath. Mitt. x (1885), 336.
• ]RS II (1912), 87, no. 6, i.e. decurio et curator reipublicae or civitatis (Codex lust.
1.54. 3). The inscription has <> for 0 throughout. For a list of [ogistae, see M. N.
Tod, ]HS XLII (1922), 172 f.
5 AOyWT~S on an, inscription still on the site.
go LOCAL GOVERNMENT
the differences between the constitutions of the colonies and
those of their Greek neighbours until they were no longer
significant. There is nothing in the inscription from Kara Kuyu,
apart from the word succlamatio, to hint that the council re-
sponsible for it was that of a Roman colony.
It is interesting to compare the institutions of Antioch with
those of another colony, Lepcis Magna. The two colonies could
hardly have less in common; one founded by Augustus as a
military outpost in the partly hellenized highlands of Asia Minor,
the other an oppidum on the coast of Punic Tripolitania raised
by Trajan to the status of colonia and given the civitas by him.!
This difference in background and origin is reflected in the
titles and honours conferred by Lepcis on its magistrates and
benefactors. Even before it attained colonial status Lepcis was
aiming at more romanized forms of government: the muhazzm
became aediles 2 and by A.D. 92 the body politic called itself
ordo and populus.3 Nevertheless, the Punic influence remained:
there were still sufetes under Trajan:~ Indeed, the most striking
difference between Lepcis and Antioch lies in the extent to
which their government was affected by Semitic and by Graeco-
Phrygian forms respectively. At Lepcis neo-Punic continued
to be used for public inscriptions almost until colonial status was
attained;5 at Antioch, in the early period, Greek was con-
fined to private monuments, and even on these Latin was
common. 6
There is also in the titulature of Lepcis an extraordinary
exuberance and elaboration. Such forms as amator patriae,
ornator patriae, amator civium are translations of native titles. 7
Besides these there are the regular colonial priesthoods and
magistracies with the usual names, just as at Antioch. Even in
these purely Latin forms, however, there is a certain extrava-
gance which makes the phraseology of the Antiochian council
seem restrained and austere. The ordo, for example, usually
called splendidissimus, is once sanctus, 8 and there are magistracies
Inser. Rom. Tripolitania p. 81; GIL VITI. 10 f.
I
Inser. Rom. Tripolitania 379.
2 3 Ibid. S61.
• Ibid. 412. 5 Ibid. 318e, 349a. 6 See further below, p. 13S.
7 e.g. Inscr. Rom. Tripolitania 318, 347, and p. 80; there is, however, a parallel
at Ariminum, ILS 66s6.
8 Inser. Rom. Tripolitania 638; the same term is used elsewhere: see G. Forni,
Alii della Aecademia Nazionale dei Lineei, Memorie, Ser. VIII, vo!. V (19S3), 70.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 91
and priesthoods, such as that of the praifectus omnium sacrorum, 1
which represent purely native officials.
The institutions of Antioch may thus be compared with those
of another Roman colony without suffering by the comparison;
the colonial government of Antioch was startling in the purity
of its Roman forms and in the fidelity it showed to blueprints
drawn up in the late Republic. This should not be surprising,
for Antioch was a settlement of genuine Italian veterans in
conditions which were the closest possible approach in the east
to those prevailing in the western provinces. The presence of
the Italian element at Antioch is a hard fact which stands out
the more clearly for comparison with a colony founded with-
out deductio of veterans in a somewhat similar cultural climate.
Too often attention has been drawn to the non-Italian aspects
of the colonies, while the existence of this framework of Italian
institutions, maintained by an aristocracy of Italian families,
has been ignored.
I Inscr. Rom. Tripolitania 567 f.
VIII
POPULATION AND PROSPERITY
I
~ isa notoriously dangerous business for the historian to
estimate the ancient population either of a district or of
a town; in the first case there is usually no evidence at all;
in the second, what there is is treacherous. Neither the area en-
closed by the walls nor the capacity of its aqueduct nor the size
of its theatre will tell us how large a city's population was; some
cities will always be more spacious, cleaner, and more cultured
than others.! Some, quite large, do not have a theatre at all.
With a colony one is on safer ground, at least as far as
the actual colonists are concerned. Literary sources indicate the
numbers of men sent to Latin and Roman colonies under the
Republic and early Empire and so give an idea of the range
within which the population of a colony is likely to fall. It is
a wide one: from 300 to 6,000 men;2 but the lowest figures
come from the earlier period, and it is in the Augustan age
itself that we are likely to find the closest parallels for the
Pisidian colonies. 3
I See Duncan-Jones, J RS LUI (1963), 85, and Beretta, La romaniz:::aziane della valle
d'Aosta 32, note 53. Duncan-Jones, Historia XIII (1964), 199 ff., uses the sums of
money provided by benefactors to calculate the populations of Roman towns.
Most relevant to Antioch is his conclusion that the seven vici of Ariminum con.
tained 300 men each, but see above, p. 77, note 3.
z See Kornemann, RE IV (1901), 571 f. and Frank, Economic Survey 1.122 ff. The
following figures come from the Gracchan age or later: 3,000 men were settled in
8vo 11'6>. • ., on the Balearic Islands c. 123 B.C. (Strabo III, p. 167 f.); C. Gracchus
assigned 6,000 to Junonia in 122, dVT~ €AUTTOVWV TWV OVTWV €V 'Tip VOfiqJ (Appian,
Bell. Civ. I. 24); Livius Drusus proposed to found 12 colonies in Italy, each to
contain 3,000 men (Plutarch, Vito C. Gracchi IX); 5,000 men were to be sent to
Capua in 63 B.C. (Cicero, De Leg. Agr. II. 76); Octavian dispatched 3,000 Romans
to Carthage in 44, but included some natives in the colony as well (Appian,
Pun. 136); the territories of Carthage and Capua, it should be noted, were of ex-
ceptional fertility.
, Signora Beretta, op. cit. 31, divides the 120,000 men who received the trium-
phale congiarium of 29 B.C. (Res Gestae xv) by twenty-eight colonies in which they
were settled, and arrives at an average of more than 4,000 men in each colony. The
figure of twenty-eight colonies would come from Res Gestae XXVIII. According to
E.G. Hardy, The Monumentum Anryranum (Oxford, 1923), 80, the 120,000 colonists
POPULATION AND PROSPERITY 93
One clue is provided by Strabo, who gives the number of
men sent to Augusta Praetoria as 3,000,1 a figure which would
imply a total population of more than 10,000. 2 Arguments de-
rived from the area of a site must be applied with extreme
caution,3 but Signora Beretta has pointed out4 that if the density
of the population of Augusta Praetoria were the same as that
of Pompeii,s it would have supported 9,695 persons. It is worth
noticing that Pisidian Antioch, which was founded in 25 B.C.,
the same year as Augusta Praetoria, 6 was, at I 15 acres, of the
same order of size as the Italian colony (102 acres), and may
well have had about the same population. The two colonies
differed in that Augusta Praetoria was a completely new founda-
tion, built on the site of the camp used by Terentius Varro in his
campaign against the Salassi,7 and in a region whose original
population was defeated, broken, and enslaved, while Colonia
Caesarea was sent in peaceful conditions to a pre-existing town,
some of whose inhabitants will have remained on the site in
whatever condition the Romans allowed. s One would expect
Augusta Praetoria to be the more spacious town, better laid
are those who were settled in the Italian colonization of29B.C. Hardy (op. cit. 136 f.)
also quotes Mommsen's list of twenty-nine Italian cities which were colonies with
title Iulia or Augusta or both, as closely corresponding with the twenty-eight
Italian colonies claimed by Augustus (cf. Gabba, Laparola del passata VIII (1953),
101 ff.). But at least one of the colonies (Augusta Praetoria) was established after
29 B.C., too late for its inhabitants to receive the congiorium. On the other hand,
Hardy and Signora Beretta ignore the soldiers who, according to Hyginus, Gram.
Vett. I. 177, were settled in the provinces, at Forum I ulii, for example, or in
Illyricum, or who were added, perhaps in small numbers, to already existing
Coloniae Iuliae. Nor does it seem entirely certain that the 120,000 recipients
excluded veterans settled by Octavian (and perhaps by Antony and Lepidus)
before 30 B.C. in triumviral colonies. These considerations make it unsafe to
calculate the average population of Octavian's colonies in 29 B.C. from the figures
given in the Res Gestae.
I IV. p. 206.
Z See Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul 51 f., with Beretta, op. cit. 33, note 54.
3 Signora Beretta, op. cit. 32, cites Livy XXXII. 2g. iii f., with XXXIV. 45. iff.,
for the exclusion of women and children from Strabo's figure. She has a total
population of 9,000 for Augusta Praetoria, using the factor of 3 adopted by Frank,
Economic Survey 1.315, but for a factor of 3t see Duncan-Jones, JRS LIII (I963),
87. Three and a half may, of course, be too high for a colony in the earliest
years of its history: not all Roman soldiers will have been able to establish a
permanent relationship with one woman, even if they wished to .
• Op. cit. 33 f. 5 Calculated by J. Beloch, Atene e Romo I (18g8), 273 f.
6 Dio LIII. 25. V. 7 Strabo, loco cit.
8 For the condition of the original inhabitants, see above, pp. 72 ff. Ramsay,
Social Basis 61 f., thought of a settlement of only 1,000 veterans.
94 POPULATION AND PROSPERITY
out for its elite colonists, and with a smaller population. Antioch
may of course have received fewer colonists, but 3,000 men
would be a reasonable guess in the light of what evidence we
have. Collingwood calculated l that a Romano-British town
might contain between 50 and 100 persons to the acre, probably
much nearer the lower figure, which corresponds to that of
a modern residential town. On this estimate (if two widely
separated parts of the Roman world may be compared) Antioch
will have had a population of something over 5,750. Professor
I. A. Richmond's estimate2 for the hundred-acre town of Sil-
chester, on the other hand, is about 2,500, or possibly two or
three times as manY-7,500 at most. The conjectures of Colling-
wood and Richmond make it look as if we have overestimated
the population of Antioch, which was, after all, no Pompeii.
It was, however, a flourishing commercial centre, which had
a substantial number of veterans added to it; conditions may
well have been more crowded in this town than in the tribal
capitals of Roman Britain.
As far as the minor colonies are concerned, we have little
to go on besides their area, the size of their territoria, the number
of the inscriptions they produced, and the vigour of their
coinage. There are two colonies which come immediately after
Antioch in size, both of town and of territorium: Cremna (which
also produced by far the largest number of coins after Antioch)
and Olbasa. Two thousand colonists each would be a fair
estimate for them. Next came Lystra, which, like Antioch, was
colonized by two legions, as its title Gemina3 shows, and which
has yielded a disproportionately large number of inscriptions
for its small area, and Comama, which is larger in area than
Lystra, but displays nothing like the same vigour. These two
colonies may have had 1,000 men each,4 and Parlais, manifestly
I The Archaeology if Roman Britain (London, 193°),.92.
Z Roman Britain (London, 1963),71.
3 GIL III. 6786.
4 In the second century A.D. a duoDir of Comama gave 30,000 denarii to his city
.1" alwvlav ~{.u'7o-[w], i.e. the interest was to be distributed to his fellow citizens
(Bean, Anat. Stud. x (1960), 51, no. JOo). Assuming (i) that each adult male
(see Duncan-Jones, ]RS LIII (1963),86, note 16) received one denarius per annum (as
Professor Bean suggests) and (ii) that interest accrued at between 6 per cent. and
9 per cent., the total citizen population of Comama and its territorium at this time
would have been between 6,300 and 9,450 souls (i.e. between 112 and 169 to the
square mile).
.POPULATION AND PROSPERITY 95
the weakest of the sextet, only 500. The total then would be
about 9,500 men. I
Several factors determined the amount of land each man
received: firstly the size 2 of the area to be divided, its fertility3
and distance from Rome,4 then the man's own rank. s During
the Republic the allotments had varied from the 2 iugera offered
at Anxur in 329 B.C. 6 to the I40 for equites at Aquileia in 18g.7
In the revolutionary period there was a natural tendency for
the size to increase. It is true that in 63 B.C. the beneficiaries
of the Rullan law were to receive only IO iugera apiece at
Capua, 8 but they were to be settled in a peculiarly fertile part
of Italy.9 Already, Appuleius Saturninus had proposed to offer
Marius' veterans allotments of 100. 10
Signora Beretta, examining the precedents for Augusta
Praetoria, concludes II that the allotments in that colony were of
50 to 60 iugera for each man. The Liber Coloniarum mentions
allotments of 66! iugera,12 and amounts of this order seem to be
typical of the Principate, each allotment being one-third of the
normal centuria of 200 iugera. 13
If we suppose that each of 3,000 colonists at Antioch re-
ceived 66! iugera, we find that 195 square miles of the colonial
territorium were used in the original allocation; at Cremna and
Olbasa the corresponding figure would be 130 square miles,
at Lystra 65, and at Parlais 32t. The territory of Comama,
which we estimated at 56 square miles l4 of a fertile ova,Is would
I For estimates of the population of Anatolian towns and provinces, see Brough-
ton, Economic Survey IV. 8 I 2 ff. He gives ninety-four persons to the square mile in
Pisidia (i.e. 36 to the square kilometre). The present population density is 20-30
persons to the sq. km. in the northern part of the region, 10-20 in the southern
(W. C. Brice, Geographical Journal cxx (1954), 349, fig. 2).
2 Livy, xxxv. 9. vii.
S Grom. Vett. I. 156, lines 15 ff.; 21 I, lines 4 f.; 222, lines 12 f.; 224, lines 12 f.
4 Livy VIII. I I. xiv.
5 Grom. Vett. I. 156, line 10; Livy xxxv. 9. viii, 40. vi; XXXVII. 57. viii;
XL. 34. ii.
6 Livy VIII. 2 I. xi.
7 Livy XL. 34. ii; for other figures see Kornemann, RE IV (lgOI), 574 f.,
A. Rudorff, Grom. Vett. II. 364, and Frank, Economic Survey I. 122 ff.
8 Cicero, De Leg. Agr. II. 78 f.
9 Ibid. 80. 10 De Vir. lilustr. 73.
II Op. cit. 30. IZ Grom. Vett. I. 201, lines 3 ff.
I, Rudorff, Grom. Vett. II. 367; 1. A. Richmond and C. E. Stevens, JRS XXXJI
(1942),72. 14 Above, p. 51.
IS For the ova see G. StratiI-Sauer, Economic Geography IX (1933), 325 f.
POPULATION AND PROSPERITY
have been too small to support, 1,000 men; either there were
fewer colonists than we have supposed, or they were offered
smaller plots.
At Antioch as elsewhere, I some of the allotments became
the highly respectable nucleus of equestrian and even senatorial
fortunes. Each veteran made what he could of his plot (the
officers, who presumably started with more land, stood the
better chance) and, when he could, bought up more of the un-
divided land, the ager subsecivus. 2 There was a good deal of
this at Antioch (about 345 square miles, if the figures are
correct),3 and that may have been why the colony was able
to support so large a number of senators.
The general impression given by the evidence is that the
colonies remained predominantly agricultural communities.
Citizens of Antioch, men of property, may be found living in the
country districts round the colony;4 the freedman pragmateutes
Q. Munatius Eutyches 5 was no doubt working for a substantial
landowner, while Nicephorus, the oeconomus of Marullinus, 6 is
likely to have been the slave of the wealthy Dottius Marullinus,
father of the Asiarch.7
The mutineers of A.D. 14 complained that when soldiers were
at last discharged from the legions they received 'some water-
logged swamp or untilled mountainside'.8 The Antiochian
colonists could make no such complaint. In the early nineties
of the first century A.D. the colony was stricken by a famine. 9
Whether it was local or spread over a wide area of Asia Minor
remains in dispute. lo If the former, the apparent failure of the
1 Note the praedia of the senator Valerius Paulinus at Forum Iulii (Pliny, Ep. v.
19. vii).
2 Cf. Suetonius, Dom. IX; Grom. Vet!. I. 52, lines 4 If., 2 II, lines 6 If., 295, lines 10 If.
Did the Caristanii sell their slave Epinicus to the Emperor Claudius as part of the
price of some of this unallotted land? For the history of this person, see Cheesman,
JRS III (1913), 258 f., no. 3.
3 For conjecture as to the area of Antioch's territorium, see above, pp. 44 f.
4 See the inscriptions cited above, pp. 44 f., and (for Lystra) Mommsen's con-
jecture on WE 246: 'in suis praediis'.
5 EJ 147. 6 On an unpublished bomos in Yalva<;.
7 GIL III. 6835 f., 6837 (= lLS 5081). For an olKov6f'oS at Comama, see Anat.
Stud. x (1960),55, no. 101; at Olbasa, Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 99, no. 52.
8 Tacitus, Annals I. 17 (translated by Professor Grant).
9 JRS XIV (1924)' 180, no. 6;xv (1925), 255 If.; GRAl 1925, 227 If.
10 See M. Rostovtzeff, Soc. Econ. His!. Rom. Emp. II. 599 f. I am inclined to think
that the whole of central Anatolia was alfected. Writing of this area in the Geo-
graphical Review XLII (1952), 184, S. Erin<; and N. Tun<;dilek remark that 'severe
·POPULATION AND PROSPERITY 97
authorities to obtain corn from neighbouring cities suggests
that they and the colony were normally self-sufficient and lived
off the produce of their own territorium. 1 Grain would in any
case be the most important product of this area, as it is today
in Turkey as a whole,2 and a preoccupation with cereal produc-
tion is attested by the representation of Demeter on sculpture
from the Propylaea of the colony, now in the Afyon Museum,3
and by coins which display the goddess and her attributes.t
Good years in this fertile regions would be more frequent
than bad: one bumper crop inspired a prosperous landowner
to promise the populace an amphitheatre, gladiatorial games,
and probably a dinner as well, all to be paid for out of his
profits.6
Other products of the district will have been vegetables,7
grapes,s which are still grown in considerable quantities
and exceptionally long winters may ... cause crop failure'. The edict of Antistius
Rusticus specifically mentions asperilas hiemis as the cause of the crisis, and this
would hardly affect only one district in the central plateau. For a possible shortage
of grain at Cremna in the third century A.D., see below, p. 152.
1 The cost of road transport might be very high, but in an emergency it would
have to be borne.
Z More than 80 per cent. of the cultivated land of central Turkey is in grain;
the chief crops are wheat and barley (Erin<; and Tun<;dilek, op. cit. 183).
3 The Art Bulletin IX. i (1926), fig. 40.
4 NG, Ser. IV. vol. XIV (1914), 301, nos. I and 2 (modius containing corn);
J. Rasche, Lexicon, Suppl. I. 746 f. (Antoninus Pius: Ceres with modius); KM II.
362, no. 27 (Gordian III: ears of corn). The same preoccupation at Lystra: From
Imp. to Auct. 250 (Augustus: Ceres) ; BMG Lycaonia, etc., 10, nos. 2 and 3 (Faustina
Junior: ears of corn). See also Calder, JRS II (1912), 95. For the name Karpos at
Antioch, see ABSA XVIII (19 I 1- I 2), 49; unpublished inscriptions now in the
Konya Classical Museum have both Karpos and Pankarpos.
5 So regarded by Broughton, Economic Survey IV. 606. The southern part of
Antioch's territorium was a region of maximum wheat production in 1927 (Stratil-
Sauer, Economic Geography IX (1933), 333, fig. 6). In modern times the region of the
lakes as a whole has not proved to be agriculturally self-sufficient; see Erin<;
and Tun<;dilek, op. cit. 136. For the relative_fertility in ancient and modern
times of the soil between lakes Burdur and Kestel, see Bean, Anal. Stud. IX (1959), 70.
6 'Ex superabundanti messe': JRS XIV (1924), 178, no. 5, from Yaka. For
other gifts made by leading citizens, see JRSXIV (1924),177, no. 2, cf.xv (1925),
254 f.; GIL III. 6829, 6846; TAPA LVII (1926), 235, no. 71.
7 For broad beans and chick-peas in this area, see A. Tanoglu et al., Turkiyc
Atlast (istanbul, 1961), map 74.
8 For Bacchus on the reverses of colonial coins see, for Olbasa, KM II. 385,
no. I (Antoninus Pius), BMG Lycia, etc., 229, no. 3 (Severus Alexander), Mion.
III. 509, no. 98 (Gordian III), RNxVIII (1853),41,no. I (Volusian) ; for Cremna, RS
XIV (1908),77, no. 2 (Marcus Aurelius), and Mion. Suppl. VII. 115, no. 141 (Tran-
quillina); for Parlais, KM II. 421, no. 6 (Septimius Severus), and 7 (Caracalla);
for the cult at Antioch, cf. EJ 139, and for representations of grapes, JRS II (1912),
814259 H
between lakes Burdur, Egridir, and Bey~ehir,1 apples and other

fruit, 2 nuts, and probably the opium poppy, which is represented
on sculpture and coins.3 The olive is not grown.
Whether the estates of the colonial aristocracy were run by
slave labour is uncertain; of 465 persons known at Antioch and
on the territorium (excluding those mentioned in the Tekmoreian
lists) 297 are citizens, 168 non-citizens. The latter bear names
which might be those of slaves or those of free peregrini. When
Amyntas died, the organization of the temple of Men was
broken Up. 4 Those slaves who had previously laboured for the
god may have become available to the colonists. What evidence
there is tells rather against the view that the allotments were
worked mostly by slave labour.
Only forty-three persons, besides Q. Munatius Eutyches
and Nicephorus, can be shown to have been slaves or freed-
men. S L. Coelius, veteran of the seventh legion, had a slave,
Faustus, but the master seems to have died before the colony
was founded. 6 Of the remainder, nineteen are Liberti or slaves
of the great colonial families of the Caristanii, the Anicii, and
the Flavonii, with their kinsmen by marriage, the Novii-just
the families who might have been expected to keep up large
establishments. One of these freedmen, Q. Flavonius T. Muna-
tius Scamander, was a paedagogus.7 It might be argued that the
evidence of the inscriptions is misleading. The slaves freed in
any family would be men of culture and ability rather than
farm labourers, and in any case slaves would be less likely to
put up inscriptions than free men. s Agricultural slave gangs or
free farm labourers alike may be concealed among the Abascanti
and Zotici of Antioch. But the proportion of slaves and liberti
95, no. 24, and The Art Bulletin IX. i (1926), figs. 35 fr. A fine bomos on the site
of Olbasa is further evidence for the cult there.
I The Oxford Regional Economic Atlas: the Middle East, etc. (Oxford, 1960),37;
for vineyards north of Hoyran Gol, see Turkiye Atlast, map 68.
2 For fruit in the Gelendost Ova, see Turkiye Atlast, loc. cit.
'3 Ramsay, Social Basis 167, no. 163; on the reverse of KMlI. 362, no. 27 (Gordian
III), Fortuna holds a poppy head and two ears of corn. For the opium poppy,
now grown north of Hoyran Gol, see Tiirkiye Atlasz, map 75, and Geog. Handbook
Ser.: Turkey, II. 150; it has given its name to the town of Anon Karahisar.
4 Strabo XlI, p. 577.
5 They are explicitly described as such, or they bear the nomina of colonists
combined with Greek or oriental cognomina.
6 GIL Ill. 6827; see above, p. 66, note 7.
7 WE 360. 8 See Brunt, ]RSXLVlIl (1958), 165.
· POPULATION AND PROSPERITY 99
to free men certainly appears to be much lower at Antioch than
it was at Rome and in Italy.I .
Agriculture was not everything. The people of Antioch must
have been engaged in commerce as an important means of
supplementing the income of a farming community. Here was
another means of building up an equestrian or senatorial for-
tune. The position of Antioch on the southern branch of the
east-west highway, which led from Ephesus to Syria, to the
caravan routes 2 and to the legions stationed near the Euphrates
frontier, was a guarantee of prosperity during the first century of
the colony's history.3 In addition Antioch served as the northern
gateway to the Pisidian highlands, and its civilizing mission
brought it rewards in the form of increased business. Mercury,
patron of commerce, was prominent alike in the coinage of
Antioch4 and Cremna5 and in the minds of the men of Lystra. 6
The presence of a powerful Jewish community at Antioch7 and
at Iconium8 suggests that these towns had much to offer the
merchant. 9 Antioch and Iconium, like Lystra, were visited by
St. Paul, whose journeyings took him along well-established
routes,IO At Attaleia and Perge, which he also visited,!I com-
merce was carried on by the Roman negotiatores settled there. I2
It is remarkable how many of the towns mentioned in this
paragraph had sent a senator to Rome before the Principate
was a century old :13 prosperity was one of the most important
keys to political advancement.
I See J. Beloch, Die Beviilkerung der griechisch-riimischen Welt (Leipzig, 1886), 436,
(3;1 million citizens in Italy in 28 B.a., 2 million slaves) ; Brunt, lac. cit., accepts
these figures.
2 M. P. Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (Cambridge,
1924), 98 ff.
3 For the significance of the army as an economic factor in eastern Asia Minor,
see Gren, Kleinasien 107 ff.
• NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914), 301 f., nos. I ff. (bust of Hermes ; one reverse shows
a winged caduceus; the coins are undated, but probably belong to the reigns of
Hadrian and Caracalla. Sculpture: The Art Bulletin IX. i (1926), fig. 110.
S BMC Lycia, etc., 215, no. 2 (Amyntas); Mion. Supp\. VII. II5, no. 139 (Geta).
Notice Cremnans buried at Perge (A. M. Mansel and A. Akarca, Pergede KaZllar
ve Ara,tlrmalar: Excavations and Researches at Perge (Ankara, 1949), 12, no. 10).
6 Acts XIV. 12. He is also represented at Olbasa (Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 99, no. 52).
7 Acts XIII. 14. 8 Ibid. XIV. 1.
9 Cf. also Acmoneia on the Smyrna-Dorylaeum road (fGR IV. 655) and Philippi
on the Via Egnatia (Acts XVI. 12 ff.).
10 Broughton, Economic Survey IV. 867. I I Acts XIV. 25.
12 Above, p. 57. 13 Below, pp. 105 ff.

The vigour of the economic life of Antioch and, amongst

the minor colonies, Cremna, is demonstrated by their copious
and persistent coinage. Both towns had the capital and the
enterprise it took to maintain a local mint, and they seem to
have retained them even in the darkest years of the third cen-
tury. Like Coma mal and Pariais,2 Antioch3 and Crel1lna4
struck coins before the arrival of the colonists and, if their issues
are sparse during the first century A.D., Antioch was still coining
in the reign of Claudius Gothicus,s Cremna in that of Aurelian. 6
The relatively late survival of these and other mints in Pisidia
and Pamphylia was due to their geographical position: their
very remoteness saved these towns from the Persian and Gothic
invasions;7 they' supplied their own wants and probably those
of neighbouring towns as well.
Coins of Antioch travelled widely. They have been found at
Germe Colonia,s at Athens,9 in south Russia,1O and at Dura
Europus.u Professor Broughton has pointed OUP2 that each area
of Asia Minor tended to trade with the regions it faced-the
south coast with north Africa, the west with mainland Greece,
and so on. The find spots of Antiochian coins indicate a central
position in this trade complex, but one which was cut off from
the south coast by the mountain mass of the Taurus.
With the possible exception of C. Flavonius Anicianus
Sanctus of Attaleia, 13 there is no evidence that business men from
Antioch and the other colonies left their native districts to
travel abroad. Material collected by Broughton and V. Parvan14
I Weber 7384; KM II. 378, nos. I ff. 2 KM II. 420, nos. I ff.
3 Wadd. 3566 ff.; KM II. 356 f., nos. Iff.; NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914), 300; RS
XIV (1908), 28 f., nos. Iff.; BMC Caria, etc., 15, nos. 5 ff. (under Antiochia ad
Maeandrum) .
• BM 1905, Montague II/II/I; Wadd. 3691 ff.; BMC Lycia, etc., 215, nos.
I ff.; Weber 7385 ff.; K M II. 381, nos. I ff.
5 BMC Lycia, etc., 201, no. 140, etc.
6 Ibid. 218, no. 14, etc. 7 See CAHxlI. 133 ff., 147 ff.
8 Coins of Septimius Severus, Decius, and Valerian seen hy Miss Jameson and
the writer at Karadat, near igdecik, in 1962.
9 Hesperia V (1936), 131; two coins; their date is not given.
10 S. Noe, Bibliography 151, Kiev 562; the coins belong to the reigns Philip
I-Gallienus.
II Noe, op. cit. 101, Dura 350 (a hoard buried A.D. 252-6).
12 Economic Survry IV. 876 f.
I.
13 See ]RS LVIII (1958), 74 ff.
Broughton, op. cit. 868 ff.; Parvan, Die Nationaiittit der Kaujleute im romischen
Kaiserreiche (Breslau, 1909) 107 ff.
POPULATION AND PROSPERITY 101
has shown merchants from Anatolian towns no -larger and no

more significant than Antioch active in Greece and Italy. We
do indeed find a few Antiochians in other towns and strange
provinces, but they are there to take part in cultural or sporting
events,1 not for trade. Either the economy of Antioch leaned
more heavily on agriculture than one might suppose, or her
merchants were content to transact their business at home. 2
During the early Principate the southern branch of the
east-west highway seems to have increased in importance at
the expense of the northern; this no doubt was the result of
opening up the Taurus. 3 A customs house was established at
Lysias near the parting of the roads,4 and both Julia-Ipsus and
Philomeliumdeclined. 5 In the Flavian period, however, the focus
of political interest in Asia Minor began to shift northwards. 6
The Pisidian colonies lost some of their importance, but there
is no evidence of a corresponding economic decline. It was
after the civil wars of 68-69, during the second half of the first
century A.D. and in the following century, that Anatolia en-
joyed the peace and settled conditions which are essential to
the success of Mediterranean agriculture.? In the Antonine age
the coinage was only just getting under way. The opening up
of Pisidia had increased opportunities for trade, and it is in the
second century that C. Flavonius Anicianus Sanctus emerges
south of the Taurus in Attaleia. 8 Antioch continued to be a
centre of pilgrimage for the devotees of Men, and the temple
treasury was important enough to demand a special official
to run it. 9 The Syria-Ephesus road still retained much of its
importance as a commercial and military highway: it was used
by Hadrian in 129 and by Marcus Aurelius in 176,10 and it
1 SeeSEGxIII. 506; IGvu. 1776;]RSIIl (1913), 294 f., no. 23.
Z There is no positive evidence; the only trade or craft mentioned in the
inscriptions is that of K01TT01Td;),'1s (unpublished, in Konya Classical Museum)
and that of TlK'TWV (JHS xxxu (1912), 131, no. 25); for a yaA€apWS at Olbasa,
see Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 99, no. 53.
3 Economic Survey IV. 867. 4 MAMA IV. 113.
S Economic Survry IV. 861. 6 See below, p: 169.
7 'Even minor disturbances bave far-reaching consequences' (M. Newbigin,
The Mediterranean Lands (London, 1924), 65.)
8 JRSLVIIl (1958), 74 ff. Whether the Crepereii of Attaleia hailed from Antioch
is dubious; see Levick and Jameson, JRS LtV (1964), 103 f.
9 JRSxlV (1924), 190, nos. II and I la (= GIL III. 6839 f.).
10 For the route of Hadrian in 129, see Gren, Kleinasien 117, and for that of
Marcus in 176, ibid. 12 I.
appears two centuries later in the Tabula Peutingeriana. Some

of the colonies were not too remote to be visited by the emperors
Hadrian an<:l Caracalla 1 in the course of their journeyings, and
coins of Antioch, Cremna, Comama, and Olbasa display on
their reverses the type of the legionary eagle between two stan-
dards: they were on the route followed by the army on its way
east. 2 Even when the Persian and Gothic invasions had all but
ruined the economic life of Asia Minor in the third century, the
colonies, seriously affected though they must have been by
the disasters suffered by the peninsula as a whole and by the
reappearance of brigandage in the mountain zone,3 could
probably exist on the produce of their own territoria. The
third-century contributors to the society of the Tekmoreian
Xenoi were not poor men,4 and with the restoration of order under
Diocletian and Constantine, those of their grandsons who were
citizens of the colony were able to embark on the reconstruction
of its public buildings. s Antioch and her sister colonies enjoyed
a modest and stable prosperity that only the ravaging of their
fields, the massacre of the farmers, and the destruction of the
towns themselves could bring to an end. 6
I Comama was visited by Caracalla in 215 (Gren, op. cit. 125) ; Hadrian may have
visited Cremna on his way from Pamphylia to Synnada in 12g: fragments of

a monumental inscription connected with a basilica, forum, exedra, and statues
record his name (GIL Ill. 6874); in another inscription his wife Sabina is men-
tioned (6875), and two persons with the nomen Aelius are found in the colony
(6880, and WE 445). Cremna's colonial coinage begins in Hadrian's reign (RS XIV
(lg08), 77, no. I).
• Bosch, Arch. Am;. XLVI (1931), 426 f. Antioch, Mion. Suppl. VII. 100, no. 63
(Elagabalus; the type persists until the end of the coinage). Cremna, SNG (Deutsch-
land), Samml. v. Aulock, 5086 (L. Verus); Mion. III. 507, no. go, and Supp!. VII.
115, no. 140 (Elagabalus). Comama, Samml. v. Aulock, 5065 (Antoninus Pius);
BMG Lycia, etc., 212, no 2 (Severus); KMII. 379, no. 9 (Domna); Samml. v. Aulock,
5068 (Maximinus). Olbasa, KM II. 385, no. 2 (Antoninus Pius).
3 See below, pp. '173 If. • Broughton, Economic Survey IV. g02.
S Unpublished inscriptions from the site, monumental in size, and dedicated
to emperors of the fourth century.
6 Cf. Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 82, and below, Ch. XIII.
IX
SENATORS AND EQUITES
N the early days of novelty and insecurity, the combination
I of military service and the colonial cursus outlined in an

earlier chapter must have provided sufficient outlet for
the ambition of any of the veterans who had been settled at
Antioch and the other colonies, and indeed for that of their
immediate descendants. They were at best Italians of the lower
class, and there had been no extension of the area from which
senators were being recruited which would have been signifi-
cant enough to make them aspire to anything higher than
equestrian rank. Later, when the colonyI had taken root and
its inhabitants had sorted themselves out into stable social
strata, one or two families, becoming increasingly rich and
influential, would note the gradual extension of the citizen-
ship and the admission to the Senate of selected provincials,
and reflect that they too were Italians, their colony in the
strictest sense a part of Rome. With the emergence of new
social standards amongst the inhabitants of Antioch and with
the widening of the senatorial class the ambitions of wealthy
colonials would be stimulated and the question would become
one of more than theoretical importance for them.
Nevertheless, the leading citizens of Antioch suffered from
one serious disadvantage which undoubtedly delayed the ad-
mission of any of them to the Senate: their colony was situated
in a comparatively new province in the Greek east. But for that
fact, Antioch, like Forum Iulii, Arelate, and Vienna, might
have contributed its senator well before the civil wars of 68-69.
That such ambitions were cherished at Antioch may be in-
ferred from their prevalence throughout the east, where they
were long in being satisfied. This was one of the causes of the
ill-feeling that persisted in that part of the Empire until the
reign of Hadrian. C. S. Walton 2 has given two reasons fo
I Antioch is the only Pisidian colony known to have supplied senators; the
others will be ignored in this chapter.

z JRSXIX (1929), 38.
the suppression of the legitimate ambitions of the orientals:

firstly, a prejudice against Greeks as such; secondly, an objec-
tion on the part of the Senate to any widening of the circle from
which it was recruited. Of these the first is the more important,
and is indeed fundamental; there is no need to discuss here the
origin and psychology of this prejudice, nor the inordinate am-
bition it helped to stimulate in certain orientals. I Walton re-
fuses, quite rightly, to accept the excuses of apologists for Rome
that the Greeks could not speak Latin. Claudius did not allow
even the citizenship to such men,2 and the argument cannot in
any case be applied to the inhabitants of colonies like Antioch. 3
If that had been the only obstacle to their advancement, the
Greeks would have overcome it quickly enough.
It was inevitable that this policy should, in time, be discarded.
A general tendency towards a more liberal view was backed
up by Nero's philhellenism, by Vespasian's delicate position
during the civil wars, when he was relying on the support of
the east, and, after the wars, by a lack of senators able to fill
the places of those who had been killed. It was under Nero
and Vespasian that a trickle of orientals began to enter the
Senate. Vespasian himself had no special liking for the Greeks;
on the contrary, anti-Roman feeling in the eastern half of the
Empire came to a climax during his reign. 4
It is of some interest, then, to discover what sort of men the
emperors chose to represent the east in the Senate and to see
how the Antiochian candidates fitted into the pattern they
formed. Attention will be concentrated on the senators of Asia
Minor itself; they compose a class numerous enough to serve
the present purpose.
There is, in the first place, a geographical pattern apparent
I PI~tarc~: De, Tr~nq. 4?oc,: a Chi,an, Galatian~ ~r Bith:nia~,we~ps ~T<}J.~ <pop.,
TrUTP'KWVS' mv D. KU, <poPll, OT< }J.1)D.TrW UTpUT1)Y« Pw!'u,wv' mv DE KU' UTPUT"Iyfj,
o'n p:fj V7raT€VEV Kat V7TaT€VWV, OTt, /Lfj 'TfPWTOS dA)/ VUTfPOS avayopevBTf.
Z Suetonius, Div. Claud. XVI; cf. Dio LX. 17. iv. Suetonius and Dio may be re-
ferring to the same incident. Ifso, it would be unwise (as Mr. Lepper has pointed
out to me) to infer a consistent policy from a single decision, taken during a difficult
investigation in the Senate and perhaps in a fit of anger. Claudius was liable to
act hastily when he felt he was being let down (cf. the incident described by
Pliny, Nat. Hist. XXIX. 54).
3 Walton, op. cit. 40, writes: 'not much can be inferred from bilingual in-
scriptions being common in cosmopolitan and business centres like Ephesus and
Pisidian Antioch.' Bilingual inscriptions are rare in Pisidian Antioch.
4 See below, pp. 166 If.
III the selection of senators from Asia Minor. Most of the

favoured towns are in Asia, the old centres near the west coast,
which were not only the most hellenized towns in Anatolia, as
they are today (with the exception of istanbul and Ankara)
the most westernized, but also those which were the most open
to Roman influence. Pompeius Macer, the first oriental senator
of whom we know, reached the praetorship in A.D. 15; he came
from Mytilene. 1 C. Antius A. Iulius A. f. Volt. Quadratus was
a native of Pergamum, the first of many senators from the
town,2 Ti. Iulius Celsus Polemaeanus of Ephesus,3 and Sex.
Quinctilius Sex. f. Ani. Valerius Maximus of Alexandria Troas,4
a city whose comparative insignificance was outweighed by the
fact that it was a Roman colony. Antioch, like Acmoneia, the
home of L. Servenius Cornutus,5 belonged to the hinterland,
the Anatolian plateau, though it was on one of the main roads
leading to the towns of the west.
Socially and culturally, too, early oriental senators may be
divided into two classes. These are, however, not watertight.
It was, of course, a feature of Roman policy everywhere in the
Empire to admit only the highest class of provincial, which was
also the wealthiest, to the senatorial cursus. 6 This meant in the
west the admission of the primores Galliae and in the east that of
the descendants of kings, tetrarchs, and Galatian dynasts. There
was no difference in the principle. Men like C. Iulius Eurycles
Herculanus, the Spartan noble,7 and the rex Alexander, who was
the son of Tigranes V of Armenia and a descendant of Herod
the Great,S were those selected to sit in the Senate, sometimes
for their wealth and noble birth alone, sometimes also in re-
paration for kingdoms lost. The second class of potential senator
, PIR' P 471; see also below, p. 107, note 5.
2 PIR' I 338; for his career, RE x (1919), 787, no. 425; Walton, op. cit. 44,
note 5. For the contribution of Pergamum, Habicht, Istanbuler Mitteilungen IX-X
(1959-60),121, note 36.
3 PIR' I 176; RE x (1919), 544 ff.,'no. 183; Walton, op. cit. 46. There is a
connexion with Sardes: the names Celsus and Polemaeus both occur there (Celsus:
GIG 4812; Polemaeus: A]A XVIII (1914),47, no. 14, and BMC Lydia, 242, nos.
54-56).
4 PIR' Q 23; Walton, op. cit. 48; Tod, Buckler 333 ff.
5 PIR' S 404; RE IIA (1923), 1757 f.; Walton, op. cit. 44 f.
6 ILS 212: 'bonorum scilicet virorum et locupletium'; Habicht, op. cit. 125;
F. Millar, Cassius Dio 186.
7 PIR' I 199. For his pedigree, see G. W. Bowersock, ]RS LI (1961), 117 f.
8 PIRz A 500.
106 SENATORS AND EQUITES
was the Roman landowner in the east. Such men often married
into the local nobility, each side giving the other what it lacked
by way of qualifications for social success. Gessius Florus of
Clazomenae, for example, advanced himself by marrying a
Cleopatra, friend of Poppaea. I Settlers in Roman colonies and
their descendants came into this second class, becoming land-
owners in virtue of their status as colonists.
One striking example of the inter-mingling of expatriate
Italians and native dynasts is provided by a distinguished family
from Galatia, the Servenii, and by their connexions. L. Ser-
venius Cornutus of Acmoneia, who entered the Senate under
Nero, was the son of L. Servenius Capito and lulia Severa. 2
Servenius is a rare name 3 and is unlikely to have been obtained
from any governor or other Roman official in the east. It looks
as if an ancestor emigrated from central Italy during the Re-
publican period. Yet a woman who has been conjectured to be
the sister4 or daughters of Servenius Cornutus, but who may
well have been a more distant descendant, is said to be sprung
from kings-Galatian kings. 6 Servenia's husband, P. Calpurnius
Proculus, a man of senatorial or even consular rank, may
also have traced his line back to a noble of Galatia. 7 C. lulius
Severus, 8 adleetus inter tribunieios by Hadrian and ultimately
consul, is plainly a kinsman of lulia Severa, and he is more
specific than Servenia Cornuta in his claim to royal ancestry:9
, PIR' G 170.
, PIR'S 104; Fluss, RE IIA (1923), 1757 f.
3 Schulze, Lat. Eig. 230 f.: CILxI. 5539 (Asisium); EE VIII (1898), 50, no. 205
(Cures).
4 Groag, REx (1919), 948; Fluss, loco cit; Buckler et al., MAMA IV. 139
(identifying the woman in this inscription with that of IeR III. 192).
5 Buckler et al., MAMA VI. 254 (apparently making the same identification).
6 PIR' S 405, quoting IeR III. 192, lists nine names; this suggests the second
century. Perhaps we should distinguish this polyonymous woman from the Servenia
Comuta of IeR IV. 651 ('soror aut filia L. Servenii Cornuti', Cagnat, ad loc.),
MAMA IV. 139 (where in a conjectural restoration she is called [dr.oy6V,!, {JaCftMws
)1.,..,.d]AOV), and MAMA VI. 254 (incorporating IeR IV. 651). Her husband may be
identical with P. Calpurnius Proculus, PIR' C 304, whose legateship of Dacia
does not fall before 16 I.
7 PIR' C 305: [avVKA'1n]K6S or [v1Tan]K6s. For his descent, see PIR' C 303.
S PIR' I 375; RE x (1919), 8I1 If., no. 484.
9 IeR III. 173: [U1TOYO]vov {Jaa,Mws [.1'1,]o[r]dpov Kat )1/Lvvrov rou Bp,yriTOV
Kat )1,.nfvTov 'Toil LIVpLUAOV(?) TETpapxwv Kat {3auLAlws )latas .i1TT!ii\ov, [dvJ€[Ijr]i,dv
irrranKwv '[ov"A{ov T€. KoopaTov Kal ~aaLi\'ws 14i\eg&.vopov Kat 'IovAlov}1l(oi\ov KaL K[A].
J;€OV~POV Kat aVYYEvfj aUYKA1]TLKWV 7rAdUTWV, aOEAcpOV 'Iov>..tov Ylp,uvnavofJ.
SENATORS AND EQUITES 107
Deiotarus of Galatia, two tetrarchs, a king Attalus. Besides
these and a host of senatorial relatives, he had no less than four
consular cousins: Iulius Quadratus, the rex Alexander, Iulius
Aquila,! Claudius Severus.2 It was evidently from his mother
Iulia Severa that L. Servenius Cornutus derived the aristo-
cratic blood that was one qualification for senatorial rank; both
parents had high standing in Acmoneia, and wealth; but only
the father gave the Italian descent that made Cornutus accept-
able in the pre-Flavian Senate. Nothing could show more clearly
than the inscription of Iulius Severus that we are dealing not
with isolated grants of the latus clavus to individuals, but with
a nexus of leading families pushing their wealthiest and most
promising members into the Senate)
The data available to us, scanty though they are, indicate
that, as far as they can be distinguished, the second class of
potential senator was given preference over the first:~ True, the
earliest known senator from the east was the Greek of Mytilene,
Pompeius Macer, but his was a special case: for at least two
generations his family had been very close to the men who ruled
Rome. s In second place comes M. Calpurnius Rufus of Attaleia,
a town which was host to a body of resident Romans. 6 Cal-
purnius Rufus 7 entered the Senate during the reign of Tiberius,
I Cos. suff. 110, the son of Ti. Iulius Celsus Polemaeanus; see RE x (1919),
168 ff., no. 83.
2 C. Claudius Severus, suff. 112; see PIR2 C 1023.
3 See the comments of Habicht, op. cit. 123, and, on the dynasts, 124 f.
4 Habicht, op. cit. 122, claims that between Augustus and Commodus not
less than 55 of the 69 Anatolian senators whose origins are known came from
colonies or towns with Roman residents. 26 come from Antioch,Alexandria Troas,
and Attaleia, 29 from Mytilene, Smyrna, Ephesus, Pergamum, Cibyra, Acmoneia,
and Nieaea. Habicht assigns 15 senators to Antioch; for their names, 123,
note 42. I would omit 3 Sergii, 4 Novii Prisei (Novius Rusticus was Antiochian
on his mother's side), and would relegate 2 Calpurnii Proeuli to the class of the
incerli to join Iulius Paullus; to the cerli I would add two (?) Calpurnii Reginiani
(on all these men, see below, pp. 116 ff.). This produces a total of 8, with 3
incerti.
S See Strabo XIll, p. 618, and Grant, From Imp. to Aucl. 136, note 3, and 388;
Suetonius, DiD. lui. LVI. For difficulties raised by the pedigree of Pompeius Macer,
see Syme, Tacilus II. 748 f. There seems to be no insuperable objection to the
view that the praetor of A.D. 15 was the grandson of Theophanes of Mytilene and
that the equestrian officials mentioned by Suetonius and Strabo should be identified
with each other and regarded as Theophanes' son.
6 SEC II. 696; VI. 646; ICR Ill. 785; Belle/en XXII (1958), 32, no. 20. See also
Levick and Jameson, ]RS LIV (1964), 102.
7 See PIR2 C 313, where he is identified with a Hadrianic governor of Achaea
(Dig. I. 16. !O). An inscription published by Bosch (Belleten XI (1947), 94, no. !O)
lOB SENATORS AND EQUITES
or possibly in that of Gaius, and attained the praetorship at

least. It was no coincidence that the batch of senators that
Nero admitted contained not only Servenius Cornutus, the
Roman landowner from Acmoneia,I but also a man from Perge
in Pamphylia, a town not far from Attaleia. Plancius Varus,
praeturafunctus in 69, became proconsul ofBithynia in the reign
of Vespasian. 2 Such success as he achieved we may attribute
not merely to his willingness to. play the informer,3 but to the
fact that he had Italian blood in his veins;4
Under the Flavian dynasty the tendency to favour easterners
ofItalian descent begins to disappear. Among those who owed
their senatorial rank to Vespasian were the rex Alexander and
Celsus Polemaeanus-in whom there is neither Roman nor
noble blood recorded; wealth or ability, combined perhaps
with conspicuous services in the year 69,5 were enough to secure
his entry. The dates of consulships tell us little of the relative
esteem enjoyed by these men. Plancius does not seem to have
attained the highest magistracy;6 whether Servenius Cornutus
did is uncertain. Quadratus held the consulship for the first
time in 94, Polemaeanus in 92. Their tenure of the provinces
of Lycia-Pamphylia and Cilicia respectively made it clear that,
from that time onwards at least, they were destined for the
consulship. 7
and again by Bean (ibid. xxn (I95B), 26, no. II = SEC XX1l. 56B) has shown that
he was legatus Augusti pro praetore under Claudius.
I Also, possibly, QIadratus, though it is not necessary to accept Walton's
suggestion (op. cit. 44, note 5) that it was Nero who admitted this man to the
Senate. None of Quadratus' inscriptions mentions any pre-praetorian office. The
natural conclusion to draw from this is that Quadratus did not hold any such
offices. A possible parallel is that of L. Iavolenus Priscus (PIR' 040), whose first
post seems to have been that of legatus legionis IV Flaviae, c. 80. He too may have
been admitted in 74, during the joint censorship of Vespasian and Titus (so
Syme, Tacitus 1. 69, note I). However, the titulus which is the chief source of infor-
mation on Iavolenus' career (lLS 1015) omits all honores urbani, and may well
have neglected to mention junior posts which he did in fact hold.
• Praeturafunctus: Tacitus, Hist. II. 63; proconsul of Bithynia: Bosch, Die kleinasia-
tischen Miinzen II. i. i (Stuttgart, 1935), 87. For his career in general, see Jameson,
]RS LV (1965), 56 fr. 3 Tacitus, loco cit.
• The rare nomen Plancius is not one that may be traced back to any Roman
governor of Galatia. It belongs in the Republictoa family of Atina (RE xx (1950),
2012 fr.). Some member may have gone east as a negotiator.
s Walton, op. cit. 46; Polemaeanus was tribunus militum of Legio III Cyrenaica.
Cf. Tacitus, Hist. II. 82.
6 Mansel, Arch. An;:;. LXXI (1956), 110 f., note 81; Syme, Historia IX (1960),
363 f.; Jameson, ]RS LV (1965). 56 fr. 7 Syme, Tacitus II. 648 f.
It is an interesting subject for speculation, how far the ad-
mission of orientals to the Senate-during the second half of the
first century A.D. was inevitable, and how far it was a matter
of chance, dependent on the whim of the reigning emperor.
There can be no doubt that their eventual admission was in-
evitable, but that it took place at that time-in fact, as early
as it did-seems to be the result of a number of accidents: the
accession of a new dynasty after a bloody civil war; possibly
the appearance in the east of several impostors who claimed
to be Nero, which may have intimidated Domitian,1 though it
would not affect the upper class of potential senators; certainly
the fact that Trajan was exceptionally well-disposed towards
the Greeks. 2 Quadratus owed his second consulship and his
governorship of Syria to his friendship with the emperor,3
and there was another Quadratus, lulius Quadratus Bassus,
suffect consul in 105, governor of Cappadocia and Syria, and
commander in the Dacian conquest. 4 Yet another of Trajan's
generals, the lulius Alexander who captured Seleuceia, was of
eastern origin. s
The careers of these senators illustrate the rule that in the
early period the provincial commands of Greek and oriental
officials were confined to the east. 6 This may have been the
result of a common-sense view that eastern senators would be
most useful in the part of the Empire that they knew best,
rather than a sign of prejudice against oriental governors in
the west.7 But it is impossible to exclude this motive. It may not
I For this view, see Syme, Tacitus 11.510.
z See P. Lambrechts, Ant. Class. v (1936), 105 ff., and B. Stech, Senatores 180.
Domitian seems to have admitted six orientals to the Senate, Nerva and Trajan four-
teen, and, according to Lambrechts, Composition (Hadrien aCommode), 192, Hadrian
ten; but L. CalpurniusReginianus might be added (see below, pp. 117 f.); Habicht,
op. cit. 124, note 46, ascribes six more men to Hadrian, possibly nine, but many
are of uncertain date. He also draws an important distinction between the admis-
sion of first and second generation senators (op. cit. 123 f.); so Millar, Cassius
Dio 184.
3 Syme, op. cit. I. 53.
4 AE 1933, 268; RE, Supp!. VlI. (1940), 31 I f., no. 425a.
5 PIRI I 95; for Quadratus Bassus, Iulius Alexander, and others, see Syme,
op. cit. II. 510 f.
6 For the gradual breakdown of this policy, see Lambrechts, op. cit. 202 ff.
7 Walton, op. cit. 47; Millar, op. cit. 187: 'It was clearly more convenient
that men should govern provinces with whose language and customs they were
familiar.'
'ilO SENATORS AND EQ.UITES
have influenced the emperors themselves, but they had to take

Roman prejudices into consideration when they examined the
possibility of allotting western provinces to orientals. The policy
of sending men to serve in regions with which they were familiar
was not one that obtained throughout the Empire. Gallic
officials were usually placed elsewhere than with the Rhine
legions. Nero indeed had not refused to employ local talent: the
use of Antonius Flamma in Cyrenaica I and of Julius Vindex in
Gau12 are cases in point. That these appointments would not
be successful could not have been foreseen by Nero.
Other characteristics distinguish the careers of eastern sena-
tors from those of their western counterparts, showing up the
character and talents of the men themselves. Notably, the east
has few men of military distinction to set against Agricola,
Corbulo, and Trajan. To those already mentioned as serving
the Optimus Princeps in his Dacian and Parthian wars there
are few to add. The easterners, as one might expect, displayed
more inlustres domi artes than claritudo militiae,3 In the career of
Cornutus Tertullus of Perge not a single military post appears,
not even that of tribunus militum,4 but he and others from the
east proved themselves to be good civilian administrators.
Cornutus was chosen to succeed Pliny in Bithynia,5 Valerius
Maximus 6 and perhaps L. Aemilius Iuncus7 were sent to
Achaea to regulate the status of the free cities, and Dio singles
out for its excellence the work of C. Iulius Severus in Bithynia. 8
Oratorical skill, combined no doubt with an understanding
of the law, was another key to a successful career, whether
equestrian or senatoria1. 9 This is an unfamiliar variant on a
well-known theme: for the senator from the Latin west fluency
and persuasiveness had always been a sure means of advance-
ment.IO
It is unnecessary to trace into the second century the opening
I J. Reynolds, ]RS XLIX (1959), 96 ff.
, Dio LXIII, 22. j3; (ed. Boissevain, III. 84). 3 Cf. Tacitus, Annals IV. 6.
4 ILS 1024. For his origo, see Syme, Tacitus I. 82, note 6, and Jameson, ]RS
LV (1965),54.
5 Mommsen, Hermes III (1869), 97, note I; Reynolds, Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society CLXXXIX (1963), If.
6 Pliny, Ep. VIII. 24. 7 cr. PIR' A 355.
8 LXIX, 14. iv (ed. Boissevain, III. 234). 9 Millar, op. cit. 182 f.
10 Livy XXXIX. 40. V; Gallic and other orators: Seneca, Contr. X, praif. 13; Quin-
tilian, Inst. Orat. VIII. 5, 15 ff.; X. I, 118 ff.; Tacitus, Dial. 2, 7,8; Ann. IV. 61.
SENATORS AND EQUITES III
up of the Senate to men from the eastern half of the Empire.

The careers of the men already mentioned form a framework
and a background to those of their colleagues from Antioch.
Evenaconservative estimate l allows that by the time of Hadrian
the old prejudices were put away. Easterners had almost the
same chances of receiving the latus clavus and the same oppor-
tunities for promotion to the highest ranks as men from the
west. It is now possible to discover how the earliest senator
from Colonia Caesarea Antiochia fitted into this pattern, and
whether he was shown special favour in virtue of his Italian
ancestry and his status as a colonist.
The first member of the Caristanius family2 known at An-
tioch-his full name was C. Caristanius C. f. Ser. Fronto
Caesianus Iulius-was, as we have seen,3 of Italian descent and
very close to the first generation of colonists. Very likely his
father was a junior officer in the legion which took part in the
deductio,4 and either for this reason or because of his natural
ability he had risen to such prominence in the colony even by
the time it wished to honour P. Sulpicius Quirinius, the victor
of the Homanadensian war, and his friend M. Servilius, that
he was chosen as their praefectus in the duovirate. Caristanius
was in fact the first man to whom a statue was publicly set up
by a decree of the decuriones. 5
The next appearance of the Caristanii does not take place
until the reign of Claudius. 6 By this time they were property-
owners of some importance: one of their slaves was sold into
the imperial service, where he became procurator, praegustator,
et a secretis Augusti, taking on manumission the name Ti. Claudius
Epinicus. The wealth of the Caristanii could be assumed even
without the help of this inscription, for only the richest Anatol-
ian families were allowed to rise to senatorial rank. More slaves
and freedmen of this family are known than of any other at
Antioch;7 even the liberti of the Caristanii seem to have been
men of consequence in the colony.
I Walton, op. cit. 56 f.; Habicht, op. cit. 122.
2 The history of this family was elucidated first by Cheesman, ]RS III (1913),
253 ff.
3 Above, p. 63.
4 See Tacitus, Annals XIV. 27: 'universae legiones deducebantur cum tribunis
et centurionibus et sui cuiusque ordinis militibus.' 5 ILS 9502 f.
6 Cheesman, op. cit. 258, no. 3. ? e.g. GIL III. 6852.
The exact point at which the family attained senatorial rank

may be observed in the career of the C. Caristanius Fronto
who probably belonged to the fourth generation of Caristanii
at Antioch. 1 Before he had held any of the customary eques-
trian posts but those of the militia equestris, Caristanius was ad-
lected into the Senate with the rank of ex-tribune; Cheesman
dated his admission to the joint censorship of Vespasian and
Titus, in A.D. 73-74. 2 Promotion continued to be rapid. Caris-
tanius was immediately advanced to praetorian rank and sent
by Vespasian to Britain as legate of the ninth legion. Walton
pointed out 3 that no oriental is found in command of any
legion other than III Gallica, II Traiana, or IV Scythica
before the Antonine emperors. Since he wrote, a few exceptions
have emerged,4 but they belong to the reign of Trajan, not to
that of Vespasian. Caristanius got his post in Britain because
he was not an oriental, though he came from the east: a man's
descent counted for more than his place of origin. After the
governorship of Lycia-Pamphylia, which he held under Titus
and Domitian, Caristanius returned to Rome and became one
of the suffect consuls of the year gO.5
One turning-point of Caristanius' career will have been his
marriage to the daughter or sister of L. Sergius L. f. Paullus,
probably the son of the L. Sergius Paullus whom St. Paul en-
countered as governor of Cyprus in 46-47.6 It should not have
required much persuasion from this senator to convince the
emperor that a representative of the most distinguished family
of an important veteran colony, who may already have had
creditable military service on his side, should be admitted to
the Senate. 7
I ILS 9485.
2 Op. cit. 261. He may not have been the only Antiochian advanced at this
time. Iulia Agrippina, wife of a consul of 113, and daughter of a senator of prae-
torian rank, Iulius Paullus, was held in high honour in the colony (Anat. Stud. VIII
(1958),219). It may have been Paullus' birth-place.
3 Op. cit. 65.
• QuadratusBassus (AE 1933, 268) and Pompeius MacrinusTheophanes (Ritter-
ling, Fasti des riim. Deutschland (Wien, 1932), 125, no. 34). For Novius Priscus, see
below, p. II6. 5 AE 1949, 23.
6 JRS III (1913),262, no. 5 = IGR III. 300. Groag, RE IIA (1923),1714 f., argues
that Sergius Paullus was himself an oriental; he is followed by S. J. de Laet, Samen-
stelling 165 f., no. 1113. This is not the case: see Ramsay,JRSxVl (1926), 202 ff.,
and Walton, op. cit. 46, note 6.
7 Ramsay, Buckler 206 f., restored an inscription which may mention a sacerdos
The connexion of newly created senators with their native
towns was rarely severed by their promotion. I Caristanius had
already become patronus coloniae before his consulship.2 But he
is the last member of the family to be mentioned at Antioch.
This may mean that the Caristanii now returned, after a cen-
tury's absence, to Italy; it is more likely to be due to the hap-
hazard destruction of epigraphical evidence.
The consul had one child, C. Caristanius Fronto,3 probably
more. 4 The latest mention of any member of this family-it is
,quite impossible to trace his exact relationship to the consul-
is that of Caristanius Iustianus, praeJectus of a cohort of Hamii
on the Antonine wall in Scotland. s It seems clear from this
evidence that the family failed to maintain itself in the front
rank of the imperial service: never again does the name
Caristanius appear on the surviving Jasti consulares. Either the
main branch of the family died out, or, on attaining the summit,
its ambition and energy faded, or, simply, the consul had an
outstanding ability which his descendants did not share.
The position that the Caristanii had occupied in the colony
during the first century was taken over in the second by the
several branches of the Flavonii. 6 The fact that their rise to
senatorial rank took place at a time at which the prejudice
against orientals had been largely destroyed makes it less
deae luliae Augustae as a dedication to Caristania Frontina Iulia, aunt (?) of the
senator. Any sacerdos of this cult might have attracted the favourable attention of
Claudius, who instituted it (Suetonius, Diu. Claud. XI) ; but the restoration cannot
be right; see JRS LIV (1964), 99, note 9.
I Walton, op. cit. 54; Millar, op. cit. 187 f.; Antonius Flamma (JRS XLIX
(1959), 96 f., with IGR I. 1029 f.) and Plancius Varus (Arch. An;;. LXXI (1956),
I 10 f.) conform to this rule.
, • Cheesman, op. cit. 260, no. 4. For a similar phenomenon elsewhere in the
Empire, see Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul 101 f.
3, [Ta{o~ KapWTdvto~ <Pp6]VTWV T' (Cheesman, op. cit. 262, no. 5.) ; T probably
represents the first letter of Ta{ou KapwTavlou <Pp6V'rwvo~ (so PIR' C 424).
4 Ta{ov Kap,uTdvLOV lIauA7Jivov .lov Kap[wTuvlou] (IGR III. 51 I). C. Caristanius
Iulianus (Corinth: Results of Excauations conducted by the American School qf Classical
Studies at Athens VIII. ii (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), 35 f., no. 55), proconsul of
Achaea c. 100-2, is, as Groag pointed out (Rom. Reichsbeamten uon Achaia (Wien, etc.,
1939), 51 f.), presumably not a child of the consul of 90: he seems to have been
the son of a Lucius and to have been of equestrian origin. It may be Paulinus'
son who appears in Dacia: Fronto Paulini f. (CIL III. 8079, I), but these names are
very common. Ramsay, Buckler 209, has a C. Caristanius Sabinus, member of the
Koinon Galatiae 101-2.
5 EErx (1913),625, no. 1242.
6 For this family see JRS XLVIII (1958), 74 ff.
814259 I
dramatic. It was also different in character: not one member

of the family alone but representatives of at least two branches
seem to have attained senatorial rank at the same period. It has
already been shown l that the first member of the family at
Antioch was probably one of the original veterans and a native
of Italy. Unlike the Caristanii, however, the Flavonii did not
come into prominence until the colony was more than a century
and a half old, no doubt because the veteran who founded the
family was a mere miles gregarius. As such he will have been a
member of the colonial aristocracy, but not of its highest stratum.
Only one first-century inscription is known: a stele dedicated to
Men by Sex. Flavonius Naevius. 2
The family attained its importance in the mid-second century.
L. Flavonius Paullinus, a person of consequence in the town,
was probably of equestrian rank,3 and his wealth enabled him
to become patronus coloniae. 4 Paullinus had two sons. One, who
bore the same cognomen, is mentioned in an inscription from
Attaleia as procurator Augustorum;5 the other, C. Flavonius
Anicianus Sanctus, devoted himself to the colonial cursus, reach-
ing the duovirate, which his father had probably held before
him, and continuing his father's benefactions. 6 Sanctus' reward
was to live to see his son Flavonius Lollianus a Roman senator.7
The Flavonius family, once it had reached senatorial rank,
seems to have maintained its position for longer than the
Caristanii. 8 It is impossible to determine the exact relationship
between Flavonius Lollianus and the somewhat later Flavonius
Paullinus. 9 This Paullinus became legate to the proconsul of
Lycia-Pamphylia, a post he would not have held before the last
years of Marcus Aurelius, when this province was transferred
to the Senate. 1O Flavonius Paullinus went on to the praetorship;
1 Above, p. 64. 2 ]RS III (1913), Plate xx.
3 Stein, Rom. Ritterstand 3 14 f., 402.
• ]RS XLVIU (1958), 74.
5 Belleten XI (1947), 96, no. 13. The Augusti were presumably M. Aurelius
and L. Verus; if so, he held office between 161 and 169.
6 He too was patronus coloniae (]RS, 1oc. cit.).
7 Ath. Mitt. XXXII (1907), 306, no. 23: r. <PAaouwvws .i4.v"aav6s l:cfVt<TOS .i4.VTLOX€,lS
{nrip T€ €av'ToiJ Kai TOO vioiJ cJ>'Aaovwv{ov AOAAl.avoO aVYKA1JTLKofJ.
8 In the fourth century their claritudo raised them in immensum (Ammianus
Marcellinus XXVIII. 4. vii, with the emendation Flavonii for MSS F(l)abunii and
Flabiani).
9 TAPA LVII (1926), 230, no. 62; see also CPXXIII (1928), I 79ff., and]RS,loc. cit.
10 Magie, Roman Rule u. 1532 f. See now ]RS LIV (1964), 103, and S. Jameson,
whether he also obtained the consulship remains uncertain. I
The inscription set up in his honour at Antioch suggests that he
continued to regard the colony as his home, although his service
must have taken him away from it for many years.
At the same time the Flavonii were winning advancement
through their womenfolk as well. The rise of another branch
of the family has one factor in common with that of the Caris-
tanii: to some extent they owed their success to a judicious
marriage. Flavonia Menodora became the wife of C. Novius
Priscus, the suffect consul of September and October 152. Their
son, C. Novius Rusticus Venuleius Apronianus, naturallyen-
tered the Senate, and when he was only tribunus candidatus the
vici of the colony honoured him in a series of dedications which
give not only the name and rank of his father, but his mother's
nomen and cognomen as well. 2 There can be no questioning
Ramsay's view 3 that the stones were inscribed more for the
parents' sake than for the son's; this is made the more likely
by the prominence given to Menodora. The father was a con-
sularis, but the mother, the local woman, is singled out for
attention in an inscription where it is remarkable that her name
should appear at all. Her prominence in these inscriptions
illustrates the importance of the Flavonius family at Antioch.
The theophoric cognomen Menodora is also revealing and, like
the dedication to Men set up by Flavonius Naevius, may pro-
vide a reason for the delay in the rise of the family. The name
is interesting in itself as showing the devotion of the population
of Antioch to the local cult, even in that part of the population
which was partly of Italian descent. Such theophoric names
are usually found as those of worshippers at the hieron,4 and
it is strange to find it borne by one of veteran stock. Either
the original colonist or a later Flavonius married into one of
the local families which had, as Ramsay suggested,s once held the
priesthood and was still connected by tradition with the cult.
Lycia and Pamphylia under the Roman Empire from Augustus to Diodetian (Oxford D. Phil.
thesis, 1965),71 If.
I ]RS XLVIII (1958), 75.
2 GIL III. 6914 (= ILS 8976a), 6815, 6816 (= ILS 8976); ]RSVI (1916),130,
fig. 13; XLVIII (1958), 75 f. 3 ]RS VI (1916), 131.
+ e.g., ]HSXXXII (1912), 129, no. IS: M€Lvooch[p]a; ]RSu (1912), 95, no. 23:
[Mh[v6]4"[AO] Is "fttEVOS; HI (1913), 269, no. 3: M'Ivo[.
sOp. cit. 130.
I16 SENATORS AND EQUITES
The effect of intermarriage with the local families cannot be de-

tected in the case of the Caristanii, and the descendants of the
first colonial Flavonius may have found their ties something of
a hindrance to their advancement, at least in the first century;
the almost complete absence of inscriptions, on the other hand,
suggests mere poverty as the reason for their obscurity during
this period. By the middle of the second century the connexion,
if it was an obstacle, had ceased to be one, a change which
throws an interesting sidelight on the development of the colony.
Ramsay envisaged I the marriage of Flavonia Menodora to
C. Novius Priscus as having taken place during his father's
term of office as legate of Galatia. Other scholars2 have supposed
that Novius and two men who were his ancestors, the senator
Novius Priscus who was banished in 65 3 and the D. Iunius
Novius Priscus who was consul ordinarius in 78, were themselves
natives of Pisidian Antioch. There is indeed one piece of
evidence which supports this view: Menodora's son belonged
to the tribe Sergia, in which all citizens of the colony were
enrolled, but it would not be wise to build too much on this
fact alone. It is hard to believe that the colony produced a
consul ordinarius at so early a date as 78 and in a reign which can
show only three other senators (apart from members of the
ruling dynasty) who entered their consulships on I January.
The tribe Sergia is, of course, found in Italy; there are Novii
at Antinum, which belonged to the tribe, and they were
members of the local aristocracy;4 very probably the consul
of 78 stemmed from this family.
The richness of the Flavonii in cognomina affords free play
for prosopographical speculation. There is clearly a connexion
with another consul of the mid-second century, L. Venuleius
Apronianus. He held the consulship for the second time in 168,
lOp. cit. 131. .
• Lambrechts, Composition (Hadden a Commode), 86 f., no. 449; he is followed by
de Laet, Samenstelling 197, no. 1475.
3 Tacitus, Annals xv. 71. On these men see Groag, RExVII (1937), 1219,no. 17,who
identifies them, and Stein, ibid. no. 15, who distinguishes them. Part of the career
of a senatorial Novius Priscus, active under Vespasian, is recorded on an inscription
from Delphi; see G. Daux, BCH LXXVIII (1954), 388 ft, no. 17, Pflaum, BCH
LXXIX (1955), 424ff.; and Daux, BCH LXXXIII (1959), 490 If., no. 21; cf. SEG XVIII.
216.
4 e.g. ILS 6534. A liberta is found at Superaequum, which also belonged to the
tribe Sergia (ClL IX. 3325).
SENATORS AND EQUJTES
and his family had also provided consuls in the years 92 and 123.
The nature of the tie remains uncertain.
Of the two cognomina borne by the senator's father, the second,
Sanctus, is not illuminating, unless it, too, indicates the de-
votion of a half-colonial, half-indigenous family to the cult of
Men. Anicianus betrays a connexion with the Anicii, another
leading gens in the colony. 1
The earliest member of this family who is known to us is
probably C. Anicius Q. f. Ser. Caesianus, whose cognomen may
show some kinship with the first Caristanius. Anicius was a
duovir of the colony, and set up one of the rare Latin dedications
in the sanctuary ofMen. 2 In the middle of the first century A.D.
P. Anicius P. f. Ser. Maximus served with distinction as an
equestrian officer in Britain and Egypt, and may have acted
as the praefectus of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the father of
Nero, during an honorary tenure of the colonial duovirate. 3
Anicius Maximus, governor of Bithynia in Trajan's reign, was
probably his grandson. 4
Even though we may not accept all the senators who have
been ascribed to Antioch, the colony's contribution was com-
parable, not indeed with that of the greatest cities of the west,
such as Vienna and Corduba, but at any rate with that of
Forum Iulii and Arelate. It was long before the supply of
potential senators dried up. Not all cities remained as vigorous
as Antioch. 5 Epigraphic evidence shows that by the third
century yet another senatorial family had established itself. 6
The name of the father is given in full, and it looks as if both men
were well known at Antioch and were natives of the town. Both
are called Calpurnius Reginianus, and at first E. Groagsuggested7
I The freedmen and freedwomen of these houses also seem to be connected by
marriage; see WE 360 (tentatively restored by Sterrett): K6[v'TOS <t>Aaf3wvws Tt'TOS

Mo~v~'TtoS ,E~a,!,avSpos 1TatSaywy6s dedicates a stone to l1VtK'f}Tdq. (or 1JJ/tKelq.)
,a,,,,.
ZW1/ (Ju!-'f3,'I'
z JRS VI (1916), 94, fig. 7.
3 ILS 2696; cf. PIRz D 127.
4 Pliny, Ep. x. 112; see JRS XVI (1926), 207; grandfather rather than father
(so Stein, Ro'm. Ritterstand 335, and PIRz A 603 f.).
5 No Cyrenaean senators are known after P. Sestius Pollio: JRSXLlX (1959), 98.
6 IGR 1II. 299, cf. EJ 139. For the date, note the barred upsilon (cf. Larfeld,
Handbuch der attischen Inschriften (Leipzig, 1902), 499), and the name of the
dedicator, Ulpius Tatianus Marcellus (cf. the nomenclature of the Kara Kuyu
inscriptions, JRS III (1913), 287 ff.).
7 PIRz C 303, 307.
that they were descendants ofDomitia Regina and her husband

the senator L. Calpurnius Proculus, who was a kinsman of
Servenius Cornutus of Acmoneia and was himself the subject
of an Antiochian dedication. I However, papyrological evidence
made Groag take back the elevation of the Calpurnii Reginiani
from the late second or early third century to the early second:
a consular of that name is attested by A.D. I I3-20.2 This also
meant abandoning the hypothesis that the Antiochian Reginiani
were direct descendants of Pro cui us and Regina and correspond-
ingly weakened the connexion between Proculus and Antioch.
Even the heights attained by the Flavonii could not set
a bound to Antiochian aspirations. A generation later we meet
L. Gellius Maximus. The four inscriptions which refer to him3
make it likely enough that he was a native of the colony.4 Now
Gellius was, according to his inscriptions, an archiatros, friend
of Caracalla, and an eques ducenarius-a man of some distinction,
in fact. It is undoubtedly his son who is given a brief notice in
the history of the period. s As a result of an ill-judged attempt
on the Principate, Gellius Maximus, legate of the fourth legion,
Scythica, stationed in Syria, was executed in :;ng. Dio mentions
his case, with that of another unsuccessful claimant, to illustrate
the topsy-turvy state of the times: Gellius was merely the son of
a physician.
I ]RSXIV (1924),177, no. 3. The possibility ofL. Calpurnius Proculus' being
a senator produced by Antioch early in the second century (see Corinth: Results if
Excavations conducted by the American School if Classical Studies at Athens Vlll. iii (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1966), 56 ff., no. 125) cannot be ruled out. It was the view
tentatively adopted by Ramsay. There are numerous Calpurnii at Antioch in all
periods: ]HS XXXII (1912), 137, no. 48, and an unpublished inscription (dedica-
tions to Men); TAPA LVII (1926), 228, no. 58; CRXXXIII (1919),2, no. I (fourth-
century); CIL III. 6831-2 (duovir and pontifex respectively); ]RS II (1912), 91,
no. 12. The dedicator of ]RS III (1913), 260, no. 4, is T. Caristanius Calpurnianus
Rufus; this man's cognomen suggests a connexion with the senator from Attaleia,
M. Calpurnius Rufus.
2 Wilcken, Die Bremer Papyri (Berlin, 1936), 160 f., no. 74; PIR2 II, Addenda XX,
nO·306a.
3 ]RS II (1912), 96 f., no. 25; TAPA LVII (1926), 224, no. 48; CIL III. 6820;
]RSxrv (1924), 199, no. 35. See PIR' G 131.
4 So Stein, Rom. Rilterstand 402 f.
5 DioLXJO{.7. i (ed. Boissevain, III. 460). He may well be identical with the Gellius
of SHA, DiadumenianuSIx. I, cf. VIII. 4-9, andPIR' G 123, who is said to have suffered
a similar fate under Macrinus. It is worth noting for the sake of completeness that
two other senators, called Iulius Asper (Dio LXXIX. 21. ii; 22. ii ff. (ed. Boissevain,
III. 426 f.), PIR' I 114 f.), may be descended from a duovir quinquennalis of Antioch
(]RSII (1912),103, no. 37; cf. XIV (1924), 176, no. I; XV (1925), 253, and references).
It is remarkable that the same families take so prominent

a part in two different chapters of this book, and that the pos-
sessors of extremely rare Italian nomina should be the men who
reached the Roman Senate. For their names are not rare because
they are aristocratic. On the contrary, they are low-class names,
belonging to families apparently too poor even to set up funerary
monuments. Once away from their native districts, these men of
unimpeachable Italian origin would become the aristocracy of
any settlement made in a Greek town of the eastern provinces.
Their talents, which had found no outlet at home, were allowed
free play, and the vigour which had enabled them to take part
in the tough work of founding a Roman colony carried their
descendants to the Senate.
In this way, Antioch was able to make an ample contribution
to the highest order in the state, one well worthy of its position
and status. Even though Caristanius was not admitted until
the reign of Vespasian, he reached the consulship just earlier
than his oriental contemporaries, and though, like them, he
held mostly eastern posts, he was also given command of the
ninth legion, which was stationed in Britain. This slight
priority, indicated also by his swift promotion inter praetorios,
a rank which his colleagues of Greek and oriental blood at-
tained only by holding the actual office, I was due not neces-
sarily to his wealth and ability, for all these men must have
possessed those, but to his Italian ancestry and to the colonial
status enjoyed by his native town. 2
That all these senators had equestrian antecedents is obvious,
and wherever the evidence makes it possible, the occasion of the
transition from the one class to the other has been noticed. We
have seen that Antioch was surprisingly prolific of senators;
it would be natural to suppose that the number of equites was
proportionately high, and indeed at least one distinguished
scholar assumed the existence of an equestrian aristocracy which
numbered a good many families. 3 The evidence does not justify
! For a possible exception see above, p. 108, note I.
2 It may be that Caristanius, like Celsus Polemaeanus, was one of the senators
who owed his position to services rendered to Vespasian in 69-70: the Ala Bos-
poranorum in which he served was certainly stationed in Syria at some point
(ILS 2510); but there is no evidence as to the value of his services.
3 Anderson, JRS II (1912), 234 f. The 500 knights of Gades and Patavium
were admittedly exceptional (Strabo III, p. 169; v, p. 213).
120 SENATORS AND EQ.UITES
this assumption. The number of those of whom it may be de-
finitely asserted that they pursued an equestrian career in the
300 years of the colony's history is very limited. Of those only
a few are known to have advanced beyond military service
to hold equestrian procuratorships. Seven of them are on record
as having combined an army career with the colonial cursus,
most of these holding the duovirate. The careers of those
who pursued the equestrian cursus beyond its earlier stages were
diverse. P. Anicius Maximus' has been mentioned as a pro-
fessional soldier whose military decorations were earned in
Britain and in Egypt. One Proculus 2 was both duovir of the
colony, iuridicus Alexandreae et Aegypti, and financial procurator
for Nero in the provinces of Cappadocia and Cilicia. Yet an-
other Antiochian entered upon an equestrian career in the
first century A.D. He rose higher than the others and achieved
notoriety by the manner of his death.3 C. Crepereius Gallus
became procurator Augusti and an intimate of Claudius' consort
Agrippina. As her friend he accompanied her on the sea trip
which Nero had devised for his mother's destruction. The signal
was given, the roof of the yacht, laden with lead, collapsed,
and Crepereius was crushed and killed instantaneously. Agrip-
pina's death occurring almost immediately afterwards must
have ensured that the fate of Crepereius was not regarded in
his home town as a tragic accident; but that can hardly have
deterred his fellow citizens of equestrian census from entering
branches of the service less intimately connected with the im-
perial family. We must conclude that there were few of them;
that wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few landowners;
that class distinctions in the colony were sharp; that the aristo-
cracy was not broadly based, but, as one might expect, was an
alien growth, artificially fed and maintained.
I ILS 2696.
2 JRS" (1912),99, no. 31.
S Tacitus,
, Annals XIV. 5; Levick and Jameson, JRS L1V (1964), 98 If.
x
CITIES AND ARISTOCRACIES
IN ANATOLIA
ow that the posts open to members of upper-class
N colonial families, both in their native town and in the

imperial service, have been described in some detail, it
seems appropriate to touch on the official and cultural relations
that the colonies maintained with other cities. It is difficult to
go much further than a bare statement that such relations
existed, but even a list of the towns involved is worth making.
It helps to remove the colony from isolation and to put it into
its place in the Anatolian world. It is refreshing, too, to hear of
the erection of statues of Concord; that Concordia, based on ties
of friendship and, above all, commerce,r should arouse en-
thusiasm makes the contrast with some notoriously bitter
rivalries even more pointed. Concord between two Graeco-
Roman cities of similar interests and status is not a conditio~
of affairs that can be taken for granted, even under the Pax
Augusta. 2
When the Romans fixed the boundaries of their administra-
tive districts, says Strabo,3 they neglected geographical and
ethnological facts. Nowhere was this more so than in Asia
Minor, and especially in that part of the peninsula which be-
came the province of Galatia. Upon a group of peoples differing
in race, language, and customs they imposed a unity which
must always be artificial; small wonder, then, that the boun,.
daries of Galatia were so frequently altered. 4 The province
I For homonoia based on commercial interests between Nicaea and Amisus, see
Bosch, Arch. Anz. XLVI (1931),438 ff. For an acid comment on 'urbes concordia
junctae', see J. F. Vaillant, Numismata Imperatorum •.• a Populis .•• Graece Loquenti-
bus • .• (ed. 2, Amste!aedami, 1700), 221. Cf. Dio Chrysostom, XLI, 10 f.
2 See Brunt, Histaria X (1961), 213, notes 74 f. That these quarrels were a serious
problem is shown by Dio LII. 37. X.
3 XIII, p. 629.
4 On the character of Galatia, see Ramsay, His!. Comm. Gal., passim; on its
changing boundaries, see below, pp. 163 If.
122 CITIES AND ARISTOCRACIES IN ANATOLIA
sprawled from south-west to north-east across the Taurus and

the Anatolian plateau. Its creation was a hasty act of political
and military expediency, dictated by the sudden death of
Amyntas. Geographical as well as racial considerations made
it unstable: its governor was in charge of marsh and salt desert,
mountain and coastal plain, the arbiter of Greek, Roman,
Phrygian, and Gaul. Pisidia alone was an entity presenting
difficulties which might well have monopolized his attention,
but it may be regarded also as a part of one of the two divisions
into which the province falls. In the north, Galatia proper, its
capital the romanized Phrygo-Celtic town of Ancyra; in the
south, the lands of the Phrygians, Lycaonians, and Pisidians,
with the Roman colony of Antioch as their chief city, standing
on the borders of Phrygia and Pisidia. Each of these towns had
its copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti; beyond this they had
little in common. Communications between them were devious.
Today the traveller from Ankara goes south by road to Konya,
then north-west to Ak~ehir and over the Sultan Dag; alterna-
tively, he may use the Bagdad railway, go west as far as
Eski~ehir (Dorylaeum), and so to Ak~ehir via Afyon. It is this
latter, westward-looking route to which Calder drew attention 1
when he remarked on the vital importance of easy communi-
cation between Ancyra and Antioch; but the hard facts of
geography ensured that communication between these centres
was anything but easy. There was always the Sultan Dag to
be circumvented or crossed.
It is hardly surprising, then, that there is no evidence for
official ties between the two towns as such. The dynasts had
their own links. Even for those we possess but two pieces of
evidence: one, an inscription which mentions the participation
of a young citizen of Antioch, M. Verius Marcianus, in games
held at Ancyra, belongs to the end of the third century;2 the
other is the acephalous inscription attributed to L. Calpurnius
Proculus,3 which serves also to demonstrate a tie between the
I MAMA VII. xix: 'The obvious route was the route via Pessinous and Philo-
melion; the slight detour by way of J ustinianopolis and Pessinous which this
route involved could have been avoided by taking the shorter cut from the San-
garios by Yusukba~i and Selmea, referred to by Anderson in J HS xix, 1899, p. 299.'
, Anderson, JRS III (1913), 294 f., no. 23.
3 JRSXIV (1924), 177, no. 3, cf. PIR' C 303.
CITIES AND ARISTOCRACIES IN ANATOLIA 123
colony and Acmoneia. To this same Proculus was set up a dedi-

cation in the capital of the province. I On the strength of the
bond nothing can be said; we know only that it existed.
The principal ties between Antioch and Ancyra linked the
colony and the governor of the province of Galatia. The good-
will of the emperor's legate was always an ornament to a town;
sometimes it was useful. When secured, it was acknowledged
by conferment of the title patronus coloniae. Tj1fee inscriptions
record a relationship of this kind. What Cn. Pompeius Collega 2
and P. Calvisius Ruso Iulius Frontinus,3 legates of Galatia-
Cappadocia in 76 and 106-r r respectively,4 did to earn their
title we do not know. L. Antistius Rusticus (93), with his careful
planning of the colonial corn supply,s certainly deserved his.
Besides this, it seems that a satisfactory governor might be
remembered, and his son reminded of old ties. M. Arruntius,
son of Cornutus Arruntius Aquila, who built the Via Sebaste
during his governorship in 6 B.C., is also found as patronus
coloniae. 6 Finally, there are personal links between prominent
colonial families and governors of Galatia: members of local
families twice seem to have married into that of the governor,
completing or promoting a move from provincial to metro-
politan society.?
The evidence for ties with other cities falls into two cate-
gories: firstly, inscriptions set up by private persons containing
incidental references to those cities or to occupations connected
with them; secondly, dedications set up by one city for the
explicit purpose of honouring another. The two forms of
evidence are not altogether alien to one another, for the setting
up of honorific dedications, nominally the act of the whole
city, was in fact the work of the boule, that is, of a section of the
aristocracy, the section of the community which would be most
likely to come into contact with its counterpart in the other
cities and to regard the contact as important.
I lGR III. 180.
2 GIL 111.6817 (=ILS 998). 3 JRS III (1913), 302, fig. 74.
4 For the dates of all these governors, see Magie, Roman Rule II. 1596 f., and for
Ruso, MAMA VIII. 211. We should perhaps add C. Arrius C.f. Quirina Calpurnius
Frontinus Honoratus, patronus coloniae and honoured in a series of dedications set
up by the vici (GIL III. 6810 fr.=ILS 7198) he seems to belong to the early third
century (PlR2 A 1095).
5 JRSXIV (1924), 179 fr., no. 6; xv (1925), 255 fr.
6 GIL 111.6834, cf. JRSVl (1916), 97, fig. 9.. 7 See above, pp. 112, 115.
L24 CITIES AND ARISTOCRACIES IN ANATOLIA
It was natural, indeed inevitable, that Antioch-for in this

chapter we are again concerned only with the major colony-
should maintain close relations with the important cities of
Anatolia. Its situation on one of the main east-west roads put
it within easy reach of cities in the west and north, and its
commercial importance l will have stimulated these relation-
ships. It is with just these cities that Antioch is linked in the
inscription from Aphrodisias in Caria which records a xystarches
in the colony who, besides being a citizen of Pergamum, is
also a town councillor of Thera, Apollonia, Miletus, Pessin us,
and Claudiopolis in Bithynia. z
. The ties binding the great centres of civilization in western
Asia Minor were not new; they had their roots in the Hellenistic
period and were the stronger for that. It is for this reason that
Pergamum figures so prominently in the evidence that records
them. From r8g until r 33 B.C. the Pergamene dynasty dominated
Asia Minor, and even when the political power of Pergamum
faded, the artistic and intellectual prestige that it had acquired
remained. Thus, in the mid-first century B.C., the Pergamene
Menodotus married Adiobogiona, a daughter of Deiotarus,
who bore him, or Mithridates the Great, a son Mithridates. 3
No longer a city of first-class importance, Pergamum was kept
in the political picture by such marriages with the dominant
Galatian dynasties.
The towns that had fallen under the sway of Pergamum in
the second century never forgot it. Antioch, though nominally
a free city during this period, was deep in the Attalid dominions"
and could not have remained outside the Pergamene sphere of
influence:~ Under the Empire, Antioch, as a city with preten-
sions to culture-we know of archiatriS and iatri,6 philosophi,7
I See above, pp. 99 ff. 2 MAMA VIII. 421. g.
3 RE XV (1932),22°5 f.; Suppl. I (1903), 10.
4 The inscription published by Robinson, TAPA LVII (1926),233, no. 66, cannot
be used as evidence of a priesthood of Attalus III at Antioch; Ramsay's restoration
in ]HS L (1930), 274 f., as a dedication to Men, is preferable; cf. SEC VI. 579,
with notes. For the importance of Pergamum under the Empire, see Gren,
Kleinasien 13 f., and for its pretensions, Tacitus, Annals IV. 55·
5 ]RS II (1912), 95 f., no. 25; GR XXXIll (1919), 2, no. I; TAPA LVII (1926),
224, no. 48, 226, no. 52 (= SEC VI. 571), cf. ] HS LIII (1933), 318; GIL III. 6820.
6 ]RS XIV (1924), 199, no. 35, cf. TAPA LVII (1926), 224. For a medicus at
Cremna, see GIL III. 6879.
7 lLS7777 andAE 1933, 269; GRxxxlll (1919), 2, no. 1 ;]OAlxL (1953), 15f.
a hymnodus,1 a legal expert,2 an artist,3 a tragic actor,4 a man
reared by the Muses,s and a champion flute-player,6 as well
as a man who was 'universally known by his name and his
skill'7-would foster the connexion.
Three pieces of evidence attest the influence of Pergamum
upon Antioch. The first is the inscription set up by one of the
most distinguished citizens of Antioch, a member of the
Flavonius family, at the shrine of Asclepius Soter at Pergamum. 8
This belongs to the second century A.D. Still later there appears
at Antioch a Gellius Maximus who was probably a priest of the
same god. 9 If this was indeed his position, it is tempting to
suppose that he held it in virtue ofa connexion with Pergamum. IO
The temple at Pergamum was one with which the colony might
well be glad to maintain connexions. The cult of Asclepius
was widespread, and not by any means confined to the lower
classes of society. Such was its influence that it became one
of the most important enemies of Christianity. Asclepius, the
physician and saviour, was a worthy rival deity, dangerous just
because of his resemblance to Christ. II If an Antiochian priest
of the early third century is connected with Pergamum, Per-
gamene influence was profound and long-lasting.
Not unnaturally, the third link between Antioch and the
shrine is one of the philosophi mentioned above, Tiberius Claudius
Paullinus. A Latin inscription of the colonyI2 speaks of him in
the same terms as an altar found in the theatre at Pergamum,
which is dedicated to the philosopher 'hero' and to the Di
1 JRSXlV (1924),197, no. 30.
2 IGR III. 305: VOfUK6s.
3 JHSXXXlI (1912), 13S, no. 39: ~wyprJ."'os.
4 JRSXIV (1924), 199, no. 34: rpayo/86s.
5 JRS II (1912), 93, no. 22.
6 IG VII. 1776: KtiKAtoS aVA1J'Mis.
7 rVWTOV KurD; TraVTUS ovv6fLan TEXVfJ T€ (an ,unpublished inscription); to 'US)
unfortunately, neither name nor skill is known.
8 Ath. Mitt. XXXII (1907), 30S f., no. 23.
9 Ramsay, JRSXIV (1924),199, no. 3S; cf. Robinson, JRSxv (1925), 262, and
TAPA LVII (1926), 224, with no. 48;SEGV1. 563, dated A.D. 200-12; GIL III. 6820.
10 For the magnificent buildings there, clearly intended for the use of men of
leisure, see Wiegand, Zweiter Bericht fiber die Ausgrabungen in Pergamon 1928-32:
Das Asklepieion (Abh. der Preuss. Akad., der Wiss., Ph. Kl.,J. 1932, nr. 5 (Berlin, 1932).
On the respectability of the cult, see E. J. and L. Edelstein, Asclepius (Baltimore,
1945), II. II7 ff.
11 E. J. and L. Edelstein, op. cit. II. 132 ff.
12 ILS 7777.
Inferi.r This tie with the great Hellenistic religious centre was
a cultural one. Antioch, the military, political, and commercial
capital of south Galatia, would not be an intellectual back-
water, and it is satisfying to establish the existence oflinks which,
if they had not been found, would have had to be postulated.
It was long before the influence of Pergamene culture died
out at Antioch. Two inscriptions (one much restored)2 show
that in the fourth century there could still exist families in the
town which prided themselves on their scientific, philosophic,
and oratorical skill and still acknowledged the standards
that may have been adopted from Pergamum into this
Hellenistic foundation. Such was the the family of Gaius Cal-
purnius Collega Macedo, councillor, whose accomplishments
in all these fields, if we are to believe his epitaph, placed him
in the same rank as the masters of the classical period.
Like Pergamum and the other great cities of the west,
Antioch had connexions with the dynastic families of the in-
terior. A member of one such family, a Roman citizen whose
cognomen Strato was probably his original Greek name, became
duovir of the colony in the earliest period of its history,3 It was
a great honour for this member of an east Cilician dynasty to
hold a magistracy which was nbrmally reserved for the colonists
themselves and for distinguished Romans. Strato's tenure of the
duovirate of a Roman colony may be interpreted as an antici-
pation of developments described in the previous chapter:
later, more important dynasts would be admitted to the Roman
Senate itself.
Pergamum was not the only large and influential town in
western Anatolia; there was also Ephesus, an older centre, one
whose age had not brought respectability: Ephesus was never
I Wiegand, op. cit. 39, no. 2t: , . " f I .. >I
;z CRX:XXlll (1919), 2, no. I: pTjTopa EV TO'S QEKU )lOTjVU'WV 1TPWTO<S KATjpOV EXOVTU,
r/)£A6aotPoY Ta II"AaTwvos Kai 2WKpaTOVS €'T!- a{pOVjL€VOV, apxtaTpOV €V 'AoYOtS Kai
~PYO'S 'nl •[1T1TOKpd.TOVS "'OA,"~cruv.,.a, The second inscription, which refers to another
doctor in the family, has been republished as MAMA VIII. 404. The prodigy died
in his thirty-first year-Owv 1TpOVO{q.. The encomium may be foolishly exaggerated,
but it reveals the aspirations of leading citizens and points to the influence of
Pergamum. Robinson writes (TAPA LVII (1926), 233): 'Pergamene influence at
Antioch .•. is very marked in the sculptures which we excavated'; cr. The Art
Bulletin IX. i (1926), 5 f. But see also J. inan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and
Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture 36. 3 JRS II (1912), 105 ff., no. 43.
freed from its pre-Greek associations. Pergamum, a compara-

tively modern and very Greek city, was a centre of Greek art,
and of the cult of Asclepius and his science; Ephesus belonged
to the indigenous Anatolian goddess, the many-breasted
Artemis. Nevertheless it was a very great city,! and in the second
half of the second century A.D. two magnates of Antioch boasted
of their association with it. One of them was the same C.
Flavonius Anicianus Sanctus who made the dedication at Per-
gamum. He held the citizenship not only of Antioch but also
of Ephesus and Attaleia. z The connexion with Attaleia may
also be illustrated by the presence in both towns of members
of the gens Crepereia,3 and it was a natural enough tie to keep
up: their similar character will have drawn the two cities to-
gether, for although Attaleia was not an official Roman colony,
many of its citizens were of Italian descent, and it is commonly
thought to have received a group of settlers in the time of
Augustus. 4 Pergamum, Ephesus, Attaleia: three cities of sharply
differing history, manners, and reputation. Sanctus' connexion
with each may be taken to exemplify the interests and aspira-
tions both of the colony as a whole and of the diverse elements
of which it was made up and which had not yet coalesced.
The second link with Ephesus was embodied in Cn. Dottius
Plancianus, a duovir quinquennalis and benefactor of the colony,
who became Asiarchus templi splendidissimae civitatis Ephesi, where
he was selected by Marcus Aurelius to be agonothetes of the
certamen sacrum Hadrianion Ephesi. 5 This is one case of a man who
occupied high positions in two important Anatolian towns, and
it may be that he, or one of his parents, was an Ephesian by birth.
Finally, it was to Ephesus that a student of sophistic made his
way in the second century A.D.: Marcellus of Antioch became
the pupil of Soter, a practitioner whose highreputation-did not
long survive him. 6
I For its importance under the Empire, see Gren, Kleinasien 10 ff.
Z Belleten XI (1947), 96, no. 13.
3 Levick and Jameson, ]RS LIV (1964), 98 ff. 4 cr. ibid. 101 f.
5 GIL III. 6835 f., 6837 (= ILS 5081).
6 ]OAIxL (1953), 15 f. For Soter, see Philostratus, Vito Soph. 605. In view of
these ties between Antioch and Ephesus, it is more attractive to regard Gellius
Maximus, apX"f.,-p'l' Kul am; Mou"dov (]RS II ( I 912),95 f., no. 25, etc.), as belonging
to the Museum there rather than to those of Smyrna, cf. Robert, Etudes anatoliennes
(1937), 146, or Alexandria, cf. Stein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung
Aegyptens (Stuttgart, 191-5), 121 f.
Migration to and from cities in the neighbourhood of

Antioch was doubtless very frequent. The most popular moves
will have been to other towns along the highway, but the
evidence once thought to demonstrate that a certain Deborah
of Antioch settled in Apollonia with her husband must be re-
jected. 1 The evidence for Sagalassus, on the other hand, is un-
shaken. At some time between A.D. 2 I I and 222, the author of
a dedication to Gellius Maximus describes himself as a citizen
of Sagalassus, first and fairest city in Pisidia. 2 In spite of the
patriot's boast, Sagalassus, though it was within easy reach
of the high road, lay outside the main stream of Anatolian
affairs. It is plain that the link with Sagalassus was merely one
thread of a thickly woven web of connexions between the colony
and its neighbours. Another inscription from Antioch was set
up by a certain Piso in memory of his brother Titus, a citizen
of Hieropolis or Hierapolis. 3 Which of three Anatolian towns
is meant remains uncertain. Hieropolis Castabala in Cilicia
Pedias seems too remote; the nearest is Hieropolis in Phrygia,
lJut it is an obscure town and lies off the main road. Perhaps
Hierapolis Cydrara, on the Laodiceia-Sardis road, is the most
likely.
Thus far the links have been quite unofficial, but they existed
for the most part between members of the upper class which
dominated the towns. It was natural that there should also be
official expressions of good will. Here again there was contact
with the cities of north Galatia. Honorific inscriptions and
statues of Concord were set up to Antioch by Tavium4 and by
the people of Claudioseleuceia. 5 In the south-east, two small
towns which had close connexions with Antioch set up dedica-
tions couched in similar terms. The dedication made by Lystra
may belong to the end of the second century A.D.6 Pappa
I The stone was found at Apollonia: BCHxvII (1893), 257, no. 37; cf. WE 550;
Expositor III (1907), 78 ff.; Schilrer, Geschichte desjildischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi III (ed. 4, Leipzig, 1909), 21; MAMA IV. 202. Ramsay suggested that Deborah
was a member of the Jewish community at Antioch (Cities of St. Paul 255 ff.);
but for the view that she belonged to Antioch on the Maeander, See MAMA
VII. x, note 1.
• JRS II (1912), 95 f., no. 25. 3 EJ 146.
4 JRS II (1912), 84, no. 3: dedicated to r~v AUfl-7TpOrar1JV Kat u<j3aUfl-,wrar1Jv
'AVTtOX€WV KOAwv{av daE)..1>~v by I:e{3aa-rTj TPOK/LWV Taoula.
s JRSXIV (1924), 197, no. 26.
6 WE 352; see Appendix II for the signifi'cance of this inscription.
Tiberiopolis, on the road from Antioch to Iconium and Lystra,

expressed its goodwill towards the colony perhaps under An-
toninus Pius, at the time when it issued its only coins.!
The inter-city links described in this chapter might have been
assumed to exist if we had not had the evidence for them. Many
must have remained unrecorded; the evidence for others will
have been lost. Some have been traced back to their origins
in the Hellenistic age, and to this extent Antioch can be put
into its place in the complex of cultural and political relation-
ships that existed between these cities. The evidence is too
fragmentary to permit more than a glimpse of a few strands of
the fabric.
! BMC Lycia, etc., 233, I and 2, etc.; there may be a similarity between the
form of omega on the coins and that on the inscription, which I have not seen.
One of the reverse types of Pappa is a standing figure of Men similar to that which
appears on many coins of Antioch.
814259 K
XI
THE ABSORPTION OF THE COLONISTS

·AND THE DECLINE OF LATIN:
1. ANTIOCH
HIS and the following chapter will be devoted to one of
T the most important aspects of the history of these colonies:

the struggle for survival of a peculiarly Italian culture
surrounded by a diluted form of Greek civilization which in
Pisidia and southern Phrygia had reached only the towns and
their immediate neighbourhood. The question will be treated
here in detail; wider issues will be dealt with in the final
chapter.
The short account of its early history given in the first two
chapters makes it plain that the military conquest of Pisidia
was not enough, that the area must be, to some extent, civilized
and reconciled to its position in the Empire that controlled it.
It was in this that the superiority of the final solution lay; the
original military problem solved, the colonies continued their
work simply by existing. It cannot be doubted that their pre-
sence affected the native Pisidians; but, as it spread, the culture
of the Italian settlers became attenuated and lost itself, so that
eventually the colonies were almost indistinguishable from other
towns in the region.
This is the process which is now to be traced. It is worth
while to say something first about the ways in which the avail-
able evidence may be used and about the difficulties of assessing
it. First of all, the question 'what constitutes romanization?'
must be faced. One of the more obvious parts of the answer is
'the use of the Latin language'. This will be the foremost
criterion; it was indeed that of the Emperor Claudius. I As long
as the inhabitants of the colonies understood and spoke Latin,
it may be assumed, some measure of Italian culture remained. 2
I See above, p. 10 4.
• Calder's phraseology, MAMA VII. xxx, 'Latin ••• became fashionable on
THE DECLINE OF LATIN: 1. ANTIOCH 131
For the prevalence of Latin two forms of evidence are avail-

able: inscriptions and coins. Neither is completely safe to use.
An epigraphist might be tempted to assign a stone to the fourth
century, for example, because it is written in poor characters,
rather like those on another stone known to belong to the fourth
century. He might be right to do so, but it would not be legiti-
mate to use stones dated solely by this method to time the de-
cline in the use of Latin in these colonies. The coins, on the
other hand, can always be dated to a given reign, sometimes
to a period of a few months. I The disadvantages of this form
of evidence are twofold. In the first place, the use of Latin on
coins may have persisted, as it does in Britain today, from mere
traditionalism, or because the colonists knew that the right to
use Latin was a privilege and a sign that they occupied a higher
status in the hierarchy of communities within the Roman Empire
than their neighbours who used Greek. That Latin was used
on coins need not mean that it was used in daily life. Again,
the standard of romanization of the die-engraver need not be
that of the population at large. Ifhe found himself in difficulties
he could consult a more learned friend, or, at worst, take to
unintelligent copying, which was what eventually occurred.
He may, on the other hand, belong to a class of the population
which had never adopted Latin-or Greek, for that matter-
as its daily speech, much less learned to write it. One illiterate
die-engraver could make the standard appear to fall cata-
strophically within a period of a few years; such a fall is not
necessarily to be correlated with a general decline in the ability
of the public to speak Latin. Admittedly, one would not expect
a literate town to keep so patently illiterate a die-engraver in
its employment, but he may have been the only one available.
How many of the third-century inhabitants of Antioch could
read and understand the legends on their coins it is impossible
to say. Ho~ever, granted the proviso that an estimate based
on the coin legends may exaggerate a current trend, this form
of evidence seems to be a good one for the purpose.
Romanization manifests itself in other, more general, ways
tombstones and other private documents', surely begs the question. For the
limitations of this form of evidence, see Gren, Kleinasien 27, note 88.
1 For the importance of coinage in Anatolian studies, see Bosch, Arch. Anz.
XLVI (1931),424 ff.

'132 THE ABSORPTION OF THE COLONISTS AND
than in the use of Latin; Chinese settlers in Malaya forget
their native tongue before they give up Chinese customs. For
example, in the subjects chosen for sculpture, and in the style
and manner in which those subjects are treated, it is sometimes
possible to detect an element which is peculiarly Italian. Like
inscriptions, sculpture cannot, except in the rarest cases, be
assigned an exact date, and here there is also the dangerous
pro blem of interpretation. 1
Similar care has to be taken when the designs on the reverse
of the local coinage are examined. Coins again provide a fuller
and more trustworthy record of the. interests of the town,
and one that can be dated, but romanization will be over-
emphasized here too, for coin types reflect official policy and
interests rather than the preoccupations of individual citizens.
Into a third category may be put such varied kinds of
evidence as forms of magistracy, kinds of amusement popular
in the colonies, religious ceremonies, and so on. Most of these
are known from the evidence of inscriptions, and subject to the
objections already mentioned. It might be assumed, for example,
that a magistracy with a Greek title cannot belong to the earliest
period of a colony;2 this again would beg the chronological
question.
There is one final problem. It is essential, and very difficult,
to distinguish the specific weakening and ultimate dying out of
Italian culture and the Latin language from the general lower-
ing of cultural standards which, in association with a desperate
economic and political situation, becomes noticeable in the
third century A.D. The onset of this decline undoubtedly
hastened the disappearance of Latin and of the distinctively
Roman element from the colonies, for Latin was an exotic
plant in the east,3 hardly able to stand up to the cultural and
economic winter of the third century. In the middle of that
century Latin of this sort appeared on the coinage of Antioch:
IMP CAER.AS LLOVNAHIAC4
but at Philomelium, fifteen miles away over the Sultan Dag,
there had already appeared the following, written in Greek:
I cr. the difficulties raised by Ramsay's remarks in JHS L (1930), 273.
2 See above, pp. 73 r.
3 See L. Hahn, Romanismus, passim, and especially 110 fr., 208 fr.
4 SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 86: bungled titles of Valerian.
-:r;HE DECLINE OF LATIN: 1. ANTIOCH 133
AVK·r ·OVE 18·r AAAO NCE8. 1

Purely technical bungling will have to be distinguished very
carefully from ignorance of Latin.
This survey of the evidence suggests that three forms are
worth study: inscriptions in bulk, the legends on the coins,
and the designs chosen for their reverses.
I shall begin with an analysis of the use of Greek and Latin
in the inscriptions of Antioch and its territorium. There is bound
to be some degree of error in such an analysis: by no means all
the inscriptions set up at Antioch have survived to be seen and
recorded; many of those which have been copied are so frag-
mentary that some Qf them must be parts of single inscriptions
and should be pieced together. The fewer the total number
of inscriptions submitted to such an analysis, the greater the
degree of inaccuracy. At Antioch, however, there is an excep-
tionally large number of inscriptions, enough to allow general
conclusions to be drawn. They may be divided into several
categories and the percentage of Latin worked out in each case. Z
This method has made it impossible to generalize about the
decline of Latin in the colonies. Ramsay would claim, for
example, that at least by the Flavian period Latin was begin-
ning to give way to Greek. 3 But a language is always used by
I BMC Phrygia, 359, no. 35: bungled titles of Trebonianus Gallus.
• The survey claims to be as comprehensive as publications to date and the
work of the writer, carried out in 1955 and 1962, permit. It does not include the
inscriptions set up by the Tekmoreian Xenoi, many of whom came from outside
the territorium. Latin inscriptions form just under 41 per cent. of the total; cf. the
figures given by Calder in MAMA vn. xxx f. : in western and central Phrygia Latin
and Greek are used in the ratio of 3 :100; at Antioch the figures are 7: 10. (Calder
goes on to say that in the area covered by MAMA I and VII the percentage of
Latin inscriptions is 1'7, while at Antioch it is 70.) The ratio of7: 10, which produces
a percentage of about 41 of the total number, is almost identical with that yielded
by the present survey. Calder's figures were based on the results of only four ex-
peditions.
3 e.g. Hist. Comm. Gal. 208: 'the ordinary language of society was Greek';
Social Basis 132: 'St. Paul heard only Greek in Col. Antiochea'; ]RSvl (1916), 93:
'a change begins under the Flavian emperors'. Sometimes, he distinguishes be-
tween public and private inscriptions, as in Cities of St. Paul 280. Cf. Hahn,
Romanismus 95: 'Diese r6mischen Kolonien erhielten die Sitten und die Sprache
Roms gegenilber der ringsum andriingenden Griechenwelt iihnlich wie Coririth
wohl nur auf eine geraume Zeit. Die lateinische Sprache starb als Volkssprache
in den in Asien gelegenen Kolonien wohl bald aus. Man versuchte aber das
Latein in den offiziellen Dokumenten und auf den Milnzen aufrecht zu erhalten
und es erhielt sich bei den r6mischen Kolonien in Osten bis in die 2. Hiilfte des
3. Jahrh.'
134 THE ABSORPTION OF THE COLONISTS AND
a person or a group of people for a purpose; by what people,

speaking or writing for what purpose, had Latin begun to be
abandoned in the Flavian period?
The analysis shows a very striking difference between the
usage of the colony acting as a whole and that of its citizens
setting up their own independent inscriptions. The over-
whelming majority of inscriptions for which the government of
the colony was responsible-criteria for these are mentions of
the decurions, populus or vici-are in Latin, while private
honorific dedications, tombstones, and above all offerings to
the god Men tend to be in Greek. This was only to be expected,
and there is nothing exciting about it; but enough stones can
be dated to allow more detailed conclusions to be drawn.
Without exception, every dedication set up at Antioch in
honour of an emperor is in Latin. It must be admitted that in
this class of tituli there are a number of fragments of architrave,
so that one broken inscription may have been taken for several,
but the uniformity is remarkable. The greater number of these
Latin inscriptions belong to the late third century or the fourth;
most are the work of the praeses Valerius Diogenes. 1 More
surprising is the persistence of Latin in the fifty-one dedications
made to honour magistrates and benefactors of the colony,
governors of the province, and private individuals: no less than
forty-five are in Latin. Moreover, it can be shown that of the
six Greek examples, at least three belong to the very end of
the third century or later, for they mention Antioch as a metro-
polis and a governor, Secundus, who held office when Antioch
enjoyed that status. 2 Latin inscriptions are spread evenly over
the first and second centuries from the very earliest period of
the colony, that of the dedications to Caristanius, through the
Novius, Dottius, and Arrius series; many of those which cannot
be securely dated may belong to the third century or even later.3
In strong contrast are the four goodwill dedications set up
by friendly cities in honour of Antioch.4 All these are in Greek.
Since only one of these cities, Lystra, was a Roman colony, it is
I e.g. JRSXIV (1924), 197, no. 2S; GIL III. 6806 fr.
2 EJ 92,96; JRS II (1912), 86, no. 5.
3 Caristanius: ILS 9502 f.; Novius series, see JRS XLVIll (1958), 75, note IS;
Dottius series: GIL Ill. 6835 f., 6837 (= ILS 5081) ; Arrius series: GIL Ill. 68 I 0 fr.
(=ILS 7198), Anat. Stud. xv (1965), 59, no. 2, and unpublished.
" WE 352; EJ 97; JRS II (1912), 84, no. 3; XIV (1924), 197, no. 26.
THE DECLINE OF LATIN: I. ANTIOCH 135
,
not surprising that Greek was the language they preferred to
employ. It has, however, been taken as an indication that the
use of Latin was in decline at the end of the second century,
the date- usually assigned to these inscriptions. It is indeed
strange that a dedication in Greek was acceptable to the Roman
colony, itself so careful to use Latin for its public inscriptions,
but the date may be later than has been supposed; not later
than Diocletian, for Antioch is still colonia rather than metropolis.
All the twenty-nine unclassifiable public inscriptions are in
Greek; this is because all but two of them are connected with
the games established at the end of the third century in honour
of Men Askaenos. One of the others l is certainly Byzantine.
In private tituli the proportion of Latin to Greek is generally
much lower. Dedications set up by one individual to another
may be found in Greek before A.D. go, the work of a member
of the most distinguished family in the colony.2 Within the
next century and a half two Antiochian senators had been
honoured in Greek inscriptions set up by their dependants. 3
On the other hand, although four of the nine Latin dedications
belong to the first century, several of the fourteen that are in-
scribed in Greek exhibit indigenous names, such as Babis, Papas,
Iman, Tateis, and Manes. 4 The predominance of Greek (seventy
examples out of eighty-five) is far more marked in the category
devoted to funerary inscriptions, where three of the Latin speci-
mens belong to veterans of the original settlement, that is, to the
Augustan age. Nine of the Greek inscriptions are later than
A.D. 2 I4, as is shown by the appearance of the pseudo-praenomen
Aurelius, and there will have been an intermediate period when
the balance between the languages used on tombstones was
shifting in favour of Greek. Again, out of I25 dedications to
Men, only eighteen are in Latin, and two of those probably
belong to the first century A.D.S
Of the remaining categories little need be said, except
I ]RS n (1912),88, no. 7; no. 6 is dated to the fourth century by Calder,
ad loc., and to the third by Ramsay, Cities if St. Paul 283.

2 ]RS III (1913), 262, no. 5.'
3 Flavonius Paullinus: TAPA LVII (1926),230, no. 62 ; L. Calpurnius Reginianus:
fGR III. 299. 4 WE 362 f., and TAPA, loco cit. 232, no. 63.
5 For the date of the dedications made by M. Claudius Cleitomachus (]RSVIII
(1918), 117 f.), see now J. lnan and E. Rosenbaum, Roman and Early Byzantine Port-
rait Sculpture in Asia Minor 208 f.
that most of the dedications to private individuals, where the
dedicator is unknown and where Latin outnumbers Greek by
twenty-two to one, are probably the work of the arda; all
those that can be dated belong to the first 200 years of the
colony's history. Forty-six inscriptions are too fragmentary to
be classified; of these twenty-five are in Latin.
o It may be concluded from this analysis of inscriptions that
Latin remained the language used by the colonists for official
purposes, for dedications to the emperor, officials, and private
persons, until Antioch became the metropolis of the new pro-
vince of Pisidia in about 297. Even after that, one may suspect
that its position as a metropolis and the seat of the governor
gave a new impetus to the use of Latin, which by that time was
beginning to weaken. One symptom of its decline was the use
of Greek in the decree that established the sacred games, an-
other the acceptance of honorific dedications in Greek.
For private purposes, then, the inhabitants of Antioch tended,
after the first century A.D., to use Greek, especially in religious
contexts, when the object was direct communication with the
god, or on tombstones, where the feelings of the bereaved
sought a natural outlet.
Yet it is possible to draw another distinction across this series
of inscriptions besides that of date: one of class and race. Public
dedications set up by the colony were in Latin not only because
they were official documents, but because they were the work
of a small, compact, upper class of Italian settlers, who de-
bated in Latin and issued their decrees in that language. How
soon the decurions found themselves debating in a language
they would not use at home is impossible to say. Many factors
are involved; not least important are the wives they chose.
Dedications to Men, which form the most numerous class of
inscriptions, represent, on the whole, the lower, native strata
of the population, as the nomenclature shows; tombstones, .
0
which come second, represent a whole cross-section. In the

latter category a nucleus of Roman settlers may be discerned
in the early period. As time went on, some of these colonial
families died out. For example, no Campusius of any generation
later than the first is known from epigraphic or other sources.
Other families must have been absorbed into the native popula-
tion, so that their inscriptions can no longer be distinguished
from the rest; they were the weaker sort, and those whose grasp
of their Italian heritage was most precarious. The overwhelm-
ing majority of the Men dedications, however, as well as many
of the funerary inscriptions, must be attributed to a strictly
non-Italian lower class, which could not, in some cases, write
even Greek correctly. I
The Italian aristocracy began by speaking Latin, the Graeco-
Phrygian native by speaking Greek (of a sort) or Phrygian;
with the sharp, deeply felt, and rigidly maintained distinction
between honestiores and humiliores which existed throughout the
Roman world, backed up in the colonies by a consciousness of
racial differences which would by no means diminish as its
basis became progressively more slender, it was natural that
this state of affairs should continue, as it seems to have done,
for some time. 2
We may turn now to the evidence afforded by numismatics
for a check on these conclusions and for an indication of the
speed of the processes involved. Within the limits already men-
tioned, it should be possible to discover the stage they had
r~ached at any given time and to trace a decline which, if it
is observable only within a narrow field, may at least be watched
continuously.
The original name of the town was Antiocheia; Colonia was
added when it became a colony, Caesarea probably a little
earlier. 3 As Roman influences succumbed to Greek, there would
be a tendency to neglect new names and to revert to the old,
simple form. As one would expect, COL CAES appears on the
Augustan coinage without ANTIOCH, but on the only known
reverse of Titus the legend is ANT/COL.4 From Titus until Elaga-
balus, the name Caesarea is absent from the majority of reverse
dies. Under Elagabalus and Severus Alexander there is an even
balance; Gordian's issues tend to have the name, perhaps be-
cause the flans were large and there was more space to fill
up. From then on, Caesarea is absent from an overwhelmingly
I There is a good collection of solecisms in an unpublished memorial tablet
and a strange mistake in EJ 142; cf. Calder in Revue de Philologie XLVI (1922),
129 f., no. 19, and MAMA VII. xxxii.
2 As Hahn says (Romanismus 95) : 'Der konservative Sinn und der der National-
stolz des Riimertums, der sich hierin kundgibt, machte gewiss eine vollstandige
und baldige HeHenisierung schwer.'
3 Ramsay, JRS VI (1916), 86. • BMC Lycia, etc., 176, no. 4.
high proportion of coins, appearing on one die of Decius, one

of Volusian, and two of Gallienus. 1 This pattern of gradual
decline in its use, of growing carelessness in the niceties of
colonial titulature, interrupted by a revival in the third century
and followed by a very sharp decline to the end of the coinage,
is a remarkable one.
A similar pattern is traceable in the gradual intrusion of
Greek letter forms. The first reverse error occurs under Pius,2
but it is only on an issue of L. Verus that there is the first defi-
nite case of a Latin letter being replaced by a Greek one. 3 How-
ever, in the time of the Severi the mint can still introduce new
legends without bungling them. 4 The larger issues of Gordian
III are more correctly inscribed than the smaller,s but by the
next reign the mint is no longer capable of dealing adequately
with an unfamiliar legend. 6 The tendency to bungle grows
stronger with Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian,7 and soon
develops into sheer illiteracy rather than the substitution of
I In two cases it is so truncated as to be almost unrecognizable: Decius: BMC,
loc. cit. 198, no. 124 (ANTIOC H !GOLCA); Volusian: Mion. Supp!. VII. 108, no. 114
(ANTIO,CA.CL.); Gallienus: id., III. 505, no. 83 (COL.CAES.ANTIOCH). Ramsay
(JRS XIV (1924), 173) even claimed tbat as early as 90 A.D. the official title of the
colony was Col. Antioch. Perhaps we should not go furtber than saying that under
Augustus, Tiberius, and Vespasian, Colonia Caesarea was the official title, or rather
that these names were considered the more important elements of the title. (COL.
CAE. ANTI. SR. on Mion. III. 492, no. 2, is the result of tooling.) By Titus' reign the
old name of Antiochia had become more prominent. It cannot be said that this alone
was the official title, since Caesarea continued to appear regularly during the first
half of the third century.
2 NEMESIS COL.CAES. ANTHIOCH (Imperatorum Romanorum Numismata . . • ab
Adolpho Oceone olim congesta. , . curante Philippo Argelato (Mediolani, 1730), 206) ;
NEMESIS is probably a misreading for MENSIS.
3 KM II. 359, no. 14: COLONIAE CAEC ANTIOCH. COLONEIA[E] ANTIOCHAE
(BMC Lycia, etc., 179, no. IS) of Commodus may be due to Greek influence;
F ORTUNACOLONIAI. AN TIOCH under Septimius Severus (op. cit. 18 I, no. 30)
and MENCIS COL ANTIOCH under Caracalla (SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 43) also
suggest that Greek was the language familiar. to the engraver.
4 VIRTAVG COLANTIOCHI S. R. (Hirsch XIII (1905), 4274, and BMC Lycia, etc., 184,
no. 50) is a newcomer. ANTIOCH. ENG. (Rasche, Lexicon, Supp!. I, 750) shows
mere lack of intelligence; cf. HOOITNA 1., AaaOJOO r., of Severus Alexander (KM
II. 361, no. 22). At this time the only other error is omission of the A of CAES (e.g.
NC, Ser. rv, vol. xrv (1914), 308, no. 21, BMC Lycia, etc., 187, nos. 66 f.).
5 Cf. Wadd. 3602, 3604, but CAEAN TIOC HOCLls R is found on the large 'priest
ploughing' type (BMC Lycia, etc., 189, no. 79).
6 BMC Lycia, etc., 299, no. 109 A: ANTIIosIANTIOCHlcOL.
7 ANTIOCH'r'coLOL (RN, Ser. IV, vol. VI (1902), 348, no. 91) and ANTIOC HI
COLAls R (BMC Lycia, etc., 198, no. 127)'
Greek for Latin letters.' It is clear that the only element in the
legend that meant anything to the engraver was ANTIOCH. The
standard remains henceforward at roughly the same level. This
sudden decline after the reign of Gordian IIIz fits in well with
the date of the disappearance of the name Caesarea from the
reverse.
The decline of the obverse legend was even more spectacular
and sudden. The first, very minor, mistake occurs under
L. Verus;3 errors multiply with the succeeding emperors, and
the lowest level is reached with the dies engraved under Volusian
and Valerian. 4 The obverses of Gallienus and Claudius II are
almost as bad as those of their predecessors. They are a hotch-
potch of Greek and Latin with some meaningless strokes at the
end, the work of a man who could write neither language,
tolerable only to a population whose pride in their colony had
dwindled to a vague awareness that they had a special connexion
with Rome which must at all costs be maintained. The bungling
of legends suggests a sudden decline beginning in the reign of
Gordian III-too sudden indeed not to suggest that it has been
I A favourite fault is dittography: ANTIOCHIOCH, ANTIOCHICICE, ANTIOCHIOCLA
(KM n. 363, no. 29; BMC Lycia, etc., 199, no. 129; RN, loco cit. 349, no. 92,
respectively). Such things as AN TI OHC10 (?) and ANTIGH.O.C • .L (BMC Lycia, etc.,
200, no. 138, and Mion. Supp!. VII. 110, no. 125, respectively) are produced under
Gallienus.
2 Earlier than J. G. Milne, }fC, Ser. VI, vol. VII (1947), 97 ff., would put it.
3 CAISAR for CAESAR in }fC, Ser. IV, vo!' XIV (1914), 307, no. 14, BMC Lycia,
etc., 178, nos. II ff.; cf. ILS 422, from Cyprus. It is likely at this period that
the mistake was due more to Greek than to archaic Latin influence, especially as
CAEC for CAES is found on Antiochian reverses of the same ruler. Ramsay attributes
the forms 'scribai', 'Viviai' on an early tombstone (]RS VI (1916), 90, no. I) to
archaizing tendencies of Italian peasant coloni. In Social Basis 62, he attributes
other peculiarities of the stone to the fact that 'the Greek lapicida did not know
the Latin G, and subsituted c'. If he is right here, the -ai ending must also be
regarded as a Graecism; but his first view seems preferable. At the colonies
Parium and Alexandria Troas there is a similar error on coins of Commodus and
later emperors: CAl for CAE on BMC Mysia, 105 f., nos. 101 ff., Troas, etc., 16 f.,
nos. 64 ff. For the substitution of AI for AE on inscriptions of Corinth during the
reign of Claudius, see Corinth: Results of Excavations conducted by the American School
of Classical Studies at Athens VIII. ii. (Cambridge, Mass., 1931), 10, no. I I, and 18.
no. 19.
4 BMC Lycia, etc., 189, no. 79, and 193, nos. 96 f.; Weber 7374: GORDIANOVS;
Mion. III. 502, no. 66: FILIPPVS; Supp!. VII. 105, no. 98: PHILLIPVS; BMC Lycia,
etc., 196, no. I 18: PILIPPVS. IIiAmTro, is found on a Christian inscription at Konya
(]RSXIV (1924),193, no. IS). The obverses of Trajan Decius and the single kno""Il
specimen of Trebonianus Gallus (R}f, Ser. IV, vol. VI (1902), 348, no. 91) are
correctly written, but of the score of Volusian's obverses and the seventeen of
Valerian's, only one or two are not bungled.
a little distorted by the medium through which we have to
observe it. Loss of civic pride and low standards of literacy,
perhaps associated with the Persian menace and the Gothic
invasions of the fifties and sixties, would be exaggerated on the
death of a single skilled engraver.
In these years of crisis, central Anatolia was, for the first
time since the civil wars which followed Caesar's death,
threatened by foreign invasion. For two and a half centuries
the cities had enjoyed a tranquillity which had been broken
only by the convulsions attendant upon the rise to power of
Septimius Severus. The cities carried on, less opulent than
before, but hardly less sure of their future. In the event, Rome
proved unable to secure them against the enemy, and they
abandoned whatever was not essential to their survival. In
a general jettisoning of the adornments of civic life, a nice
exactitude over the legends on the local coinage must have been
one of the first sacrifices; soon the coinage itself would go. In
these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that Roman
colonies, with their carefully maintained superstructure of
Latin culture, should have shown such marked symptoms.
They were not confined to Antioch and her sisters. At Parium
the coin legends suffer exactly the same fate in the reign of
Gallienus 1 as those of Antioch under Valerian.
The evidence afforded by the legends is definite, but the
choice of reverse types must give a final indication of the pre-
dominance or subordination of the Greek and Anatolian
elements. If we were to accept the view of those who, like
Ramsay, assume a comparatively speedy absorption of the
Italians and their way oflife into the Graeco-Phrygian culture
by which they were surrounded, we should expect characteris-
tically Roman types in the early period, Greek and local long
before the end of the coinage. Although the evidence is incom-
plete-the coins are very rare before the Antonine age, and
they become plentiful only with the Severi-it is sufficient to
show that this is not the case. It is true that the 'wolf and twins'
type begins early, under Marcus Aurelius, but so does the
'head of Men' type, with its strong local flavour. 2
The types that lasted until the end of the coinage will have
1 BMC Mysia, 108, nos. 118 fr.
• BMC Lycia, etc., 177 f., nos. 8 and 10, respectively.

"
been those that meant most to the local population, and those
that were easiest to execute. Many besides the 'wolf and twins'
are distinctly Roman in character. I I t was the 'vexillum between
two standards, with or without eagles, wreaths or hands as
ornaments' that alone survived until the reign of Claudius II.
J. G. Milne2 speaks of a 'lingering Roman, mainly military,
tradition', but the 'vexillum and standards' type proper begins
only with Elagabalus,3 and no other military type survives the
reign of Gordian III. This design soon began to predominate
over every other issued by the Antiochian mint, being struck
under every emperor in increasingly large quantities. The
explanation of the preoccupation of the colonial mint"masters
with this type has been given by C. Bosch.4 Antioch was a halt-
ing place on the route taken by the army to the eastern front.
It is a very striking fact that, of all the local types, only that
of the river-god, Anthios, survives. s It, too, is one of the reverses
which begin to appear late in the coinage. From the time of
Caracalla it occurs more and more frequently, especially after
the reign of Gordian III. Fifteen miles away, at Philomelium,
the corresponding river-god, Gallos, was also becoming
I Of types referring to the emperor few survived. The 'emperor on horseback'
lasts until Valerian's reign (BM (Rollin and Feuardent 17)), the 'busts of the
emperor and Men in two cornuacopiae joined at base' until that of Gallienus (NC,
Ser. IV, vol. XN (1914), 309, no. 24). It is a remarkable type, strongly recalling the
issue of Tiberius which commemorated the birth of Drusus' twins (RIC I. 107,
no. 28). Dieudonne (RN, Ser. IV, vol. VI (1902), 349) compares it with a cameo
in the Cabinet de France (Babelon, Catalogue des Camees de la BibliothCque Nationale
145, no. 277) representing the bust of Messalina with the heads of her two children,
emerging from cornuacopiae in the same way. Only two of the 'colonial' reverse
types are very persistent. These are 'priest/colonus ploughing', which appears as early
as Titus (BMC Lycia, etc., 176, no. 4) and is issued almost without a break from
Septimius Severus until Gallienus (Mion. III. 505, no. 81), and that of the city's
Genius or Fortuna, which in various forms appears under all emperors from
Pius to Gallienus (BMC, loc. cit. 200, no. 138, Mion. Suppl. VII., 110, nos. 124f.).
Finally, the 'ANTIOCH COLONIA round SR' type was considered important enough
to be issued under Gallienus (Hunter n. 519, no. 35; Mion. III. 505, no. 83) after
most other types had died out, though it began only with Gordian III. Milne
remarks (NC, Ser. VI, vol. VII (1947), 101) that 'in the issues of Gordian III there
can be found a certain local flavour in the subjects illustrated on the reverses'. In
fact about 26 of the 3 I subjects illustrated are of a Roman nature; the only local
reverses initiated under Gordian are 'Men with Genius/Fortuna' (Mion. Supp!.
VII. 102, no. 81) and 'Men in temple' (KM II. 361, no. 23).
2 Op. cit. 102.
, Mion. Supp!. VII. 100, no. 63.

4 Arch. Anz. XLVI (1931), 426 f., followed by Gren, Kleinasien 50.
s Until Gallienus: KM II. 363, no. 30.
important,! There the type begins under Severus Alexander,

and by the end of the coinage it is one of the only two surviv-
ing designs. The two gods are very much alike.
Men, on the other hand, is not represented on the coinage
after the reign of Philip II. This is very surprising. The 'bust
of Men' was one of the commonest pre-colonial types, and it
recurs on coins from M. Aurelius to Gordian III,z while the
standing figure of the god, holding Nike and staff, with his left
foot on a bucranium, began under Pius. 3 The importance of Men
to the inhabitants of the colony, already obvious from the
inscriptions, is also demonstrated by references to him on types
with which he has no apparent connexion. 4 None of these types
occurs after 244, however, and no revival of the cult's popularity
in the middle of the third century that would have been likely
to lead to the establishment of the games on Kara Kuyu s is
reflected in the coinage, though the influence of the cult may
be observed in the 'busts of the emperor and Men in cornua-
copiae' types 6 and in the 'vexillum' type: a crescent appears
on the shaft of the central vexillum on many of the coins struck
in the fifties. 7
Finally, all three of the new types which appear under
Volusian are of a distinctly Roman flavour. They are 'Roma,
seated, with kneeling barbarian',8 'Roma, seated, with shield
and spear',9 and 'Roma, standing, with Nike, shield, and
spear' ;10 all highly significant in view of the danger from Goths
and Persians.
1 BMC Phrygia, 356 If., nos. 20, 28-30, 32, 35-42.
2 M. Aurelius: BMC Lycia, etc., 178, no. 10; Commodus: the Vienna collec-
tion, no. 15; Septimius Severus: KM II. 360, no. 15; Severus Alexander: NC,
Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914), 308, no. 21; Gordian III: Wadd. 3601, cf. AM 1.
3 BMC Lycia, etc., 177, no. 5.
4 e.g., in the crescent above the ploughing colonus of BMC, ibid., 176, no. 4.
The god is also represented in his temple and with the Genius/Fortuna (above,
p. 141, note I ) . ' 5 ]RS III (1913), 267 If.
6 Volusian: RN, Ser. IV, vol. VI (19°2),348 f., no. 92; Gallienus: NC, Ser. IV,
vol. XIV (1914), 309, no. 24.
7 See Milne, NC, Ser. VI, vol. VII (1947), Plates III f. One die has a straight
stroke instead of the crescent, (Plate IV, 3); even if, as Milne suggested, the en-
graver did not understand their meaning, he could have copied the clear crescents
of the other dies. It would be fanciful to see a Christian reference in this variant, but
such ignorance does not suggest that the cult of Men was flourishing in this period.
S KM II. 363, no. 29a; SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 89. 9 AM 2.
10 Mion. III. 504, no. 77 ('Pallas'), cf. SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 91, (Deutschland)
Samml. v. Aulock, 4980 ('Athena').
It cannot be said, then, that local influences ultimately pre-
vailed in the choice of Antiochian reverse types. On the con-
trary, the coinage ends on a distinctly Roman note. Here there
is to be observed a dichotomy similar to that which was pointed
out in connexion with the epigraphic evidence. Large coins
might be decorously Roman, for local sentiment was being
expressed in the designs executed on small denominations.!
This evidence strengthens and amplifies the impression given
above by the inscriptions: an Italian upper class-or something
which regarded itself as an Italian upper class-clinging obs-
tinately at once to their Latin and their pre-eminence, using
Latin at first because it was their native language, ultimately
out of pride and ostentation. It is a picture of an outpost of
Rome, exposed to all the dangers which beset Asia Minor in
the third century, determined to the end to prove itself, through
its coinage, more Roman than Rome itself, betraying through
the barbarousness of that same coinage how thin the crust of
romanization had become.
The process of change was continuous, and it is not easy to
fix any date in it as the crucial one. The evidence of artistic
style, however, suggests that for Antioch the post-Sever an
period, and especially the middle years of the third century,
were very difficult ones, as they were for the whole Roman
world, and it must have been during this period that the pro-
cess was decisively accelerated. Coin legends tell the same story,
but they indicate that until this time the decline had gone less
far than has generally been supposed. For the first two centuries
of the colony's history, Latin held its ground. This is not sur-
prising; the knowledge of Latin was a symbol of its status and
a justification of its privileges. It has been seen that the use of
I In the imperial period the following types appear: cock (rev.) : BMCLycia, etc.,
176, nos. I, 3 ; humped bull (rev.) : K Mil. 358, no. 6, Hunter II. 515, no. I ; bust of
Men (obv.): BMC, loco cit., no. 3, Hunter, loco cit., no. I; bust of Hermes (obv.):
Wadd.3575, 3577 f., KM II. 358, nos. 6 and 7, NC, Ser.lv, vol. XIV (1914), 301, nos.
I fT. BMC, loco cit., nos. I and 2,SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 16fT.; (rev.) :NC,loc.
cit. 302, no. 9, KM, loco cit., no. 8; winged caduceus (rev.) : KM, loco cit., no. 7;
modius (rev.): NC, loco cit. 301, nos. I f., cf. BMC, loco cit., no. 2 ('lighted altar');
warrior (rev.): Wadd. 3577; slinger (rev.): ibid. 3579; bust of Heracles (obv.): KM
II. 358, no. 8. According to F. Imhoof-Blumer (KM II. 358) these coins all belong
to the Severan period, but Sir G. Hill, with good reason, assigned them (NC, loco
cit. 302) to various emperors. Amongst these types are significant survivals from
the pre-colonial period: bust of Men (KM II. 356, no. I), standing bull (loc. cit.,
no. 2, BMC Caria, etc., IS, no. 5).
144 THE DECLINE OF LATIN: 1. ANTIOCH
Latin for official purposes continued until the fourth century. I

That the overwhelming majority of gravestones and dedica-
tions to Men are in Greek proves nothing, for it has never been
suggested that the lower strata of the population began by
being romanized. Yet, in spite of these classes of predominantly
Greek dedications, the percentage of Latin in inscriptions is as
high as forty-one.
One factor which may have retarded the decline of Latin at
Antioch was the army. It is well known that the Romans hoped,
by settling colonies, to increase the flow of recruits: 2 such towns
would possess a strong military tradition, and there would be
a tendency for sons to follow their father's profession. From this
point of view, Antioch seems to have been a successful founda-
tion: the meagre evidence available to us shows twenty-four
citizens of the colony spending some part of their life in military
service of one kind or another. L. Hahn has demonstrated 3
the importance of the army as a romanizing factor in the eastern
lands of the Roman Empire. It is certain then that even if
Latin was not the language habitually used by young men from
Antioch when they joined up, they were thoroughly well
acquainted with it by the time they were discharged.
I A century later than Hahn (Romanismus 95) would allow. For the persistence
of esprit de corps amongst Roman communities settled in the towns of Asia Minor,
see SEC lI. 744 ('saec. III vel IV p. Chr.') : 0' .g dpxa{ov KaTo'KOVVT€S 'Pwp,afo,.
2 [Sallust], Ad Caes. lI. 5, 8; Livy XXVII. 9. xi; Tacitus, Annals XI. 24.
3 Romanismus 160 if.
XII
THE ABSORPTION OF THE COLONISTS

AND THE DECLINE OF LATIN:
II. THE MINOR COLONIES
HAT seemed an unpromising task in the case of Antioch
W was made both practicable and profitable by the quan-

tity of evidence available. No resort to statistical methods
will be possible with the five minor colonies. There is a paucity
of material here for which it is difficult to account. I In some
cases it is greater than in others, but hardly anywhere is the
number of inscriptions proportionate to the importance of the
town as a Roman colony. Each of the towns has its own epi-
graphic character: the richness and variety of Antioch are
lacking.
The coinage is correspondingly meagre, but as there is no
question of using it for statistical analysis it is almost as useful
for the other colonies as it was for Antioch. Compared with the
fifty-three reverse types known at Antioch, only sixty-three,
many of them occurring in more than one colony, were issued by
the rest. Again, Antioch struck many more coins of a distinctly
Roman flavour: of the Antiochian types, thirty-five may be
described as Roman; on the other hand, even at Cremna, the
next largest colony, and a very productive one as far as coinage
goes, the corresponding figure is only twelve in twenty-nine.
This suggests that the influence of the colonists was more deeply
felt at Antioch than elsewhere, and a closer examination of the
evidence confirms this general impression. The colonies will
be dealt with separately and in alphabetical order.
(I) COLONIA IULIA AUGUSTA (PRIMA FIDA)Z COMAMA
The scarcity of epigraphic evidence from Comama is both
disappointing and surprising: the three stones that remain on
I It is particularly surprising when the number of decurions each colony must
have possessed is taken into consideration. These men were well off and might
have been expected, to leave substantial memorials of themselves and of their
activities.
Z Not attested until Domna (RN, Ser. III, vol. IV (1886),447: F only) and
nH~ L
the site are large and impressive monuments. Much must have
been removed from this accessible site. A stone seen at the end
of August, 1955 in a field a few hundred yards north of
the tepe had, a month later, reached Urkiitlil, a mile and a half
to the west, where it was seen by Professor Bean. 1 Of the three
that remain in situ, two are dedications to the emperor and to
the imperial house,2 one, in Latin and well engraved, belonging
to the reign of Antoninus Pius and to the governorship of
Q. Voconius Saxa Fidus, A.D. 144-7. 3 It was set up by L.
Paccius, a member of a family which appears on four stones
attributable to Comama and which was obviously of the first
importance in the town. The third stone on the site4 is dedi-
cated probably to his grand-daughter, L. Paccia Valeria
Saturnina. A striking change had taken place during the
two generations that separate these inscriptions. Latin was
still the correct language for an important series of dedications
set up by the colony in honour of a member of one of its leading
families, but Latin of an extraordinary kind. That the ordo or
the lady's executors could not secure the services of an engraver
competent in Latin is evidence of a sharp falling off in romaniza-
tion. The stone is full of solecisms,s at least two of which may be
attributed to the influence of Greek, and there can be no doubt
but that the lapicide felt more at ease with the Greek script he
used above each of these inscriptions for the names of the
woman they honoured.
The scanty colonial coinage of Comama begins only under
Antoninus Pius with the type of the 'eagle between standards',6
which persists until Julia Domna.? The other type issued under
Caracalla (KM II. 379, nos. 10 f.). No Cohors or Ala I Fida is connected with the
town. It received the title as a mark of distinction (see above pp. 80, 128) when
Caracalla visited it in 215 (Gren, Kleinasien 125). The title provides a terminus post
quem for Anat. Stud. x (1960), 55, no. 102, and GIL III. 6886 f. and 12149.
I It is now in the town of Burdur (Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 71, no. 5).
2 EEv (1884), 582, no. 1357, cf. GIL Ill. 6885 (Latin); Anat. Stud. x (1960), 55,
no. 102 (Greek).

3 For inscriptions relating to this governor, see Magie, Roman Rule II. 1599.
4 EE loco cit., no. 1358; cf. GIL Ill. 6887; the stone is discussed in ]RS XLVIII
(1958), 77 f.
5 Ll for D passim; PACCIAN for PACCIAM; the use of the dative for the ablative,
and'of SVAE for EIVS. For -an, -en as the ending of the first declension accusative
singular, see ILS 1409, 7806; but these are Greek words.
6 AM 2 ; for this type, see above, pp. 102, 14 I.
7 Severus: BMG Lycia, etc., 212, no. 2; Domna: KMII. 379, no. 9.
THE DECLINE OF LATIN: II. MINOR COLONIES 147
Antoninus Pius is distinctly local in character: that of the

veiled goddess;1 and local affairs remain the centre of interest
in the Severan period. 2 After the reign of Caracalla only two
types, apart from that ofthe veiled goddess, are known. Under
Maximinus, Zeus, seated, with Nike on his right, appears once
more. 3 The Tyche with the steering oar, cornucopiae, and modius,
first issued in the time of Julia Domna,4 reappears under
Trajan Decius, and is the last type known to have been pro-
duced by the town. S
In general, the obverse legends are correctly rendered. The
first mistake occurs under Julia Domna. 6 Although third-
century coins are extremely scarce, they are common enough to
betray the fact that degeneration in the obverse legend was very
rapid. One error under Gordian III may be due to technical
incompetence,7 but by the time of Trajan Decius the use of
the Latin alphabet has been almost completely forgotten. s This
decline, somewhat earlier than at Antioch, suggests once again
that Latin, and with it Italian ways, had not taken root as
strongly at Comama as at the larger town.
The form of the titles on the reverse offers further confirma-
tion of this view. In the time of the Antonines, and indeed up
to the reign of Maximinus, the inhabitants of Comama were
accustomed to think of their town as COL AVG COMAMENORVM-
the Augustan colony of the people of Comama;9 they were
proud of its origin and status. With the impetus given to the
I BMC, loc. cit., no. I; RN, Ser. III, vol. IV (1886), 447. She has been identified
with Juno Pronuba and with Aphrodite (E. Babelon, RN, loc. cit., and Imhoof-
Blumer, Nomisma VIII (1913), 18 f.; Hill (Ramsay 218) is doubtful), but is one of the
Anatolian deities (interpretatio Romana unknown). The cult was popular, for the type
survives until the reign of Gordian III (M. Aurelius: KMn. 379, no. 8; Commodus,
Wadd. 3673; Geta: NC, Ser. IV, vol. XII (1912),146, no. 25; Gordian III: KMn.
380, no. 12). On coins of Caracalla she appears in a distyle temple (RN, Ser. III,
vol. IV (1886), 448; KMn. 380, no. I I); the figures on the coins probably represent
her cult statue.
2 Type of two veiled figures in a temple (Caracalla: RN, loc. cit.); they are
clearly related to the series with the single goddess, who, in view of these types,
is better identified with Demeter than with Aphrodite or Juno; Zeus (KM II.
379, no. 10); Nemesis (RN, loc. cit. 447); Dionysus (RS XIX (1913), 89, no. 252).
Caracalla as Caesar, however, has the typical' colonus ploughing' reverse which is
so common at Antioch (Wadd. 3675; RS, loc. cit., no. 251).
3 RSXIV (1908), 76, no. I. 4 Wadd.3674. s KMII. 380, no. 13.
6 KM II. 379, no. 9: D replaced by .d; cf. ]RS XLVIII (1958), 78.
7 KM 11.380, no. 12. 8 IMC. C CAEf C M .dEriOC PM (KMn. 380, no. 13).
9 e.g. Antoninus Pius: AM 2; M. Aurelius: KM II. 379, no. 8; Severus: BMC
4Ycia, etc., 212, no. 2.
coinage in the time of the Severi,I the full title of the colonia
appears on issues of Caracalla,2 and a slightly abbreviated ver-
sion on some dies of Julia Domna. 3 The lessening of a conscious
pride in its position, indicated for the last part of the second
century both by the grave errors of the Saturnina inscription
and by the beginnings of a tendency to bungle the legends on
coins,4 had been checked, though only for the moment. 5
Bungling of the reverse legend begins under Commodus; at
first only single letters were affected, 6 and some of the mistakes
may be attributed to incompetent rather than to illiterate
craftsmen. 7 Of particular interest is COL. IVL. AVGG. F • COMA
[M]ENORV, struck under Caracalla. 8 AVGG may be due to a mis-
taken idea that AVG in the colonial titulature stood for AVGVSTI;
the plural would then refer either to Septimius Severus and
Caracalla or to Caracalla and Geta. 9 If this were so, it would
reflect an increasing forgetfulness of the colony's origin, which
may also be detected in the form of the reverse legends.
(2) COLONIA IULIA AUGUSTA FELIX CREMNA
Cremna is proclaimed by its epigraphy for what it was:

a Roman fortress and show-place surrounded by native tribes.
Four of its thirty-one known inscriptions are dedications to the
emperors of the first and second centuries, engraved on the
architraves of what must have been magnificent public build-
ings. 10 It is thanks to the remoteness of the town that the ruins
of these buildings can still be seen and identified. II Even in their
present condition they proclaim Cremna, next to Antioch, to
be the strongest and most thoroughly romanized of the colonies
(the more so, perhaps, for its isolation). Even so, four of the five
tombstones from the neighbourhood are in Greek. 12 Many of the
1 Perhaps this had something to do with the activities of the lady honoured in
GIL III. 6887?
2 KM II. 379 f., nos. 10 and 11. 3 RN, Ser. III, vol. IV (1886),447.
4 COL.COMAME CN (without AVG): Wadd.3673.
5 Reverses of the last two emperors under whom coins were struck at Comama
(Gordian III, Trajan Decius) also omit AVO (KM II. 380, nos. 12 and 13).
6 KM II. 379, no. 9: COL AVG COMAMENOAVM.
7 RS XIV (1908), 76, no. I: COL A[VG] NaMAMOCl on the only known die of
Maximinus. 8 RN, loco cit. 448 (shouldAVG I be read? See above, p. 145, note 2).
9 This was the view of Babelon, RN, loco cit.
10 To Nerva : GILIII. 6873 ; to Hadrian: ibid. 6874; perhaps to Pius: 6876; to Sep-
timius Severus: 304. I I See Lanckoronski's plan, Stiidte II, facing p. 161.
I2 Latin: GIL III. 6882; Greek: WE 443-6.

THE' DECLINE OF LATIN: II. MINOR COLONIES 149
monumental inscriptions were the work of private individuals,

duoviri of the colony. Cremna, conspicuous for the public spirit
of its leading men, can produce more memorials of the patriotism
of its local magnates than any other minor colony in the group.
This impression of strength and vigour is confirmed by the
coinage: twenty-nine types, some surviving into the reign of
Aurelian, later even than the latest Antiochian issues. The first
coin is Hadrianic, and its reverse design speaks emphatically
of the colonial status of the town and of its possession of the
ius Italicum: Marsyas is shown standing with a sack over his
shoulder, just as he stood in the Forum at Rome. 1 This type
persists until the end of the coinage. 2
The most striking feature of the coinage of Cremna is the
number of reverses dedicated to the deities they represent, and
indeed the variety of the gods who appear. On these reverses
the name of the deity is invariably given in its Roman form;
that this is usually correctly rendered reflects the anxiety
of the town to live up to its title of colony. The series in-
cludes Diana,3 Liber Pater,4 Apollo Propylaeus,s Mida Dea,6
I RSX1V (1908), 77, no. I; Festschrift Benndorf198, no. l;Cf. Ramsay, Social Basis 221 .
2 Commodus-Aurelian: Festschrift Benndorf 198, nos. 2 ff.
J Antoninus Pius: KM II. 382, no. 4; M. Aurelius: BMC Lycia, etc., 216, no. 5;
Septimius Severus: SN'G (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5091; Caracalla: Wadd.
3707; Elagabalus: N'C, Ser. v, vol. I (1921),24, no. 36. She is the pre-colonial
Artemis of BMC Lycia, etc., 302, no. 2A. The cult failed to maintain its popularity:
the type does not reCUr. The goddess is standing, facing, and wearing a long chiton;
in her right hand she holds apatera, in her left, her bow or spear; at her feet a stag.
4 M. Aurelius: RS XIV (1908), 77, no. 2. The god carries a cantharus in his right
hand and rests his left on a thyrsus decorated with a fillet; there is a staff under
his left arm and a panther sits at his feet.
S Propylaeus occurs under Commodus: Z fur N' XII (1885), 363; Septimius
Severus: BMC, loco cit., no. 6, cf. Mion. Supp!. VII. lI5, no. 138; Trebonianus
Gallus (without name of god): Wadd. 3716; Herennius Etruscus: Wadd.37I7;
Gallienus (without name): Wadd. 3718, KM II. 383, no. 13; Aurelian: BMC,loc.
cit. 218, nos. 14 f. The abbreviation of the legend on these coins (which shows
that the god was well known in the town) led scholars to identify the figure with
Eros. A. von Sallet, the first to make the correct identification, writes (Z fur N',
loco cit. 364): 'Der Gottername "Propylaeus" findet sich sonst bei Hermes,
Artemis und Hekate; die verwandte Bezeichnung -rrpd -rrd>'<WS bei Gotternamen
finden wir bei Apollo in Thyatira Lydiae (GIG 3493), bei Artemis in Ephesus (GIG
2963) und bei Demeter in Smyrna (CIG 321 I).' The epithet does not mean that
this Apollo was a god of the second rank: the type appears too frequently for that.
Here Apollo is the god who stands before the city and protects it. It is the other
form of Apollo, Apollo Clarius with branch, tripod, and lyre, favoured by Colophon,
Apameia Bithyniae, and Sagalassus, who is rare at Cremna (Caracalla: CLAR COL
CREM on SN'G (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5092).
6 LuciIla: Wadd. 3699; Severus: Wadd. 3702; Geta: BMC Lycia, etc., 302, no.
Mater Deorum,1 Nemesis,2 Silvanus,3 Luna,4 and Minerva. s

The Genius types which begin under Hadrian, Marcus, and
Faustina the Younger, 6 also belong to this series of dedicatory
reverses. The colony is peculiar in that it has two kinds of
Genius, male and female, of which the latter resembles the
Fortuna at Antioch.7 The female type is found on reverses of
Hadrian and Marcus, the male on those of Marcus and
Faustina. He is naked to the waist, wears boots and Phrygian
cap, and holds a patera in his right hand and a cornucopiae in his
left; she has a patera in her right hand, a vexillum or cornucopiae
in her left; in both cases, male and female, the legend is GENIO
COL CREM, though FORTVNAE is sometimes found with the
female deity,8 Evidently the inhabitants of Cremna felt more
strongly than those of Antioch the difficulty of representing the
Genius as female. What its Tyche was to the Greek city, its
Genius was to the Roman colony; the cult of Tyche would
continue after the foundation of a colony in the form of Genius
worship, and would affect the new deity to a greater or lesser
extent. At Antioch the sex of the original deity remained the
same; at Cremna there seems to have been some hesitation.
9a; Otacilia Severa: KM II. 383, no. 10; Trebonianus Gallus (without name of
deity): KM, loco cit., no. 1 I. The goddess is seated, to left, and holds a patera;
she is a variety of the Anatolian mother goddess Cybele (BMC Lycia, etc., cii, and
RE xv (1932), 2040 f.), and should probably be associated with the type dis-
cussed in the next note.
1 Julia Domna: Wadd. 3704. Cybele is shown seated in a distyle temple, with
a little figure in front of her. The legend is MATR[I D]EOR (?) COL.IVL.AVG.FEL.CR€.
The type does not recur and may have been devised to do honour to the mother
of the Augusti, who are represented on a reverse of Caracalla (Wadd. 3706) very
similar to one issued at Antioch (BMC Lycia, etc., 184, no. 51). Another issue
honouring Domna (BMC Lycia, etc., 216, no. 7) shows her carrying her two infants,
one on each arm; at her feet are two Erotes; the legend reads IVLIAVGMA T-
CASTRCCR COL CR.
• Herennius Etruscus: BMC Lycia, etc., 218, no. 13, where the goddess stands,
facing, left, her right hand raised to her breast, in her left a short sceptre(?),
at her feet a griffin, with its forepaw on a wheel. The legend is VLTRI COLCR.
The goddess Nemesis at Cremna seems to be assimilated to Fortuna, or rather
Fortuna to her: the griffin is an attribute of Fortuna also (BMC Lycia, etc., cii) .
. 3 Alexander Severus: SNG (Deutschland), Samml. V. Aulock, 5100.
4 Gordian III: ibid., 5105: LVNAE COL CREMNENSIVM, which may explain the
legend on Hirsch XIII (1905),4278: 'AEC COL CREMN!NAlfiN.'
5 SNG (Deutschland), Samml. V. Aulock, 5101: MINERVA COL IVL AVG CREM.
6 Ibid., 5°83,5°85, and RS XIV (1908), 77, nos. 3 f. respectively.
7 BMC Lycia, etc., 216, no. 8; cf. Mion. Supp!. VII. 97, no. 50.
s Wadd. 3705; Egger XLVI (1914), 2046.
This transtormation of the Tyche into the Genius explains the

fact that at Antioch the same goddess, with the same attributes,
is called sometimes Genius and sometimes Fortuna. At Cremna,
the male form, whose Phrygian cap and boots strongly recall
the appearance of the god Men on reverses of Antioch and
other Anatolian cities, is (perhaps for this very reason) the more
common until the time of Severi. 1
From 238 until 244 there was another spate of coins similar
to the one which had occurred under the Severi, but its charac-
ter is strikingly different. In the score of years between 2 I 7 and
238 the proportion of types of a Roman flavour falls from six
out of twelve under Severus and his sons to one out of ten
under Gordian III and Tranquillina. 2
Another type, unique at Cremna and perhaps reflecting
a third-century emphasis on the personality of the emperor,
appears on a reverse of Herennia Etruscilla: the head of Trajan
Decius is placed between those of Herennius and Hostilian;
above, an eagle spreads its wings. 3 This, with the 'wolf and
twins' type, which also fails to maintain itself, shows a revival
of colonial and imperial feeling under Trajan Decius.
With Aurelian the colony enjoyed its last opportunity to
coin; and it may be said to have made the most of it. The
coinage does not fade away as it does at Antioch, but ends with
a furious burst of energy in the course of which several com-
pletely new typ·es appear. Of the ten issued under Aurelian,
only two have Roman connotations;4 other reverses of Aurelian
are local in character. 5 Four of them are closely connected
! In the third century it is the female deity who is preferred (e.g. Wadd.3705,
3720; BMC, loco cit., nos. 8, 12 and 17); this may be interpreted as a revival
of interest in the Tyche.
2 The 'three Graces' type of TranquiIIina, with the legend € NSIVM, should
be ascribed to Cremna, with Imhoof-Blumer, RS XIV (lg08), 88, not to Iconium,
with BMC Lycaonia, etc., 6, no. 1 I : both the form of the E and the fact that Iconium
has no other coins of TranquiIIina favour this attribution; and there is another
specimen (Wadd. 3714) with the legend COL. CREMNENSIVM intact. The type does
not recur.
3 Mion. Ill. 507, no. gl; the legend is COL.IVL.AVG.FE.CREMNA. Note also
'Maximus auf einer im Schritt gezogenen Quadriga stehend', SNG (Deutschland),
Samml. V. Aulock, 5102.
4 'Fortuna' and 'priest with yoke of oxen' (BMC Lycia, etc., 218, no. 17, and
NZ XVI (1884), 276, no. Il3, respectively).
5 Artemis Ephesia (RS XIV (1908), 79, no. 8); Apollo Propylaeus (BMC, loc.
cit., nos. 14 f., cf. KMII. 383, no. 13); Hades (BMC, loc. cit., no. 16).
with one another, and are of particular interest. It is at this point

that the energy and resource of the third-century mint-masters
of Cremna are most strongly in contrast with the conservatism
and lack of imagination shown by those of Antioch.
One of these types I displays a draped female figure, her
hands resting each on a modius in which there are ears of corn or
palm branches. This figure must represent the Donatio of the
legend. Two others Z show the prizes offered in the games
held by the colony, and a fourth 3 a distyle temple, which is
inscribed DONjSACRjCERT and probably represents the home
of the goddess Donatio. The introduction of a new Latin
word on the reverses of Cremna, and its correct spelling on all
of them (although in one case it appears in conjunction with
the strange form IEROS) , may indicate some intervention by
the central government; the explanation of these types may
be that Aurelian relieved a famine in the district with a generous
gift of corn and that the occasion was commemorated by the
foundation of sacred games and a temple built in honour of the
gift. The famine would have to be put early in the reign of
Aurelian in order to allow time for the building of the temple,
unless an old structure was converted. In any case, the ap-
pearance of such new types, and the general vigour of the
colony's mint, possibly stimulated by help from Aurelian or
a local magnate, do not give the impression that there would
be no more issues after the end of his reign; at Antioch, on the
I Ne, Ser. IV, vol. II (1902), 340, no. 37 (discussed by Hill in Ramsay, 219 f.):
'DONATIOC OLCREMN. Female figure (Annona?) in long drapery, standing to
front, looking I. ; each hand rests on a modius, in which there are ears of corn?'.
I t is suggested that the figure represents Annona, but many deities shown on
reverses of Cremna are named in the legend, and it is more natural to suppose
that the figure is that of Donatio. If so, the name should be regarded as being in
the dative case, as in the parallel examples; omission of the case ending is only to
be expected with so long a word. If the objects in the modius are palm branches
(so SHG (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5120), it is even less probable that the
figure represents Annona.
2 KMII. 384, no. IS: 'DONAT links, I oben, 0 co, CRE rechts und ENS zwischen
liM
den FUssen eines Tisches, auf dem zwischen zwei Beuteln eine Preisurne mit zwei
Palmzweigen steht.' RSXIV (1908), 78, no. 7: 'DONATIO I., COL IVl CR€MN€'. Preis-
krone mit der Inschrift reROs und zwei Palmzweigen, zwischen denen F (fur
FELIX?) zu stehen scheint;' cf. SNG (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5122.
3 KM II. 383, no. 14: 'co, IUlI links, AUG.F€L. rechts, CRCMN im Abschnitt.
Tempelfront mit zwei gewundenen Saulen und Kranz im Giebel; zwischen den
Saulen auf drei Zeilen DON/ SACR/CCRT.'
other hand, only a few stereotyped reverses remain by the time

of Claudius Gothicus, and the mint is obviously at its last gasp.
In view of the greater importance of Antioch, the contrast is
surprising.
The same impression is given by the legends on the coins.
The form taken by the title or'the colony on the reverses is by no
means as instructive as it is at Comama; indeed, it is true to
say that the later mint-masters were more careful to have all
the city's titles engraved on their dies than the earliest had
been. 1
In general, the inscriptions on both obverses and reverses are
remarkably correct; peculiar letter forms are more common
than genuine bungling. Until the Severan period mistakes are
negligible. 2 From the time of Maximinus Greek letters are
sometimes found in place of Latin and the rounded, Greek
form E becomes prevalent.3 The obverse legends of Gallienus
are the worst found at Cremna;~ but there is nothing really
comparable with the sharp decline in standards of literacy
which took place at Antioch during this period. The obverses of
Aurelian are correctly inscribed; the chieffault of his engravers
was a tendency to peculiar letter forms.s Apart from some minor
fluctuations, then, it cannot be said that the decline was a
serious one: a fairly high degree of accuracy was maintained,
and this is in accordance with the vigour which is apparent
even from the most superficial inspection of the site.
(3) COLONIA IULIA GEMINA FELIX LYSTRA

More inscriptions are known from Lystra than from any
other of the minor colonies. This is surprising: Ramsay regarded
the town as an unimportant backwater where romanization
made little headway.6 The number of inscriptions is easily
I Under Septimius Severus CREM appears alone (Festschrift Benndorf 198, no. 3),
and Hadrian has COL CRE (RSXIV (1908),77, no. I): under Aurelian, on the other
hand, we find COLIVLI AV CR€MN€ (BMC Lycia, etc., 218, no. 16, cf. KM II. 383,
no. 14).
2 Mistakes on Severan coins: Wadd. 3702, KM II. 383, no. 8. The date of SNG
(Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5089, is uncertain.

3 Mistakes due to carelessness are not less common: GORDlANO becomes
OGRDlANO on BMC, loco cit., no. II.
• e.g. AV'C (PLI?] Cr.GALLIHN\N: McClean 8987.
5 Exemplified in KM II. 383, no. 14.
6 Pictures of the Apostolic Church 359, Cities qf St. Paul 407 IT. Some of the in-
habitants, in the middle of the first century A.D., were speaking Lycaonian (Acts
XIV. II).
accounted for: Lystra was remote from the KOtV~ 606, but
stood on one of the roads between Iconium and Laranda and
owed its prosperity to that fact. The second part of Ramsay's
claim is indeed borne out by the character of the inscriptions.
Thirty-five out of 107 are, it is true, in Latin-if sometimes
vicious Latin. Two facts emerge: almost all the Latin inscrip-
tions were found on the site of the town itself or in Batun Saray,
the village nearby; the territorium has produced only Greek,
and a rich crop of native names. Secondly, of all these inscrip~
tions, only four are the work of the community as a whole. One
was set up by the colony in honour of its founder, presumably
just after his death in A.D. 14;' for two others, one in Greek, the
city tribes or vici were responsible;2 a fourth honours a magistrate
and priest of the colony by decree of the decurions and people
(the monument was paid for by his widow).3 At Lystra it is
tombstones and other private inscriptions which are most
common-tombstones and soroi account for fifty-eight per cent.
of the inscriptions from the territorium. The impression that
Lystra creates is of an active and prosperous community, not
one to care much for its status as a Roman colony, a thriving,
rather rustic 4 market town.
If Lystra existed before the foundation of the colony it was
not important enough to issue coins, and, the controversial
'Rutilus' coin excepted,s the series begins with Augustus. One
of the types struck in his reign (if indeed it is to be attributed
to Lystra at all: the name of the town of origin has been ob-
literated) represents Ceres, seated to the left.6 Like that of the
bust of Pallas, which is the next to appear,? this type probably
does honour to a native or hellenized cult adopted by the
colony.
I GIL III. 6786. Only one other stone was inscribed in an emperor's honour, and
that by a private citizen who had been given civitas by Trajan (]HSXXN (1904),
"4, no. '5', dated to the reign of Nerva).
2 ]HSxxrv (1904), I '3, no. 150 (Greek); ibid. 1'5, no. 158, cr. GIL III. '44ooa,
and Social Basis 184, no. 170 (Latin). See above, p. 76; the Latin inscription
may be a miliarium.
3 MAMA VIII. 12.
4 Ramsay's appropriate epithet (Social Basis 181).
S See Appendix II.
6 From Imp. to Auct. 250, no. 2. Ceres occurs again on a reverse of Pius (KM
II. 4'9, no. I, where she is described in more detail).
7 Wadd. 479', reappearing under Trajan (?), see Monn. grec. 347, no. 120;
a full length figure of Minerva appears under Pius (KM II. 420, no. 2).
THE DECLINE OF LATIN: II. MINOR COLONIES '55
In the second century there appear new reverse types: An-

toninus Pius has a conventional eagle with half-open wings, I
FaustinaJunior the more exotic 'Tyche, wearing disk and horns
on head, veil, long chiton and peplos, seated to left ... on
rock; right hand holding ears of corn, left resting on rock; at
her feet, bust of river god swimming to left.'2 Ramsay3 regarded
this city-goddess type as influenced by the statue of Syrian
Antioch carved by Eutychides, and the disk and corn-ears as
an attempt to 'suit local religious ideas' or to 'identify the City
goddess with Isis'. The attempt is not confined to the reverse:
the bust of the empress on the obverse also bears a small disk
and horns above the head. The reference to Isis is clear, but
it may not be of great significance. It is well known that interest
in Isis was widespread not only in Asia Minor but in the
Empire as a whole. At Rome itself the interest openly and
officially expressed at Lystra was first discouraged, then fostered,
in government circles. 4
The series ends too early to admit of any conclusions as to
the rate of the decline of Italian culture in the colony. There is
a mistake on the very first obverse, but it is no more than an
engraver's slip.s
The first reverse legend proudly draws attention to the new
status of the town: COL IVL FE! [sic] GEM LVSTRA. This titulature
recalls in its fullness the large inscription now in Konya
Museum,6 and the use of the form LVSTRA on both coin and
inscription is clearly an attempt to provide a Latin derivation
for the name of this little Lycaonian town, the Greek version of
which is treated in Acts both as feminine singular and as neuter
plural. 7 A connexion with lustrum was intended; nothing could
be more Roman. But the nearby towns of Kilistra and Ilistra
gave the game away.
The title 'Gemina' does not seem to have taken root as
t SNG (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5404.
2 BMC Lycaonia, etc., 10, nos. 2 f. 3 Cities <if St. Paul 4'5 f.
4 See Hardy on Pliny, Ep. x. 33. i, with SHA, Commodus IX, • 4 IT.; Pescennius
Niger VI. 8 f.; Caracalla IX. 10 f.; Thirty Tyrants xxv. 4; Severns Alexander XXVI. 8;
Dio XL. 47. iii; XLII 26. ii; the cult was very popular at Philippi: BCH LIII (1929),
70 IT.
s BMC, loc. cit., no. I: IMPE AVGV2TI.
6 CIL III. 6786: DIVVM AVG.!COL. IVL.FE!LIX.GEMINA!LVSTRA.!CONSE.!CRAVIT!
D.D.
7 XIV. 6 and 8.
strongly as 'Colonia lulia', although it recurs on another of the
'priest ploughing' reverses, I for it does not reappear until the
type is issued once more under Marcus Aurelius. 2 'Felix' is
almost as weak; there is a universal tendency in these colonies
for all titles except that of 'Colonia' to be dropped.3
There are very few errors in the legends of the Lystran
coinage, and it is quite free from the substitution of Greek for
Latin letters; one can only conclude that the decline did not
set in until the coinage had come to its end with the Antonines.
(4) COLONIA IULIA AUGUSTA OLBASA
The epigraphy of Olbasa is scanty and offers little material

of any interest. 4 The most considerable monuments belong to
a series set up in celebration of victories won in the local games.
The character of the games has already been discussed;5 it would
be interesting to know their foundation ~ate, for their super-
ficially Roman, fundamentally Hellenic nature betrays the
provincial town seeking to imitate the forms and ceremonies
that belonged to the capital of the Empire and instinctively
choosing those that best matched its own inclinations. But it is
impossible to tell whether the series marks the ambitious be-
ginning of the games or some period in the middle or at the
end of their history. Only four of these substantial monuments
have been discovered; this can hardly mean that the festival
was a short-lived one, held on only three occasions, for there was
certainly more than one event in the games. Either there are
other, undiscovered stones, or they have been destroyed, or
only the victors mentioned in the published series could afford
to set up such monuments.
Olbasa, then, like Antioch6 Parlais,' and possibly Comama8
used the Greek language in connexion with its Hellenic agones;
but Latin, it appears, remained in use for private purposes
until a late date. It is barbarous Latin, difficult to interpret,9
I Wadd.479 0 • 2 Monn. grec. 347, no. 121.
3 Reverses of Antoninus Pius read CERERIS COL LVSTRA and MINERVAE COL
LVSTRA (KM II. 419 f., nos. I f.). Cf. the names of deities (in the dative case) on
coins of Cremna.
• There is only one known dedication to an emperor: GIL III. 6889 (A.D. 42-43).
5 See above, p. 84, on IGR III. 41 I If. 6 See above, p. 135.
7 See below, p. 159. 8 SEG VI. 612: Garipge, but probably brought
from Yelten (Verbis). 9 Anat. Stud. IX (1959), 98 f. no. 51.
used purely perhaps for reasons of snobbery-there was a will

and an inheritance involved-by the dependants of a man who
may have learnt his Latin not in the colony but on his military
service; but the prestige of the language remains.
Although Olbasa did not issue any pre-colonial coins-in-
deed, the existence before colonization of an organized town
on the site may be doubted-in the wealth of its colonial types
it is second only to Cremna; fifteen types are known. Its coinage
is much more instructive than that of Lystra, in that it covers
the general period of decline, beginning only just before the
coinage of Lystra peters out.
It is a vigorous start, with assorted types, under Antoninus
Pius. 'Men on horseback'! and 'Bacchus'2 are local. That there
was a cult of Bacchus at Olbasa is suggested also by the large and
elaborate homos with Bacchic designs that still lies on the site. 3
At the same time there was issued a type representing Augustus4
and that of the 'legionary eagle between two standards'.5 More
unusual is the reverse which bears the head of the young
Marcus,6 who appears as Caesar on the obverse of other coins,
accompanied by a reverse which emphatically proclaims the
status of the town: COL!AVG!OLB! within a laurel wreath.7
The coinage celebrates other local cults; later they become
more prominent. Between Marcus Aurelius and the Severi there
is a gap which ends with the impetus given to coinage under
this dynasty at the beginning of the third century. Like Cremna,
Olbasa appears to be unable to decide between a male and
a female tutelary deity: both types are represented on reverses
of Julia Domna,s and the female Tyche reappears on on('
of Maximinus. 9 Another local goddess, called 'Artemis'
by E. Babelon,IO makes her first appearance with Caracalla.
1 R.N,XIV (1849), 98, no. 2. • KM II. 385, no. I.
3 See above, pp. 97 f. 4 BM I, 1905/10 SaulcY/5/16.
. 5 KM, loco cit., no. 2. 6 Wadd. 3758 .
7 BMC Lycia, etc., 229, no. I.
S KM II. 386, no. 4 (female); Wadd. 3759 (male). 9 Wadd.3765.
10 Wadd. 3763; she is more fully described in .Nomisma VllJ (1913), 19, no. 55:
'Zweisaulige Tempelfront mit Kranz im Giebel; in der Mitte: stehendes Kultbild
der Aphrodite von vorn mit Kalathos, Schleier, Chiton und 'Oberwurf, die Hande
mit je einem Apfel (?) seitwarts gestreckt, r., und I. je ein kleiner Eros auf dem
Kopf der Gottin zufliegend.' The resemblance to the veiled goddess of Comama
argues for close ties between the neighbour colonies; but if the goddess of Olbasa
can be identified with any Graeeo-Roman deity, it is with Aphrodite: Wadd. 3764
has her 'nue debout; it ses pieds, un vase'.
The other type ofCaracalla is that of a bearded bust, presumably
Jupiter's.1 Hercules, as well as Hygieia and Asclepius, to
judge by the reverses of Julia Maesa and Julia Mamaea, were
also worshipped at Olbasa;2 and Elagabalus yields a Hades-
Serapis, complete with sceptre and Cerberus. 3 There is, however,
no sign in the coinage of the god Maron (Marsyas), of whom
there was a cult at Olbasa,4 and whose pupil and protege,
Bacchus, does appear. A striking feature of this coinage is the
number of empresses who are represented, which suggests that
at Olbasa they were identified with some local goddess, perhaps
the goddess of the distyle temple.
This survey shows that there is a distinct tendency for types
with a local character to supplant the Roman and colonial
subjects to be expected in a colony. Indeed, the latest reverse
which can definitely be called 'Roman' occurs under Julia
Domna. s
It fits this picture very nicely that peculiarities in the obverse
legends also begin with the Severi. Strange letter forms,6
graecisms,7 misspellings,S or all three 9 begin with Julia Domna
and become more and more frequent. The nadir is reached
during the thirties of the third century. Exactly the same may
be said of the reverse legends. lo The usage of the colony's titles
again indicates a decisive change for the worse in the time of
the Severi. Until the coins of Julia Maesa, the full title, though
abbreviated in various ways, is usually employed; after-
wards it occurs only in one reign. II Conversely, before the
Severi, the form COLONIA OLBASENORVM is found only once,12
I BM (1920, E. Fo 8/5/1909); cf. the Capitoline games of Olbasa; a priestess
of Capitoline Zeus and Hera, Priscilla, is mentioned in AJA IV (1888), 18 (= fGR
III. 415).
Z Hygieia and Asciepius (Maesa): BM (1935/6-4-3 Lawrence); (Mamaea)
Wadd. 3762; Hercules (Mamaea): BMC Lycia, etc., 229, no. 2.

3 SNG (Deutschland), Samml. v. Aulock, 5126.
~ fL<; 4062. s Male Genius: Wadd.3759.
6 KM II. 386, no. 4: IVYI AAVS (i.e. Iulia Aug.).
7 BM (1920, E. Fox 8/5/1709): MAVPELIANTONIN.
8 BMC, lac. cit., no. 2: IVLI[A] MAMIA AVG.
• BMC, lac. cit., no. 3: IMPCAEMAVPSEVALEXANARVSAVG; no. 4: INPb..UC-
n.IIVIVHI M~XIAAINO.
,0 One die of Julia Domna has II'. OL~M€N€ (KMII. 386, no. 4). UnderSeverus
Alexander we find COLAOLPAS€N€ (BMC, loco cit., no. 3), and with Maximinus
COLIVLb.VGV OLpb.rHNH (BMC, lac. cit., no. 4) and the much improved COL'IVL'
AVY OLBASEN (Wadd. 3765).
" On dies of Maximinus: BMC, lac. cit., no. 4, cf. Wadd. 3765 f.
1% Antoninus Pius: K,\{ II. 385, no. I.
while from the time of Julia Sohaemias onwards it is extremely

common. I
(5) COLONIA IULIA AUGUSTA PARLAIS
Epigraphically, Parlais is the poorest of the colonies, and
three of the five inscriptions which may be called colonial-
the rest, many of them of uncertain date and indescribable
barbarousness, are to be associated with the centre of Chris-
tianity which grew up in the mountains to the north of the site-
are in Greek. One of these Greek inscriptions 2 commemorates
a victory in games which may be compared with those held at
Olbasa and possibly Comama, games of a purely Greek type
(the victory is in boys' wrestling) but held in a year dated by
its duoviri to the third or fourth century. Not one of the other
extant inscriptions appears to be earlier than the third century.
It is not surprising, then, that in the number of its colonial
coin types, only Lystra is poorer than Parlais: not more than
six different reverse designs are found under the Empire. These
begin with the reign of Marcus Aurelius and retain the pre-
colonial type of the panther. 3 A reference to the status of the
town is, however, to be seen in the typical 'Fortuna' reverse. 4
The only reverse known to have been struck in the reign of
Commodus is that of Men, with his usual attributes. s In the
time of the Severi, there was, for Parlais, a spate of coins. As
well as 'Men with pine cone' and 'Fortuna holding standard',6
there are new types which testify to the existence of certain
other cults at Parlais. 7 The coinage ends with the 'Bacchus'
and 'Fortuna' types issued under Caracalla. 8
I Sohaemias: Wadd. 3760; Maesa: 3764; Mamaea: BMC, lac. cit. 229, no. 2;
Gordian III: Mion. III. 509, no. 98; Volusian: RNxvIII (1853), 41.
2 Annuario III (1921), 45 f.; cf. SEC IT. 745.
3 Pre-colonial: KMII. 420, nos. I f.; M. Aurelius: RS XIV (1908),88, no. 2.
The 'panther' reverse was struck also when Commodus was Caesar (BM).
4 K M II. 421, no. 5: the goddess holds a vexillum.
S RS XIV (1908), 88, no. 3. This characteristically Anatolian god had already
appeared under Verus (Mion. Supp!. VII. 148, no. 8), carrying a Victory in his
left hand. On the later coin he has a pine cone. The Victory is the Antiochian
attribute.
6 Scptimius Severus: Men: Monn. grec. 347, no. 118; Fortuna: RN, Ser. III,
va!. I (1883), 59, no. 6; Julia Domna: Men: BMC Lycaonia, etc., II, nos. I ff.;
Fortuna: ibid., no. 4; Caracalla: Fortuna: KMII. 421, no. 8.
7 Severus: Aesculapius and Hygieia with Telesphorus (Mion. III. 537, no. 19) ;
Bacchus (KM, loco cit., no. 6); Julia Domna: Pallas (Mion. Supp!. VII. 149, no.
10); Caracalla: Bacchus (KM, loco cit., no. 7). 8 Ibid., nos. 7 f.
The impression given by this series is not one of a strongly

romanized town. Except for one coin which may represent
Marsyas and refer to the ius Italicurn enjoyed by the colony,!
there is hardly a reverse which could be called Roman in
character. If this impression were confirmed by consistent
bungling of the legends and by the introduction of Greek letter
forms, it would be legitimate to conclude that this town was
little affected by the deductio of Roman legionaries, perhaps be-
cause they were few in number. The engravers, however, seem
to have maintained their knowledge of Latin until the end of
the coinage. 2 The legends on the coins indicate that the isolated
position of this insignificant colony kept the settlers free from
contact with the Greek and Anatolian influences by which they
were surrounded; the weakness of the site, on the other hand,
and a certain lack of colonial pride are reflected in the paucity
and half-hearted ness of the coinage, which ceased altogether
before the period of decline that has been established for the
other colonies set in. There the crucial period was the reigns
of Septimius Severus and his sons; the decline became much
quicker in the first half of the third century. There can be no
doubt that if Parlais had issued coins during this period, a very
rapid falling off would have been detectable.3
Such was the record of these colonies. It is not easy to pass
judgement on it without making a comparison with a con-
I PlautilIaAugusta: RSXlX (1913), 92, no. 264.

2 RN, Ser.III. vol. 1(1883),59, no. 3 (Commodus), has.d for D; apart from this
there are only a few insignificant mistakes (e.g. in BMC Lycaonia, etc., I I, no. 4, and
KMn. 421,no. 5). There are abbreviations, but no mistakes or substitutions of Greek
for Latin on the reverses. The title of the colony is given in full on coins of the Severi
(Mion. III. 537, no. 19; Mann. grec. 347, no. lI8; BMC, loco cit., nos. I if; KM,
loco cit., nos. 6 if.; McClean 9040); it is under M. Aurelius and L. Verus that
shortened forms appear (RS XIV (1908), 88, no. 2; Mion. Suppl. VII, 148, no. 8).
The only peculiarity of the legends is in the shape ofL(see BMC,loc. cit., nos. I f.,4.)
3 On a reverse of Commodus (RS, loco cit., no. 3) the legend appears as fol-
lows: IVL AVG HA COL PARLA. HA does not appear in any other source as part of the
colony's name, and it is uncertain what it means. Imhoof-Blumer suggested
'Hadriana', a title which would have been adopted as a result of some benefaction
of Hadrian. This is plausible, but it is surprising that the title does not appear
on the earlier issues of Pariais, when it would be fresh in the minds of the colonists.
New titles tend rather to be dropped than to make their first appearance aft~r
a lapse of thirty years. Moreover, HADRlANA would normally be abbreviated
not to HA but to HADR, or at least to HAD; cf. NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914), 310,
no. 34, from Iconium, a town elevated by Hadrian to the rank of colony: coa
EL [sic] iHAD ICONIHS [sic].
THE DECLiNE OF LATIN: II. MINOR COLONIES 161
temporary foundation and one placed in a similar cultural

background in the eastern half of the Empire. How does Philippi,
the Macedonian town colonized by Antony and again by
Octavian, an ideal pace-maker for our colonies, show up their
form? The answer can only be: badly. .
The Latin language at Philippi displayed astonishing vigour:
of 42 I inscriptions, a total very nearly as large as that reached
at Antioch, only sixty are in Greek; one of these certainly is,
and others may be, pre-colonial. Even in the case of those
inscriptions set up for a religious purpose, for dedication to some
deity, Latin predominates; three of the seven dedications in
the sanctuary of Isis are in Latin.l There are, again, more than
twice as many tombstones in Latin as there are in Greek. The
series as a whole has a distinct and authentic Roman and
military flavour which is far less conspicuous in the epigraphy
of any Anatolian colony, even in that of Antioch.
The coinage confirms the persistence of the Italian element
at Philippi. From the very first issues, a Roman, colonial, and
military note is struck-under Augustus, for instance, by the
'three military standards' and 'founders ploughing' types. 2 The
coinage continues until the reign of Gallienus; most of these
issues, according to P. Collart, keep the same design as one of
Augustus. 3 Only under Commodus and Gallienus is there any
attempt at variety; and the new types are decorously Roman. 4
The full title of the colony persists on the coins and on most
of the inscriptions that mention it until the reign of Gallienus,
when AVG(VSTA) and IVL(IA) disappear. 5 Nor is the colonial
character of these coins purely general: they refer pointedly
to the origin of Philippi itself.
From the point of view ofromanization and the use of Latin,
the Macedonian colony is superior to those in Anatolia. But,
while this cannot be denied, it can easily be explained. Firstly,
there were two settlements of veterans at Philippi, and both
the town and the number of colonists were correspondingly
larger. 6 Secondly, Philippi, like Antioch, lay on a main road;
but it was not a road which led from western Asia Minor to
the Orient proper. It was the Via Egnatia, the road that linked
I BCH LIII (1929), 70 ff. 2 Collart, Philippes, ville de Macidoine 232, 236.
3 Ibid. 238. • Ibid. 238, note 2.
5 Ibid. 239, 241. 6 See above, pp. 43, note 2, and 45, note 5.
814259 M
162 THE DECLINE OF LATIN: II. MINOR COLONIES
eastern and western halves of the Empire. In the broadest

terms, while Philippi lay behind the Danube frontier,! Antioch
and her sisters lay behind the Euphrates.
We have been looking at the problem as one of maintaining
the Italian heritage of the colonists. The Romans saw it as
their own attempt to impose a civilized way of life-a Roman
way of life-on a small area of Anatolia. It is more difficult to
judge how far the colonies were successful than to estimate the
speed of their own absorption into Anatolian life. If they had
any success, it was ephemeral; as Hahn observed,2 Roman
colonies in the east did little to spread the Latin language there.
Influence was of less importance than example. Antioch and
the other colonies remained as a proof of the might and glory
of Rome for three centuries; their influence was diluted and
diffused over a wide area. The Italian culture of the colonies
dissolved and eventually disappeared, leaving only a small sedi-
ment, and slightly changing as it vanished the flavour of the
society into which it had been introduced.
I On the relative strength of Greek and Roman influences in the provinces
that bordered the lower Danube, see Gren, Kleinasien 26 ff. On the Via Egnatia,
ibid. 31 ff. The Roman element, itself largely servile, of a colony in Greece proper
?atura:ly ~uc~umbed, at ar; early, date .. T?e, au~hor ?f [Dio. Chrys.], XXXVII. 26,
PW/-LaWS wv o..p7)AA7)vw07), WU1T<p 7) 1TCXTp'S 7) V!-,<T<prx (I.e. Conmh).
• Romanismlls 1 1 2.
XIII
STAGNATION, BRIGANDAGE, AND

INVASION:
THE END OF THE COLONIES
HE developments in these colonies which have been out-
T lined in the two preceding chapters were allowed to take

place at their natural speed, unhindered by government
intervention, unhurried by the overthrow of constitution or
ruling class. For 300 years the colonies had no history. Pro-
tected once more by their geographical position, the inhabi-
tants of Pisidia were able to go their own way undisturbed, to
flourish or to stagnate without interference. Innumerable
provincial towns were devastated by foreign invasion or violent
changes of dynasty; Pisidia escaped both Zenobia and the
GDths. The first loss of one of these colonies to Roman rule was
to come not by force from without, but as the result of native
brigandage. It is no coincidence that of the eight towns in Asia
Minor which issued coins after the reign of Gallienus, seven
were in Pisidia or Pamphylia. They include two colonies, An-
tioch and Cremna; the coinage of the latter was amongst the
very last to survive.
In this chapter, then, it will be possible to discuss the colonies
only as part of the region to which they belonged. Whatever
affected Pisidia must, to a greater or a lesser extent, have af-
fected them as well. Even so, there is at first little to report
from the political point of view beyond frontier changes made
for administrative convenience.
The first major change took place in the reign of Claudius;
he detached Pamphylia from Galatia, uniting it with Lycia,
which paid the penalty for unruliness by losing its freedom. I
By the same stroke, Claudius was deflating the monstrous pro-
vince of Galatia. 2 The new arrangement did not remain long
I Dio LX. 17. iii.
Z 'A fantastic conglomeration of territories': Syme, Buckler 330. Even in A.D.
54-55 Galatia still extended as far south as Sagalassus: SEG XIX. 765, cf. Sherk,
164 STAGNATION, BRIGANDAGE, AND INVASION:
undisturbed: Pamphylia was reunited with Galatia either by

Nero or by Galba. 1 The province attained even greater pro-
portions when Vespasian, making permanent the arrangements
temporarily created by Nero for his general Domitius Corbulo,2
joined it to Cappadocia and the newly annexed Lesser Armenia
and raised it to the status of a consular province) Under
Augustus, Archelaus of Cappadocia had borne some respon-
sibility for precautions against military action on the part of
Parthia. In 17 A.D. the old ruler had been deposed and the
country turned into a procuratorial province. 4 Now, the status
and resources of a procurator were insufficient for the magnitude
of the task to be faced. Lycia and Pamphylia were united once
again,s and the province included, or later encroached on,
a substantial part of Pisidia, with the colonies of Comama,
Olbasa, and Cremna. 6 Later changes were nothing but a re-
cognition of the decline in Galatia's importance, for Vespasian's
policy of hardening the frontier shifted the centre of gravity in
Anatolia towards the east.7 It could not be long before the dis-
memberment of this combination, and when that took place
Galatia would finally have lost the peculiar military importance
it possessed as the successor to Cilicia. The division occurred,
under Trajan, probably as a result of the annexation of Armenia
Major in 114. 8 The new praetorian province was reduced to its
Legates if Galatia 3 1 f. For additions to the province made during the J ulio-Claudian
period, see Sherk, op. cit. 17 f.
I See Appendix VII.
2 Most scholars hold that in 54 Corbulo was appointed legatus Augusti pro
praetore of Galatia combined with Cappadocia; when the governor of Syria, Um-
midius Quadratus, died in 60, that province was added to the complex; in the
following year Galatia-Cappadocia was detached and handed over to Caesennius
Paetus, who arrived in 62 and held it until the disaster at Rhandeia; in 63 Corbulo
took over the complex once more, this time with imperium maius, while the actual
administration of Syria was entrusted to another legate. See Sherk, op. cit. 33,
notes 100 if., and Magie, Roman Rule II. 141 I f.; contra, Gwatkin, Gappadocia 45 if.
(reviewed by Anderson, GR XLV (1931), 189 f.).
3 Suetonius, DiD. Vesp. VIII.
4 Tacitus, Annals II. 42, Gwatkin, op. cit. 7 if.
• lLS 9485; 8818.
6 Ptolemy v. 5. vii; Zosimus 1.69; GIL III. 6885, with ]RS VI (1916), '32. For
the extension northwards of Lycia-Pamphylia, see now Jameson, Lycia and Pamphylia
rom Augustus to Diocletian (Oxford D.Phil. thesis, 1965), 74 ff.
7 The evidence for the constitution, status, and military strength of the province
of Galatia-Cappadocia is given by Magie, Roman Rule II. '435 if., and by Sherk,
op. cit. 39 if.
8 See Appendix VIII.
Augustan dimensions, but now lacked Pamphylia, which re-

mained in partnership with Lycia. Galatia no longer enjoyed
its former primacy.l It would not be over-confident to assume
a corresponding decline in the importance and prestige of the
colonies at this time. Their task of pacification apparently com-
plete, they now lay well behind the lines. Advances made in
their districts had been recognized early in the Principate by
Tiberius and Claudius, who had permitted certain towns and
former demoi to adopt their names. 2 The distinction of colonial
status, too, was becoming cheaper. The title of colony could be
borne, not only by genuine settlements of veteran colonists, but
by favoured native communities. 3 Iconium became a colony
under Hadrian without any change in the character of its
population. 4
Nevertheless, it was precisely in the period of the Flavians,
Nerva and Trajan, that Antioch, and indeed all colonies
and conventus civium Romanorum in the east, were called upon
for services less specific than those that the colonies had been
founded to perform, but not less valuable.
Behind this situation lay the wakeful hostility of Rome and
Parthia. Since the crowning of Tiridates in 66, the likelihood
of open war between the two empires had receded: the Par-
thians had won their point, and the Romans had appeared to
win theirs.s Nero's solution, arrived at by means of diplomacy,
was reinforced by Vespasian's policy of a hard eastern frontier.
The Parthian army was ill-balanced and insubordinate, and
the Arsacids could not hope to make any Roman province a per-
manent possession. 6 Only diplomatic victories were practicable
for them: the whole object of the struggle for Armenia Major
1 For the allocation of territories formerly attached to the province of Galatia-
Cappadocia, see Sherk, op. cit. 60 ff.

2" e.g. Pappa Tiberiopolis (BMC Lycia, etc., 233, nos. I f.); Claudioseleuceia
(Wadd. 3893 ff.); Claudioderbe (ibid. 4758); Ninica Claudiopolis (Cities of East.
Rom. Provo 213 and 439, note 32); Claudiolaodiceia (Wadd. 4777 ff.); Claudiconium
(IGR III. 246, etc.).
3 Utica petitioned for it (A. Gellius, Noctes Att. XVI. 13.4); by 176 it could be
conferred on a vicus simply because the emperor's wife had died there (SHA,
Marcus XXVI. 9) .
• CIL m. 12136.
5 Tacitus, Annals xv. 29; cf. 31.
6 Lack of commissariat: Dio LXII. 21. ii; reluctance to undertake distant
campaigns: Tacitus, Annals XI. 10; ignorance of siege warfare: XII. 45, xv. 4; dis-
proportionate numbers of archers: Dio XL. 15. ii, cf. LXII. 21. ii.
ifi6 STAGNATION, BRIGANDAGE, AND INVASION:
was to inflict a decisive blow on the enemy's prestige and repu-

tation. I
That the Parthians themselves were exceedingly vulnerable
to this kind of attack is obvious. For a dynasty regarded by its
subjects as alien, at the mercy offeudal barons and discontented
relatives, confronted with perennial rebellion, centrifugal pro-
vinces, and invading tribes,z even a slight loss of face might
lead to overthrow. On the Roman side, then, what was there
to fear? Nothing, as long as the provinces were loyal,3 It was
just at this moment, early in the Flavian period, that the popu-
larity of Roman rule in the eastern provinces had ebbed to
one of its lowest levels. There were long-standing and justifiable
reasons; the immediate cause was reaction and disappointment
after the reign of Nero and the crushing of hopes raised by the
success of a claimant backed by the eastern provinces.
This much may be said for Nero: his approach to the pro-
blems of government was, or appeared to be, a fresh one, which
impressed the Parthians and endeared him to his Greek and
oriental subjects. 4 Throughout the Empire, Nero's youthful
idealism, real or assumed, encouraged the aspirations of the
under-privileged classes. Philhellenism was one of its manifesta-
tions,s and, unfortunately for Rome, his policies were in
marked contrast, not only to those of his predecessors, but
I Gotarzes cut off a pretender's ears 'ostentui dementiae suae et in nos dehones-
tamento' (Tacitus, Annals XII. 14); Vologaeses' concern for 'spretum Arsacidarum
fastigium' (xv. I); on the Roman side the choice of Rhandeia, the site of their
recent defeat, for negotiations (xv. 28; Dio LXII. 20. ii, ed. Boissevain, Ill. 61).
2 The Arsacids were 'Scythian exiles' (Justin XLI.' I); for rebellious barons,
see Tacitus, Annals II. 58; Vologaeses is hindered 'defectione Hyrcanorum' (Annals
xv. I); he hands over 'nobilissimos ex familia Arsacidarum' (XIII. 9); he asks
Vespasian for help against the Alani (Suetonius, Dom. II). These examples illustrate
the weaknesses pointed out by Corbulo (Tacitus, Annals xv. 27).
3 In taking this view of the damage that Parthia might have inflicted on Rome
through discontent in the provinces, I am following Mr. C. E. Stevens, who first
pointed out to me much of the evidence in its favour. For Rome's unpopularity
in general, see H. Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (ed. 2,
Berlin, 1964), and Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World 101 ff.
4 Suetonius, Nero LVII; Nero was ets J(a~ JL6vos 7'WV an' alwvos alrroKpcJ.TWP p..EYW'TOS
rP,MIJI7Jv l'€voP.€vOS (Syll,3 814). However, his passion expressed itself in plunder and
rapine (Tacitus, Annals xv. 45; XVI. 23). For the impression he created, see
Charlesworth, ]RSXL (1950), 72 ff. Brunt is sceptical (Latomus XVIII (1959), 558,
note 3) ; but neither Plutarch's opinion nor that of the Christians would reflect the
views of middle- and lower-class Greeks.
5 For others, see Suetonius, Nero x, and Tacitus, Annals Xlll. 10 r., and 50.
THE END OF THE COLONIES 167
also to those of his' ultimate successor, Vespasian. Latin re- I
mained the language of citizenship; until his reign the Senate

was virtually closed to upper-class Greeks. 2 For them, on the
whole, the Romans were successful barbarians; for the Jews
they were the inept and sacrilegious rulers of a holy land; for
the Christians-the one oppressed class for whom, through the
accident of the great fire of Rome and its consequences, Nero
was anathema-the intolerant persecutors of a righteous
minority; for the lower classes in provincial. cities, the supporters
of an iniquitous status quo.3
It is not surprising, then, that there were prophecies current
in the eastern half of the Empire-and indeed elsewhere-
which foretold the downfall of the Roman Empire. 4 Nor is it
surprising that salvation was to come from Parthia. The Arsacids
had inherited from their Persian predecessors a reputation for
religious tolerance which favoured their cause in some eastern
provinces. s Who was to lead the army ofliberation? The answer
is given by the Sibylline oracle;6 the exiled man of Rome, lifting
up a mighty sword, crossing the Euphrates with many tens of
thousands. Nero, in fact. After the death of their patron, the
Greeks did not come into their own for many years. They did
not even believe in his death. More than once his reappearance
I For the effect of Vespasian's reduction of Achaea to provincial status, see
Philostratus, Vit. Ap. V. 41.
2 Pompeius Macer of Mytilene was the only exception; M. Calpurnius Rufus of
Attaleia was probably of Italian descent (see above, pp. 107 f.).
3 In general, Dio LII. 30. ii '(this passage cannot of course be taken as anything
reore than an indication of a point of view current at Rome, or thought by Dio to
have been current) ; Pliny, Ep. x. 34, cf. Syll.3 684, and Cicero, ad Q.. Fratr. I. I. 25;
Aelius Aristides, Els 'PWfL7Jv 64: o[ €Kau-rux6fJEv ll.iytGrOL Ka~ DVvU'TWrurot 'TQoS
~o.VTWV 7T(J.Tpioo.,; v!-,iv c/>V;"J.TTOVCfW. If a man was popularis, it was worth adding
that he was so innoxie (Pliny, Ep. VI. 31. iii).
~ Lactantius, Div. Inst. VII. 15: 'suhlatum iri ex orbe imperium nomenque
Romanum'; this prophecy was made by a 'Medorum rex antiquissimus,'
Hystaspes. A prophecy of disaster at Rome (Dio LVII. 18. v) was remembered after
the great fire (Dio LXII. 18. iii). See also Mommsen, Provinces of Ihe Roman Empire
11. I, note I. For these prophecies and their connexion with the return of Nero, see
Syme, Tacitus II. 518. Similar prophecies were made (significantly enough) by the
Druids (Tacitus, Histories IV. 54). Malice looked backwards as well: see Livy
IX. 18. vi: 'id vero periculum erat, quod levissimi ex Graecis, qui Parthorum
quoque contra nomen Romanum gloriae favent, dictitare solent, ne maiestatem
nominis Alexandri ... sustinere non potuerit populus Romanus .• .'
5 Josephus, BJ II. 16. iv.
6 Orac. Sib., IV. 138 f. I am particularly indebted to Mr. Stevens for pointing
out this passage to me.
raised false hopes, not only in the hearts of his admirers within
the Empire, but in those of the Parthians;I they were playing
Rome's own game by producing a rival ruler for the embarrass-
ment of an insecure dynasty.
The desire for religious toleration linked this movement with
the aspirations of the urban lower classes, aspirations which it
was one of the main objects of Roman provincial government
to suppress. Atrocities perpetrated on Roman citizens living in
the eastern provinces in the century and a half that followed
the Mithridatic massacres were by no means rare, and they
were severely punished. 2 In this atmosphere of strain and re-
sentment, heightened by the possibility of Parthian interven-
tion, open or covert, the importance of the role played by the
colonies is obvious. It was not so much military bastions that
were required as strong centres of loyalty to Rome. It was
sufficient that they should carryon a calm and untroubled
existence, setting an example to their Hellenic neighbours.
With Trajan's Parthian war, which put Rome back into her
role as champion of the Greeks, with his philhellenism and that
of Hadrian, with Hadrian's personal appearances in the pro-
vinces and the free admission of orientals to the Senate, the
crisis passed. 3 There had been little in it that was tangible,
but we need not doubt that Roman colonies had played their
part in securing the loyalty of the east.
Later changes in the internal boundaries of Asia Minor can-
not have had the same strategic significance as those which have
been described above; they were made for different reasons.
There is not much to be said for the suggestion that the severance
from Galatia of Lycaonia and Isauria under Antoninus and
their attachment to Cilicia in the Triple Eparchy was made in
connexion with the current Parthian crisis.4 It is more likely
I Tacitus, Histories I. 2; II. 8; Suetonius, Nero LVII. The legend survived until
the time of Trajan (Dio Chrys. XXI. IO) and later; see Henderson, Life and
Principate cifthe Emperor Nero (London, 1903),498 f.
> Lycia in A.D. 43: Dio LX. 17. iii; Cyzicus in 20 B.C.: LIV. 7. vi; in A.D. 25:
Tacitus, Annals IV. 36; Dio LVII. 24. vi; Suetonius, Tib. XXXVII; Rhodes, A.D. 44:
Dio LX. 24. iv; for Roman sensitivity to disturbances, see Acts XIX. 40, and Pliny,
Ep. x. 34 and 93.
'3 Anti-Roman feeling survived: Parker, A History of the Roman World from
A.D. 138 to 337, 391 f.
4 Magie, Roman Rule I. 660; the evidence for the Eparchy is set out by Magie,
op. cit. II. 1529, and by C. Habicht, Istanbuler Mitteilungen IX-X (1960), 1I5 ff.
that its object was to secure a more realistic and manageable

arrangement of the districts of southern Anatolia; inevitably
this resulted in a further decrease in the size of Galatia.
Sometimes, perhaps, changes were made at the request of
the natives of a province; this had been the case with Achaea
and Macedonia in the year A.D. I5, when they were transferred
from Senate to emperor. It was more expensive to maintain
a proconsul and his staff than an imperial legate, even when
there was no question of extortion; it was because of such
onera that Achaea and Macedonia asked for their transfer. I It
had always been the custom to compensate the Senate for these
losses, but the final transfer of Bithynia-Pontus to the emperor
in about I65 was not followed until fifteen years later by a cor-
responding alteration in the status of Lycia-Pamphylia,2 which
had lost any importance it had once enjoyed and could safely
be assigned by lot. Bithynia could not: the centre of political
gravity in Asia Minor would soon swing to the north, to Nico-
medeia and finally to Byzantium. The road system, too, was
gradually being reorientated, and this would seriously affect
the east-west highway and those cities whose prosperity and
importance depended upon it. The most significant factor in
this reorientation was the creation of the province of Dacia and
the advancement of the procuratorial province of Cappadocia
to a higher rank; these were actions undertaken for military
and political purposes, but they had economic consequences.3
Dio, turning from the reign of Marcus Aurelius to that of
Commodus, speaks of a change from a kingdom of gold to one
of iron and rust.4 Nothing happened as suddenly as Dio implies.
For the provinces especially the change was different and less
extreme: the enemy was not tyranny but stagnation, and Pliny's
letters to Trajan had shown long ago that in Asia Minor at
any rate all was not well. s If there was a crisis it came rather
I Tacitus, Annals I. 76.
2 Dio LXIX. 14. iv (ed. Boissevain, III. 234); see Levick and Jameson, JRS LIV
(1964), 103, and Magie, Roman Rule II. 1532 f.
3 See Gren, Kleinasien 44 f., 58 f., and the map by Bosch, Arch. Anz. XLvr(1931),
427 f., Abb. 2. For a description of the road network of north-west Anatolia, see
Gren, op. cit. 45 ff.; on the economic relations of Asia Minor and the Balkan
peninsula, 84 f.; on the effect of the foundation of Constantinople, 159 ff.; on
trade routes of the fourth century, 162 f.
4 LXXII. 36. iv (ed. Boissevain, III. 279).
5 The symptoms encountered by Pliny may be summarized as inefficiency
with the civil wars of 193-5 and their aftermath than with the
reign of Commodus. Stylistic developments in the colonial
coinages and sudden outbursts from several mints make this
clear. The struggle between Septimius Severus and Pescennius
Niger turned Anatolia into a theatre of war for the first time
in more than two centuries, and many cities backed the losing
side. Either immediately after the war, to placate Severus, or
later, in gratitude for the benefits he had conferred, several
cities of Asia Minor took the title 'Severiane', and Olbasa
was not the only town to hold games named after the new
emperor. I
The energy that Severus displayed in Asia Minor as elsewhere
has left many traces. He and his successors, for all their foreign
origin, considered themselves true Romans and protectors of
their heritage-as indeed they were. 2 It was as a repairer of
roads that Severus was particularly active in Asia Minor, and
some of his work will have benefited the colonies: the Apollonia-
Antioch section of that branch of the highway which skirted
Pisidia was one of the roads restored under his rule. 3
It was also during the reign of Severus that the coinage
issued by many towns in Asia Minor became most plentiful.
This phenomenon has rightly been attributed to the deprecia-
tion of the denarius to a mere token currency.4 Nevertheless,
each city had to have both occasion and means to coin. The
former may have been provided by a visit from Severus or by
his passing near a town. The minting of coins, especially if it
is undertaken for the first time, is an expensive operation re-
quiring a substantial capital outlay. These were not easy times
for the municipal authorities. In the case of Comama it is
tempting to associate the impetus which its coinage received
under the Severi with the generosity of Paccia, a member of
the leading colonial family, who was honoured at this time by
(e.g. Ep. X. 31), especially in financial matters (I7A), corruption (!7B), extravagance
(37 If.), faction (34), exaggerated civic patriotism (47), and perhaps a growing
reluctance on the part of the upper classes to serve on the city councils (113).
I See Magie, Roman Rule II. 1540.
2 Severus Alexander, for example, claimed descent from the Metelli (SHA,
Alexander XLIV. 3).
3 elL III. 14201 (Ke9iborlu); MAMA IV. 148 (Uluborlu); AE 1922, 5 (near
Gen<;ali); AE 1926, 75 (Akkise).
4 Magie, Roman Rule I. 682; cf. also Bosch, Arch. Am;. XLVI (1931), 437 f.;
Bosch is followed by Gren, Kleinasien 5.
the local ordo. But there were similar outbursts at all the colonies
1
except Lystra.
At Antioch and elsewhere there was an increase, not only
in the number of coins issued, but also in their size. Not all the
Severan coins are of the new large size (1'3 in. in diameter is
the average) ; the smaller coins continued to be issued. Between
the time of Severus and the end of the coinage, the large variety
became more and more common, and at the same time de-
creased in size, so that, by the reign of Gallienus, the two kinds
coalesced.
On these large coins, from the time of Severus onward, there
appears a new legend, S R, which stands for Senatus Romanus. 2
It gradually became more common, spreading to the smaller
pieces under Gordian III. By the reign of Philip I the earlier
correlation between weight and the occurrence of the legend
has almost disappeared. From then on, it is found on almost all
the coins.
It is not easy to explain the exact significance of this inscrip-
tion. Coins from Philomelium bear the legend s P Q R, and
Barclay Head's view 3 was that it marks the only coins which the
government recognized as equivalent to the imperial sestertius,
those, namely, that reached a certain weight. If this is correct,
it is surprising that it does not appear on the larger coins which
began to be minted in the time of the Severi at other towns in
the area, at Comama, Cremna, and Ninica Claudiopolis, for
instance. Even at Philomelium itself there were issued under
Severus Alexander coins of the larger size which were not of
the s P QR type. 4
The issue of these larger coins inscribed s R or s P Q R evi-
dently commemorates some connexion with the Senate. The
metal for these coins, where it was not provided by private
munificence, may have been supplied by the state. It is note-
worthy that all the towns concerned either were Roman
colonies or formed part of the senatorial province of Asia.
Mention of the Senate by them would be perfectly natural,
especially at a time when it was enjoying an esteem based
IFor this family, see ]RS XLVIII (1958), 76 If.
ZBMC Lycia, etc., 179 If., nos. 20 If.
3 H}{ 683, BMC Phrygia, xc. The inscription on these coins guarantees the
meaning of SR at Antioch as Senatus Romanus.
• BMC Phrygia, 357 f., nos. 22 (1'25 in. in diameter); 26 (1'35 in.); 27 (1'3 in.).
upon sentimental nostalgia and out of all proportion to its real

importance. I
Fifty years later, Antioch was the centre of another outburst
of coining, and on a far larger scale than before. No fewer than
thirty types appeared, twenty-five of them Roman or colonial
in interest. 2 Much emphasis is laid on army and emperor in
these reverses of Gordian III. The qualities of the young em-
peror, especially his military skill, were evidently of great im-
portance to Antioch. He-or his statue-is represented standing
on a pedestal and giving his hand to the Fortuna of the colony,
who confronts him on another pedesta1. 3 This type, and the
extraordinary number and variety of coins issued during his
reign, are surely to be explained as the result of some bene-
faction conferred by him on the colony and of his personal
contact with it. This could certainly have been made on his
journey to the east for the campaign against Persia which
ended with his murder near Dura Europus in 244.
Similar explanations will not do for all these cases of dis-
proportionately large issues, although we have already seen
reason to believe that the fortunes of Cremna were supported
by Aurelian. 4 At Philomelium the favourite was Severus Alexan-
der, at Iconium Gallienus, at Ninica Maximinus. What was
Ninica to Maximinus or indeed Maximinus to Ninica? In these
cases the sudden occurrence of coinage may commemorate
some festive occasion or constitute a response to a new demand
for small change.
It was certainly no indication of the firmness of the hold
exercised by the central government on a town. Within a few
! SHA, Clodius Albinus XIII, 3 If. For devotion to the Senate in the eastern pro-
vinces, see G. Forni, "<J.pa. e Ehds J;vYKAyros", Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei, Ser. VIII, vo!' v, fasc. III (1953), 49 If.
2 Amongst the types struck under Gordian III are: warrior with trophy and
heap of arms (Mion. III. 502, no. 65) ; soldier with shield and spear (Mion. Supp!.
VII. !O3, no. 83); eaglets) with wings displayed (Mion. III. 500, no. 51; BMC
Lycia, etc., 192, no. 93); emperor sacrificing; standards (BMC Lycia, etc., 191,
nos. 87 f.; SNG (Copenhagen), Pisidia 7d; McClean 8952 f.); emperor standing;
standards (Mion. Supp!. VII. !O3, no. 84; BMC, loco cit., no. 89); emperor in
quadriga, holding trophy (BMC, loco cit. 190, nos. 82 If.); emperor in curule
chair (ibid. 191, no. 86); emperor with captives (ibid. 193, no. 95); emperor with
globe and javelin (Wadd. 3602 ; cf. RNB, Ser. III, vo!. IV ( 1860), 17, no. 6) ; emperor
with Tranquillina Augusta (Mion. III. 50 I, nos. 60 f.). On the popularity of Gordian
in Asia Minor, see Magie, Roman Rule I. 700, and II. 1564.
3 BMC Lycia, etc., 188 f., nos. 75 f., and Wadd. 3607. 4 See above, p. 152.
years, perhaps even a few months, of its enthusiastic outburst

in honour of the Donatio, Cremna had fallen into the hands of
an Isaurian brigand.
It may be doubted whether the Taurus as a whole had ever
been thoroughly civilized or even conquered. Dio Cassius re-
ports a serious rising of the 'Isauri' under A.D. 6,1 repressed only
by the army ofM. Plautius SiIvanus. 2 There was also recurrent
trouble in Cilicia,3 and the activities of Q. Veranius in Lycia
during the reign of Claudius 4 are another indication of con-
tinued unrest. Objectives un attained in the first and second
centuries would certainly not be reached amid the wars and
pestilences of the third. There is evidence that during the cen-
tury the security of the southern highway became once more
a preoccupation of the central government, as it had been of
their Persian and Hellenistic predecessors. That disorder in
Phrygia Paroreios, provoked by the resurgent mountain tribes,
was expected at this time is shown by the posting of a cen-
turion at Pisidian Antiochs and of another stationarius at Kireli
Kasaba. 6 The citizens of Antioch were aware of their peril;
during this century there was continuous trouble in the southern
Taurus. The victory of Severus Alexander,7 like so many in the
region, had no lasting effect, and under Gallienus a rebel arose
there who was important enough to be classified as one of the
'Thirty Tyrants'.8 The writer of his biography is anxious to
represent him as an aspirant to imperial power-'he called
himself emperor'-but he cannot have regarded his imperium
as extending further than the mountains and coastal plains
of southern Anatolia. 9 When he was defeated and killed, his
! LV. 28. iii. 2 Cf. Velleius Pat. II. 112, with Syme, Klio XXVII (1934), 139 ff.
3 Tacitus, Annals 11.42 (A.D. 17); XII. 55 (A.D. 52, 'saepe et alias commotae').
See Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles qf St. Paul (ed. 2, London, 1856), I.
197, for the view that the robbers of 2 Cor. XI. 26 were encountered on the
journey from Perge to Antioch.
4 For Veranius, see Gordon, QJlintus Veranius, Consul A.D. 49.
5 EJ 92 f., cf. JRSII (1912),80 ff.,no. I; the title of metropolis assigned to Antioch
in EJ 92 raises some doubt as to the accepted dating of the stone (to about A.D. 250).
6 JHSxxn(19 02 ), 106 f.,. no. 16. For this officer, and 'Mygdonia', see also MAMA
VII. xi ff., where Calder identified the latter with 'that part of it [the Phrygian-
speaking section of provincia Galatia) which included the cities of Apollonia,
Antioch and Neapolis ... the area most immediately threatened by the unruly
mountaineers of Pisidia'. 7 SHA, Severus Alexander LVII!. I.
8 SHA, Thirty Tyrants XXVI. 3 f.; his name is given as Trebellianus.
9 'Aliquamdiu apud Cilicas imperavit' (Ioc. cit.).
followers took to the mountains and could by no means be

tempted to leave them; even the plans of Claudius Gothicus
came to nothing. 'In fact, since the time of Trebellianus they
have been regarded as barbarians', says the Scriptor, but the
deepest irony was yet to come.
That was the seizure of Cremna, soon after the death of
Aurelian, by Lydius, an Isaurian brigand who overran the
whole of Pamphylia and Lycia. I Its bewildered inhabitants,
expelled by Lydius in order to reduce the number of non-
combatants in the citadel, were driven back again by the
besieging army; many of them fell into the gullies round the
colony and were killed. The brigands, according to Zosimus,
even dug a tunnel from the town to a point outside the Roman
lines, and brought in supplies through it. Lydius met the be-
trayal of this device by a strict system of rationing, followed
up by the liquidation of all but a few men and women suitable
for garrison and other duties. It was fortunate for the Roman
army that the resourceful Lydius so cruelly punished his most
expert artillery-man that he deserted the brigands and success-
fully directed a ballistic engine against his former master. The
death of Lydius in 280 immediately resulted in the surrender of
the garrison and the restoration of the cities and tribes of the
south-west Taurus to Roman rule.
Probus, the emperor to whom this 'liberation' was due, not
only put into words the belief that lay behind the original
colonization-'it is easier to keep brigands away from those
places than to expel them'-but, by reviving it, demonstrated
that the policy had ultimately failed. 2 The end of an historical
process had been reached, and Rome, herself enfeebled, had
to begin her work again. Probus felt so little confidence in his
settlements of veterans that he provided for the conscription
of their sons at the age of eighteen, 'in case they should ever
learn to be brigands'.
With this incident at Cremna, then, we may consider the
I Zosimus I. 69 f. ; cf. SHA, P,.ObUSXVI, where he is called Palfuerius. This was not
a minor disturbance: Probus had to pacify all the districts of Pamphylia and other
provinces which bordered on Isauria (xvm). One wonders how Comama and
Olbasa fared at this time. Cremna, the most vigorous of the colonies after Antioch,
does not seem to have offered much resistance to the Isaurian.
2 SHA, Probus XVI. 6: 'veteranis omnia ilia quae anguste adeuntur loca privata
donavit'.
history 'of these towns, as Roman colonies, closed. The division

of Asia Minor into smaller administrative units meant that
Antioch, always the chief city of the more southerly of the two
regions into which the Galatian province naturally fell, became
under Diocletian the metropolis of the new province of Pisidia
and the seat of the praeses. I This change of forms, followed by
the emergence of Constantinople as a capital city, did no more
than symbolize and acknowledge developments which had begun
long before and which were not to be arrested. Yet it was a
smooth change, one that those subjects who were involved in it
can hardly have noticed. For them, the Byzantine Empire did
not replace, supersede, or divide the Roman: there was a change
of emphasis, but no sharp break in a continuous process of
development2 •
Administrative changes made no difference to the brigands.
Isaurian uprisings are reported in the mid-fourth century,3 and
Isaurian chieftains became so important that by 474 one of them
had become sole master of the Empire. 4 The troubled supremacy
of the Isaurians came to an end with the battle of Cotiaeum in
492; six years later the last strongholds had been reduced, and
deportation of the mountaineers to Thrace had destroyed their
political importance. It revived only with the emergence of the
Isaurian dynasty in the eighth century.s
Southern Asia Minor had also to contend with the Gruthungi
and Ostrogoths. Settled in Phrygia in 386, they attempted in
399 to march through the defiles of Pisidia, but, like many
before and since, they met their match there. Valentini anus,
a native of Selge, raised a force from farmers in the region (we
:Praesides: ILS 8932 (vir peifectissimus, Diocletianic) ; Anal. Stud. xv (1965), 59 ff.
(vir clarissimus, between 367 and 375).
Z Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, Byzantine~ State 26: 'They always called themselves
Romans ('Pw!-'uto,) and their Emperor considered himself as a Roman ruler, the
successor and heir of the old Roman Caesars. They remained under the spell of
the name of Rome as long as the Empire lasted and to the end the traditions of
Roman government dominated their political thought and purpose.'
3 Ammiamls Marcellinus XIV. 2. iff. (A.D. 353); XIX. 13. if. (359); XXVII. 9. vi
(368; on this revolt, see Levick, Anat. Stud. xv (1965), 60 f.). In general, see the
Expositio Totius Mundi 335 (Lumbroso).
~ .. Brooks, English Historical Review VII! (1893), 209 ff.; Ostrogorsky, op. cit.
56 ff.
S Raids did not cease: the Suda (s.v. 'HpoxAHos) mentions an Isaurian war in
the reign of Heraclius (A.D. 610-41).
176 STAGNATION, BRIGANDAGE, AND INVASION
are told that fighting the neighbouring brigands had kept them
in trim) and repelled the Ostrogoths from his city.!
The emperors took what precautions they· could against
brigandage, but the remedies sometimes proved as dangerous
as the disease. Leo I (457-74) created new military commands
in Asia Minor, including the three comitivae of Pamphylia,
Pisidia, and Lycaonia; but a rescript of 527, found at Kii~iik
Alifahrettin Yayla, north of Sogiit Gol, promises to defend an
Oratory of St. John against both brigands and army.! Again, an
edict of Justinian issued in 548 put Pisidia and Lycaonia under
a dux, but this arrangement was found to be oppressive and, as
the result of a petition, it was discontinued five years later. 2
Justinian also had occasion to command the governors of the
diocese of Asia to suppress the brigands ofPisidia, who, he says,
live in very large, populous villages and rebel against taxation.3
In the seventh century, under Heraclius or his successors,
a new administrative system grew up. Groups of soldiers were
settled in the several regions of Asia Minor, which came to
be known as 'themes'.4 Each had its function in the defence of
Byzantium. Opsikion surrounded Constantinople and pro-
tected the heart of the Empire, Armeniakon and Anatolikon its
outer reaches, while the maritime theme of Carabisiani, which
consisted of Caria, Lycia, and Pamphylia, was intended to
maintain Byzantine power at sea. The Empire now had to face
the formidable heirs of its Persian antagonists: only a few years
after the death of the Prophet, Arab raiders were launching
attacks on the heart of Anatolia.
A raid of 645-6 swept past Tarsus and reached Amorium;
its leader, Mu'awiya, is said to have destroyed the fortresses
as far as Antakiya, which E. W. Brooks identified with Pisidian
Antioch;5 Arab sources for the next sixty years mention several
raids on what appears to be Isauria, and during the second
reign of Justinian II (705-II), when Byzantium was intent
on its internal feuds, the Arabs seized their chance: Tyana fell
and inroads were made into Cilicia; and under 7I2-13 it is
I Zosimus, v. !4 f.; Claudian, In Eutropium II. ! 53 fr. For the site of the battle,
see Hirschfeld, Vorliiufiger Berieht II. 134 f.
2 Inser. greeques ehret. d'Asie Min. I. 314.
3 Stein, Bas-Empire II. 749. 4 Novellae XXIV. I.
5 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Thematibus; Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State 89 fr. ;
A. A. Vasiliev, L'Empire byzantin I. 2g8fr. 6 Brooks, ]HSxvlII (I8g8), 183, note 3.
THE END O,F THE COLONIES 177
recorded ,that aI-Abbas took Antakiya (Pisidian Antioch).I
Iconium fell eleven years later. But Leo III (717-41) and his
victory at Acroenon greatly reduced the danger from the Arabs;
many cities were still to fall to them, but there were no more
Arab sieges ofConstantinople. 2 Leo also made some administra-
tive changes. To prevent a repetition 'Of his own rise to power,
he partitioned Anatolikon and created the new theme of
Thrakesion; Carabisiani was likewise divided, losing the Aegean
Isles, which became a separate unit; henceforward Carabisiani
was known as the Cibyrraeot theme, Later emperors found it
necessary to create still more themes in a contracting Empire;
but the colonies seem always to have been divided between
Anatolikon and Carabisiani (the Cibyrraeot theme).3
The Turks took up the Moslem attack on Byzantium where
the Arabs left off, and they profited from weaknesses caused
by that struggle and by civil war.4 Turkish penetration of Asia
Minor was by no means steady and even, and between Byzan-
tium and its enemies there grew up a frontier zone inhabited
by populations which had more in common with one another
than they had with the regions that backed them,s It was not
until the second half of the eleventh century that irrevocable
catastrophe struck the Byzantine provinces of Anatolia. 6 In
1071 the battle of Manzikert settled their fate. By 1080 the
Sultan controlled practically the whole of the peninsula,7 With
the arrival of the first Crusaders (1096), the Byzantines began
to fight back. s Alexius I (108I-II 18) and John II Comnenus
(1 118-43) recovered south-west and southern Asia Minor.
But the revival was only temporary. Manuel I suffered a serious
defeat in 1176 at Myriocephalon in the Sultan Dag,9 and the
capture of Constantinople by the Latins twenty-eight years
later meant the permanent loss of Asia Minor to the Seljuk
Turks, who made Iconium their capital.
I Cf, Theophanes, Chronographia I, 587 (Bonn ed,), A,M, 6205 (= A,D, 705):
fLETdlloAA7)s alXfLuAwa{us; Michael the Syrian XI, 17 (= Chabot II, 479),
• Ostrogorsky, Byzantine State 138 fr,
3 Ibid" with maps,
4 Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 83 f.
5 Wittek, Rise of the Ottoman Empire 17 fr.
6 Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs seldjollcides 102 fr.
7 Ostrogorsky, op. cit. 308 f.
8 Ibid. 32 I fr.
9 Nicetas Choniates 231 fr. (Bonn ed.).
~uu N
Byzantium outlived the Seljuks. Under Mongol and Turko-

man pressure, their empire broke up at the beginning of the
fourteenth century, and it was divided into a number of emir-
ates. Northern Pisidia, its capital first Uluborlu (Sozopolis-
Apollonia), then Egridir, belonged to the Hamid ogullan,1
while Konya (I conium) and presumably Lystra were in the emir-
ate of Karaman; in the south, centring on Antalya (Attaleia),
arose the emirate of Tekke. But the most important of the
emirates lay to the north: it was the Ottomans who, by con-
quest, purchase, or marriage alliance, were finally to unite
Anatolia under their rule. Towards the end of the fourteenth
century they bought most of the territory of Hamid, and by its
close they had incorporated all the emirates in their dominions.
The fall of Constantinople was only half a century away.2
Against this historical framework we may now trace the
later history of the colonies. Antioch probably gained by the
change in her status that took place under Diocletian. There is
an atmosphere of renewal and reconstruction in this period:
new buildings were put up and the water supply improved. 3 In
the library at Yalva~ is a baptisterion dedicated to St. Paul and
St. Gregory,4 and an elegant Byzantine capital; decorated
stonework of Byzantine date is abundant in the town. Civic
pride was transmuted and survived: Optimus or Optimius, the
metropolitan who attended the Council of Constantinople in
38 I, is mentioned in a pair of mosaic inscriptions built into the
the floor of the Antiochian basilica. s For almost as long as it
survived, Antioch remained the metropolis of Pisidia, ranking
twenty-second in the list. 6
t See Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 90 If.
2 See Wittek, Rise of the Ottoman Empire 33 If.
3 Unpublished architectural fragments on the site may be attributed to A.D.
305-1 I and 308-23; for the water supply see SEGVI. 560 f., cf. Ramsay, ]HS LIlI
(1933),317. The.date of the improvement is in dispute.
• Pace, Annuario III (1921), 55, no. 43.
s TAPA LVII (1926), 234, nos. 67 f., cf. Mansi, Collectio 1Il. 570. He is mentioned
by Michael the Syrian (VII. 9 = Chabot I. 322) alongside Ambrose of Milan.
6 H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur 172. Sergianus attended the Council
of Ancyra in 314 (Mansi, op. cit. II. 534); for Optimus, see previous note; Tran-
quillinus was at Ephesus in 431 (v. 766); Pergamius at Chalcedon in 451 (VI.
567 f.), while Candidianus attended the synod at Ephesus (VI. 609 f.) ; Pergamius
signed the Epistle to Leo of 458 (VII. 565) and attended the Council at Constanti-
nople in 459 (VII .. 915); Bacchus was at Constantinople in 536 (VIII. 877 [.);
Theodore at Constantinople in 550 (IX. 174); Stephanus in 680 (XI. 457 f.); George,
In spite of a distinguished place in the early history of

Gentile Christianity-and it may be the scene of several martyr
stories I-the city did not playa prominent part in the religious
controversies that raged in Byzantium. 2 The deviations of her
metropolitans were trivial and temporary.3 Nor did Antioch
have an important role in Byzantine political life. In Byzantine
and Turkish Asia Minor new cities came into prominence:
Caesarea, Iconium, Amorium, and Attaleia are names that
occur repeatedly in histories of the period. The first three had
strategic significance, the last commercial. The routes from
Attaleia to Constantinople, Iconium, and the Maeander valley
were of great importance for the trade between Egypt and Asia
Minor and for the unity of the peninsula. 4 In the twelfth cen-
tury the Byzantines fought hard to reopen them,5 but they did
not come into their own again until south-western Asia Minor
was united under the Seljuks and the great hans were built. 6
The hans at Egridir and Gelendost prove that Antioch was
on a main highway, but its real destination was Ak~ehir
(Philomelium), and Ibn Battuta, describing a journey made in
Pisidia in 1431 or 1433,7 does not mention the former colony.
Even the name of Antioch died. When did the end come? In
1097 part of the First Crusade made a detour from Polybotus
to Pisidian Antioch, probably because it had escaped devasta-
tion by the Turks and could offer supplies;8 but during the
bishop of Pisidia, was at Nicaea in 787 (XII. 1151 f.); Basilius, metropolitan of
Antioch, was at Constantinople in 869 (XVI, (58); in 1140 the archbishop of Antioch
is mentioned at a Council in Constantinople (XXI. 551 f.); in 1143 he took part in
an anti-Bogomil Council there (XXI. 583 f.). For a list of Antiochian prelates see
M. Le Quien, Orims Christianus I. 1036 fr.
I M. R. James, Apocryphal New Testament 271 fr.; T. Ruinart, Acta primorum
marryrum 138 fr.; G. Henschen, Acta Sanctorum XXII. funii III. 812 fr.; W. Schubart
and C. Schmidt, IIpag«s IIav>.ov 1 IS f.; E. Hennecke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen
II. 225 fr.; V. Schultze, Altchristliche Stiidte II. 366 fr.
2 Beck, Kfrche und theologische Literatur 172 f.
3 Schultze, op. cit. 374 fr.

• The route from Attaleia to Iconium is described by Muhammed ben Muham-
med al-Idrisi (Edrisi), tr. P. Jaubert, II. 310; see W. Tomaschek, Zur historischen
Topographie von Kleinasien 54f. For the route to Constantinople in the tenth cen-
tury, see A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes II. 383.
S Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 86 f.
6 Pace, Annuario VI-VII (1926), 390 fr.; R. Riefstahl, Turkish Architecture 62 ff. ;
Planhol, op. cit. 88 fr. and fig. 10. For the success of the south coast of Asia
Minor under Turkish rule, see W. Heyd, Hist. du commerce du Levant I. 546 fr.
7 Travels, tr. by Gibb, II. 422.
8 S. Runciman, History of the Crusades I. (Cambridge, (954), 188. Albert
twelfth century it was in the front lIne of the fighting, and in

I 19O Frederick Barbarossa avoided the 'via regia' to Iconium:
it was 'very long', 'deserted', and 'shut in by mountains';1
instead he crossed the Sultan Dag by way of KIrk Ba~ and
SagIr, and so made his way to Philomelium. z The city appears
in Notitia X, which was compiled in the reign of Michael VIII
Palaeologus (1259-82),3 but the last metropolitan is mentioned
in I I56,4 and it is the metroPQlitan of Pisidia who in the same
reign falls foul of the authorities for fraternizing with the Sultan
of Konya. s When, in 1345 and I369, the church was asked to
provide Pisidia with a metropolitan, it fulfilled the letter of
the request by elevating the bishop of Sozopolis(Apollonia).6
It seems to be to the years I 156-1282 that we must assign the
death of Antioch and perhaps the birth ofYalvaC;.7 Both events
may have taken place gradually; the decisive phase probably
came soon after the death of Manuel I and the capture of
northern Pisidia by the Turks,s or at any rate after the loss of
Constantinople to the Latins in I204. With the final Turkish
conquest of Phrygia Paroreios there will have come a new
wave of Turkish settlers, and they, with the survivors of the
of Aix describes the region as 'apta et voluptuosa et venationibus fecundissima
(III. 3 = Recueil des hist. des erois., hist. oce. IV. 340); cf. William of Tyre III. 16
(= Recueil, hist. oee. 1. 135): 'regio copiosa satis et uber, rivis, nemoribus et pascuis
amoenissima', and Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Iherosolymitana XIII (= Recueil,
hist. oce. III. 336); according to Benedetto Accolti, Historia Gotefridi( = Recueil,
hist.oce. v. 564), Antioch was 'nobilis tum et magna civitas'-but ran a poor
second to Antioch on the Orontes. William of Tyre, loco cit., calls it the metro-
polis of Pisidia.
'Otto of Freising, Epist. de Morte Frideriei (= Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae
Historiea, Scriptorum xx (Hannoverae, 1868), 494).
2 Tomaschek, op. cit. 100 f. Philomelium was a K<XUTPOV at this time (Nicetas
Choniates 540 (Bonn ed.) = Recueil, hist. grecs 1. 330).

3 For the date of the Notitiae, see Beck, Kirehe und theologisehe Literatur 148 ff.
4 See Le Quien, Oriens Christianus 1. 1041: 'Synodo Constantinopolitanae, in
quo anno 1156 Antiochiae magnae Soterichus Panteugenus patriarcha de-
signatus ob malesanas opiniones proscribi meruit, sederat metropolita Antiochiae
Pisidiae, 'TOU )1vT!.oXElas 'Tfjs IIu:rtolas,' etc.
S Georgius Pachymeres, De Miehaele 257 ff. (Bonn ed.). In the borderland contact
with the Turks could hardly be avoided; on this occasion it seems to have been
taken to extremes.
6 Acta Patr. Constant. 1. 242 f., 509. A. Wachter, Der Verfall des Griechentums 28.
There had already been a vacancy in Pisidia in 1315 (no mention of Antioch):
Acta Patr. Constant. I. 39 ff., cf. Tomaschek, op. cit. 100.
7 For a possible mention of Antioch as an important town in 1224, see Brooks,
]HSXXI (1901 ), 77-
8 Wittek, Byzantion X (1935), 13 f., 33 f.
THE END OF THE COLONIES ISr
old town, occupied the shady, well-watered site on the fertile

plain. Valvae; may have been inhabited since ancient times.
Its name in Turkish means 'ambassador', and it is evident
that the invaders were trying to make sense of an indigenous
word. In a sense the move from hill to plain has continued ever
since the thirteenth century: Valvae; has always made use of
the old site as a quarry, and many of its houses are built of
ancient limestone blocks in their lower courses, while the lids
of sarcophagi have provided the townsfolk with many a wash
tub or trough.
At Cremna, in Byzantine Pamphylia, I there must have been
uninterrupted occupation, on however small a scale; I know
of no Byzantine coins from the site, but it sent a representative
to the second Council of Nicaea in 787.2 At some point the
population must have moved from the crag on which the
colony perched to a more convenient site, perhaps already a
suburb or village of the ancient town, the My of Girme which
perpetuates its name. Our last mention of Cremna is in Notitia
X, but Girme long remained the political centre of the district.3
Parlais survives in the modern Barla. The pleasant slope on
which the colony stood must have seemed too exposed in Byzan-
tine times. All the Christian inscriptions, as well as the church of
St. Theodore, are in the modern village, which is perched on
the side of a ravine and drawn well back from Lake Egridir.
There was a strong Christian element at Barla until quite
recent times, and in the Byzantine period the town seems if
anything to have gained in importance. Parlais appears in the
Council Lists,4 in the Epistle to Leo of 458,5 and in some Notitiae
(in the penultimate position in its province).6 It is absent from
Hierocles. The early sixth century may have been a troubled
time for the townspeople and the occasion for their retreat into
the hills; we have already seen Justinian taking measures
I Hierocles; Notitiae I, III, VII-X, XIII; Nova Taetiea.
2 Theodore (Mansi, Colleetio XII. III I f.).
3 Planhol, De la plaine pamphylienne 379.
4 For a list of bishops, see Le Quien, Oriens Christianus I. 1057 ff. Eusebius Para-
lais Lycaoniae [sic] was at Nicaea in 325 (Mansi, Colleetio II. 696, under Isauria);
Patricius Paraliensis or Paralxit at Constantinople in 381 (111.570; VI. 1179; both
under Pisidia) ; Libanius Paralai or llapaAtwv (Lycaoniae) at Chalcedon in 451 (VI.
577 f.; VII. 159 f.); Anthimius at Constantinople in 879 (XVII. 377 f.).
s Libanius Paralenus (Mansi, Colleetio VII. 571, under Pisidia).
6 It is assigned to Pisidiain I (llapa>.>.']<), IX, X, XIII (all have llap}..aov).
against brigands in Pisidia.r Byzantine bronze, which cannot

have travelled far, is abundant in Barla, and it testifies to the
occupation of the ancient site or the modern village in the
seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh centuries; like Cremna,
Parlais appears in the thirteenth century Notitia X.
The continued existence of Comama, still in Pamphylia, is
proved for the early period by Byzantine monuments and by its
appearance in Hierocles and the Epistle to Leo,2 and for the
later (but with much less certainty), by a coin of Michael IV
(I034-4I).3 Comama was an insignificant town on a vulnerable
site, and it is not surprising that its name has not survived .
. Probably it ceased to have bishops of its own after the sixth
century and was amalgamated with one of its more tenacious
neighbours. 4
A coin belonging. to the reign of Michael IV was shown to
me at Belenli, the village a few minutes' walk from the site of
Olbasa, as well as one struck by Michael's successor Constantine
IX (I042-55) : Olbasa possessed what seems to have been a well
constructed church;5 in view of this and of its appearance in
Hierocles (as a Pamphylian town), it is surprising that Olbasa
is omitted from all the Council Lists and Notitiae. Olbasa's
absence is less likely than that of Parlais to be due to disturbed
conditions, for its site is far less vulnerable to attack. Neverthe-
less, its fortified acropolis suggests that at some time the town
endured a siege. We must assume either that Olbasa sank into
insignificance soon after Hierocles' list was compiled and that
its inhabitants were represented at Councils by the bishop of
I See above, p. 176.

2 Ephesius Comamenus (with variants): Mansi, Collectio VII. 576. Note also
Johannes 'YfLUTWV in Pamphylia, A.D. 518, where Mansi, VIII. 1049 f., and P. Crabbe,
Concilia Omnia (Coloniae, 1538), II. xxb, have Commacorum, and I. Merlin,
Conciliorum IV Generalium (Coloniae, 1530), II. folio XIII verso, has Imacorum
(Schwartz, ad Coli. Sabb. v. 25 = Acta III. 66, no. 30, cites Commadorum, with an
unacceptable emendation to E<vv€wv) ; the readings are discussed by E. Honigmann,
Eveques et evechis monophysites 135 f. The vicissitudes of the town are hard to follow:
its name is readily confused in manuscripts with those of Coibasa, Cormasa, Conana,.
Comana, and Homona. Hierocles has KOfLUVU and Ptolemy, v. 5. vii (variant)
KOfLfLUKOV, perhaps from KOfLafLd. KoAwvia.
3 This coin belongs to the second class distinguished by A. R. Bellinger, The
Anonymous Byzantine Bronze Coinage, Numismatic Notes and Monographs xxxv (New
York, 1928).
4 The people of Pogla (Flgla) are still represented in Notitia X.
S See Plate IVa; the diameter of the apse is 27 feet.
a neighbouring town, or that it changed its name and lurks

unrecognized in the Conciliar Lists and Notitiae; I but Professor
Bean's work in the Lysis valley has made this the less likely
alternative.
Finally, Lystra: Hierocles, Conciliar Lists,2 and Notitiae 3 attest
its continued existence until the thirteenth century. This
evidence is confirmed by Byzantine coins in the possession of
the villagers of Hat un sa ray, one of which may be dated to 569-70,
another to 603-4, and a third to I059-67-very near the final
conquest of this part of Asia Minor by the Seljuk Turks, who
made Iconium their capita1. 4 Iconium, not Lystra, was the
metropolis of Byzantine Lycaonia; it was its colonial status that
had given Lystra its importance in the district. Hadrian's grant
of the same rank to Iconium recognized a natural primacy.
But in all the documents Lystra comes second. The town had
a vitality that kept it alive even after the Seljuk conquest, and
the tepe, deserted though it is, still preserves the old name in
'Zoldera' .5
t Ramsay originally explained its absence by supposing (AJA IV (1888), 18, and
Hist. Geog. 421) that Olbasa is the Hadriani of the Notitiae and of the lists of 458,
692, 787, and 879. Later he found the difficulty of the colony's change of name
insuperable (Cities and Bishoprics I. 284 f.) and concluded that this was a case of the
double bishopric: Hadriani was the name of the Lysis valiey estates, which had
been reorganized by Hadrian; the second part of the double name Hadriani-
O!basa was dropped by copyists of the Notitiae. Professor Bean's convincing identi-
fication (Anal. Stud. IX (1959), 110) of a site at Gi'lvur bren, between Olbasa and
Lake Ascania, with Hadriani puts both of Ramsay's explanations out of court as
they stand; but destruction or abandonment of the site and the incorporation of
its inhabitants in a neighbouring see is possible.
2 For a list of bishops, see Le Quien, Oriens Christianus I. 1073 ff. Tiberius was at
Nicaea in 325 (Mansi, Collectio II. 699 ('Ilistron'), cf. 6g6 ('Tyberius Lystrenus');
both provinciae Isauriae);' Paulus at Constantinople in 381 (m. 570; provinciae
Lycaoniae); Plutarch at Chalcedon in 451 (VI. 949 f.); Basilius at Constantinople
in 879 (XVII. 377 f.).
3 I, III, VII, VIII, IX, X, XIII (always in Lycaonia).
4 Laurent, Byzance et les Turcs seldjoucides 12, note 13. Ramsay's dating of the
abandonment ofZoldera may be too early; in Social Basis I 80 he writes: '[The Colonia]
remained the site of the city till Byzantine times, as a small church on the hill,
S.E. side •.. proves. It was doubtless captured and destroyed by the Arabs about
700; the population then reverted to the old site [Hatunsaray].' In times of dis-
turbance they might more reasonably return to a fortifiable hillock long familiar
to them as the site of their city. Ramsay believed that Lystra was a very feeble
urban centre: Hist. Comm. Gal. 226 and Pictures of lhe Apostolic Church 359.
5 See Wittek, Byzantion x (1935), 48: 'Metathese ... geradezu charakteristisch
fUr die Behandlung von Fremdwortern im TUrkischen.' Cremna-Girme is another
example.
XIV
CONCLUSION:
THE COLONIES IN THE EMPIRE
N tracing the history and character of Augustus' six Pisidian
I colonies, we have been compelled to follow Ramsay in see-

ing that history largely in terms of the impact of one culture
upon another; although Ramsay's dating of the changes that
took place in the interrelationship of the two cultures has had
to be modified, this is a theme which emerges again and again
in discussion of the colonies.
How far the founder consciously intended this impact to
take place is a. question which has not as yet been settled. In
other words, was Augustus, and indeed were his predecessors and
successors at the head of Roman affairs, deliberately aiming
at the romanization of Asia Minor or of any other area?
Opinion is divided, I and the question itselffalls into two parts:
whether romanization was ever the conscious object of the
central government, and, if it was, whether colonization was
ever one of the instruments that were used to obtain that object.
As long as Roman hegemony and Roman colonization were
confined to the Italian peninsula, both parts of the question
must surely be answered with a firm negative. Roman colonies
in Italy had a strategic and perhaps an economic function to
perform;2 we cannot assume that they were burdened with
a third task, one which they were ill-equipped to undertake.
Until the mid-second century B.C. Roman colonies were little
more than garrisons equipped with married quarters; self-
government was in its infancy and the colonies were orientated
towards Rome. Latin colonies, on the other hand, were auto-
I The language of Magie (Roman Rule I, 459, 464, and elsewhere) implies that
romanization was deliberate, but Vittinghoff (Riimische Kolonisation 32) denies tbat
romanization was ever the direct object of colonization; Stevenson (Roman
Provincial Administration 12 I) regards romanization as 'the inevitable consequence
of tbe union of the civilized world in a single community'; cf. Ramsay, History
and Art of the East. Provo 312 f.
2 See above, p. I.
CONCLUSION: THE COLONIES IN THE EMPIRE 185
nomous cities, equipped with all the necessary organs of govern-

ment;1 but they were not exclusively Roman in character,2 and
the Italians had little to learn from them. In any case the cul-
tural institutions of Rome were not so superior to those of her
Italian neighbours that she could expect to serve as a model for
them. In the south, the cities of Magna Graecia were the direct
heirs of Hellenic culture; Rome had nothing to teach them.
She herself had much to learn from them and from the Etrus-
cans to her north. In so far as Italy became a cultural unity,
it was through a process of give and take, made easier by the
political hegemony of Rome and by Roman roads. Latin pre-
vailed, as the language of the dominant state; but its triumph was
facilitated by the very kinship of Latin and the Italic dialects.
In the provinces there would certainly be a good deal more
to be said for the idea that the Romans deliberately adopted
a policy of romanization, at least in the western half of the
Empire. The Orient had already encountered and assimilated,
to a greater or lesser degree, Hellenistic civilization as it spread
outwards from Greece after the conquests of Alexander the
Great. For the east, in which the development of urban life
had been encouraged by Alexander and his successors, and
which considered itself the cultural heir of classical Greece,
civilization and romanization were not, as they were in much
of the west, equivalent terms. So much the less likely was the
central government to succeed in: any deliberate policy of
romanization.
In the west, on the other hand, the Romans could not have
failed to notice the advantages they would secure if they had
thoroughly civilized, romanized provincials to rule, if they
exercised an imperium in which the subjects were glad to ac-
quiesce. 3 The provincials would become at once more co-opera-
tive and more useful, especially as soldiers. The Senate naturally
objected to sharing its duties and its privileges with men from
the provinces, who only recently (as it seemed to them)4 had
I On the differences between Roman and Latin colonies, see G. Tibiletti,
Athenaeum, N.S. XXVIII (1950), 219 ff.

2 Phoenix IX (1955), 75, arguing against Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 94; cf.
MacKendrick, Athenaeum, N.S. XXXII (1954), 245, who points out that neither
Cicero nor Livy stresses belief in a civilizing mission.
, Livy, VIII. 13. xvi: 'quo oboedientes gaudent'.
• Tacitus, Annals XI. 23: 'recentia haec'.
186 CONCLUSION: THE COLONIES IN THE EMPIRE
been resisting the imposition of Roman rule; the lower classes

of Italy, if they thought about the matter at all, can have had
no objection to allowing provincials to serve in the legions.
Caesar noticed and took advantage of the high quality of the
Gallic soldier; later rulers became aware of a complementary
factor: the growing reluctance of Italians to serve. I Claudius'
attitude towards the admission of new citizens and their em-
ployment may have been an enlightened one, but in public he
justified it as one of self-interest: the invigoration of a worn out
Empire. z We may note, too, that this had been achieved by
the settlement of legions throughout the world. Caesar like-
wise is advised, in a pseudo-Sallustian work, to found colonies
as a means of enriching the armed forces. 3
Only citizens, however, were admitted to the legions in
normal circumstances,4 and auxiliaries were granted the citizen-
ship when they had served their time. Under the early Empire
citizens had to be not merely civilized, but romanized; for
the government, as for the purposes of two earlier chapters,
the premier criterion was the use of the Latin language. To
understand Latin was to understand what might now be called
'the Roman way of life'.5 At Augustodunum in Gaul there was
opened a school of Greek and Latin literature which was at-
tended by the most aristocratic young men of the province. 6
A central feature of Gallic life and education had been dis-
couraged and finally banned;7 here it was not so much that
the Romans were bent on forcing their own culture on another
people, but that they had to offer substitutes for a form of
I See Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Al7ny (ed. 2, Kendal, 1961), 124.
• Tacitus, Annals XI. 24: 'fesso imperio subventum est.'
3 Ad Caes. II. 5, 8: 'res militaris opulentior erit'.
4 Cf. Parker, The Roman Legions 169 ff.
5 See above, p. 130. For the spread of Latin, see Plutarch, Mor. 10IO D (but
this sense rests on Wyttenbach's emendation of the text).
6 Tacitus, Annals III. 43. For the products of the Gallic schools of rhetoric, see
Quintilian x. I. 118 (Domitius Afer and Iulius Africanus), and 120 (Iulius
Secundus); a high degree of romanization was achieved in Spain, by similar or
humbler methods: Strabo III, p. 15 I : 0;' ,.,dV70[, Tovp31JTaVO~ Kat f-LaAI.OTU Ol1TEpt TOV
Bar'nv TEAlws ds 'TOV cPWfLulwv f.LETa{3E{3A7JVT(lt -rp671'OV, QUOE TfjS otaA€KTOV 7'fjs
acpETEpas ETI. lL€fLV'rJl.J.ivOL. Aa'Tivot 7£ Ol1TIU:iU'TOt YEYOV(lCTt Kat €7TO{KOVS ElA7}cP(lUI,
fPw/Lalovs, warE Il,I,KPOV a1T€XOV(Jt 'TOV 7TaV'TES e£V(l£ fPwp..aiot. The
pioneering efforts of Sertorius should be noted, whatever their real motive
(Plutarch, Serlo XIV).
7 Suetonius, Diu. Claud. xxv; Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxx. 13.
religion and education that they could not tolerate; and this
substitution was made deliberately. In Britain, Agricola spent
public money on the construction of towns and the provision
of amenities to go with them,! and he knew that it was not
wasted. The more possessions the Britons had to lose, the less
likely they would be to risk them in rebellion; the more they
came to appreciate the pleasures of a civilized and leisured life,
the less inclined they would be to revolt against their instructors.
The Britons thought that they were acquiring culture; the
Romans knew better: they were being tamed.
It seems legitimate, then, to speak of 'instruments' of romani-
zation. Which were the most efficacious? The army and its
discipline;2 the imperial cult, which so often took the place
of the worship of native deities or at least was superimposed
upon them and transformed them; and the colonies, 'part of
the army, comrades in good fortune and bad'.3
Those measures which the Roman government took in the
provinces and which led to romanization will have been taken
primarily for security reasons. The military aspect of the Pis i-
dian colonization has been strongly, and rightly, emphasized.
By the first centenary of the foundations it had sunk into in-
significance, but, as we have seen, it was originally of prime
importance. This was true not only of the military colonies in
Pisidia, but of others generally up to the time of their founda-
tion and for some time afterwards. 4
Again, the suggestion that romanization was, to a limited
extent, a deliberate policy of the Roman government, to be
attained partly by colonization, is not intended to apply to the
eastern half of the Empire as a whole, although there can be
no doubt that the Romans deliberately fostered knowledge of
Latin, even in the eastern provinces. s It explains indeed why
I Tacitus, Agricola 2 I; cf. Histories IV. 64: 'voluptatibus quibus Romani plus
adversus subiectos quam armis valent.'
2 See Hahn, Romanismus 160 If.
3 Tacitus, Histories Y. 65; see also p. 186, note 6 above, for Spain, and, for Italy,
Livy I. 27. ix: 'magna pars Fidenatium, ut quibus coloni additi Romani essent,
Latine sciebant'.
4 Expressly stated by Cicero, Pro Font. 13, for Narbo Martius, and by Tacitus,
Annals XII. 32, for Camulodunum.
; Cf. Augustine, De Civ. Dei XIX. 7: 'at enim opera data est, ut imperiosa civitas
non solum iugum verum etiam linguam suam domitis gentibus per pacem societatis
imponeret.' For the east, see Valerius Maximus II. 2. ii: '[magistratus] ..•
there were so few colonies in the east compared with the west: 1
they would almost at once be submerged and lost in the culture
that surrounded them. Augustus planted twice as many colonies
in the west as he did in the east, 2 and most of the eastern settle-
ments were on the barbarian coast of Dalmatia. Hahn sug-
gested 3 that wholesale romanization of the east would have
been achieved if the Romans had colonized it on the same scale
as the west, but that the colossal, twofold task proved too
much for their resources. His view underestimates the magni-
tude of the undertaking, which lay far beyond anything that
the Romans attempted in the west, but it accounts for the fact
that the eastern colonies were, with few exceptions, confined
to a few clearly marked areas. Six of the twenty-five were con-
centrated in or near Pisidia, where, as we have seen, city life
was in its infancy. Nor, with the single exception of Antioch,
were the more important and better developed towns of Pisidia
and the districts bordering on it selected as sites for colonization.
Why were Apollonia and Attaleia, Sagalassus, Selge, and
Iconium passed over in favour of insignificant communities
like Parlais and Comama? Military considerations and the
availability of land were, no doubt, the determining factors,
but the relative blankness of the page on which he was to write
will not have displeased the Princeps. It was in just such a dis-
trict, where the polis was a novelty and where conditions were
nearest to those of Gaul and Spain, that romanization stood
most chance of success. It does not seem likely that this fact
escaped Augustus' notice when he was confronted with the
problem of Amyntas' kingdom. 4 Certainly his other colonial
foundations were not founded solely for strategic purposes or
to absorb discharged veterans. S The difference between the
custodiebant, ne Graecis umquam nisi LaHne responsa darent. quin etiam ipsos
linguae volubilitate ..• excussa per interpretem loqui cogebant non in urbe
tantum sed etiam in Graecia et Asia, quo scilicet Latinae vocis honos per omnes
gentes venerabilior diffunderetur.' Some governors did not even understand Greek:
Philostratus, Vito Ap. V. 36.
I Stevenson, CAHx. 207, regards this as 'characteristic of the western sympathies
of Augustus'. Vittinghoff, Riimische Kolonisation 136, and Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit.

174, consider the number of eastern colonies to be large. Comparatively they are
few, but those few are densely packed in suitable positions.
, See the map at the end of Vittinghoff, op. cit. 3 Romanismus 95 f.
4 See Hahn, op. cit. 162 and 216, and Anderson, ]RS III (1913), 267;
Vittinghoff, op. cit. 134, rejects this view.
s Vittinghoff, op. cit. 138. Sherwin-White, Rom. Cit. 174, explains the Pisidian
CONCLUSION: THE COLONIES IN THE EMPIRE 18g
first two attempts of the Romans to deal with Pisidia and their
third attempt was precisely that only the last involved not
only pacifYing the country but permanently altering its character.
Antioch and her sister colonies were veteran settlements in
strong positions. But they were not merely fortresses, as over-
emphasis on their military aspect might lead one to suppose-
not even at the beginning of their history. Antioch, at any rate,
exposes in its coinage and inscriptions a rich and decided per-
sonality. If Antioch was a military colony, it was also a polis,
which owed its vigour, adaptability, and tenacity partly to the
Roman settlers, but chiefly to other and earlier elements in
the population admitted to citizenship either at the time of
the foundation or later.
Administration, of course, was in the hands of the settlers
-men like the Caristanii and their immediate circle, who
farmed the fertile territorium of the colony, doubtless with labour
supplied by the indigenous population; local business men of
Italian, Graeco-Phrygian, and] ewish stock maintained the com-
mercial prosperity of a town whose position assured it trade
and intimate contact with western Asia Minor. Even at the
time of colonization, Antioch cannot have been as bleak and
uninviting as Ramsay has painted it,1 and the town always had
its cultural pretensions. Interest in religion, not only among the
devotees of Men, was passionate. ] udaism, by the time of
St. Paul's visit, was attracting not only Greeks and Phrygians,2
but women of the ruling classes, women of at any rate partly
Italian ancestry. So far were these people committed to the
Jewish religion that they were prepared to take sides in its dis-
sensions.3 Paul addressed himself to the synagogue, but the
whole city wanted to hear him. It was at Antioch that he first
turned to the Gentiles; this was more than a garrison town.
Roman colonies of the imperial age seem to fall into three
groups. First, there was the entirely fresh foundation, a town
colonies, in contrast with others in the east, by military necessity. This was a very
important factor, but not perhaps the only one.
I Social Basis 62.
2 ActsxnI. 16 and 26: ot </>of30VfJ-€VOL 'TOV B€6v, XIII. 43 : TWV aef3oM'vwv 1TpOUTJAthwv;
at Iconium the corresponding classes are called 'EAA~vWV "0'\') "MIOos (XIV. I).
Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church 354, speaks of an affinity of character
between the Jews and the Anatolian peoples of the plateau; see also Social Basis
193 and section v.
3 Acts XIII. 50.
created where no town had stood before, or where all traces
of an earlier community had been ruthlessly obliterated. I
Towns without history or traditions, modelled on the ideal
Rome, they would develop on the lines laid down in the foun-
der's master plan, the Lex coloniae, closed to the alien influences
of the countryside in which he had planted them. Such was
Emerita in Lusitania, founded in the same year as Pisidian
Antioch.2 At the other extreme were those deserving com-
munities, already enjoying a prosperous existence as cities of
a lower rank, which were given the title of colony honoris causa,
without any deductio of veterans having taken place. Antioch
and her sister colonies belonged to a third, intermediate group,
the largest, in which the veteran settlement was superimposed
upon the original town,3 the result being a composite society,
a bewildering and contradictory variety of cultural and social
phenomena, and a sharp cleavage between upper and lower
classes.
It is the fact that Antioch towards Pisidia was a colony
of this type that makes it easy to draw mistaken conclusions
about its cultural development. The citizen body of the colonies,
even after the admission of Graeco-Phrygians, contained a hard
core of Italians, and it needs more evidence than the fact that
Greek games continued to be held at Antioch to demonstrate
the gradual fraying and wearing away of Roman and Italian
customs and interests. In earlier chapters an attempt has been
made to produce that evidence in the form of coins. The change,
we may be sure, did not take place simply because there were
Greeks and Jews in the cities. There were Greeks and Jews at
Rome; Rome, too, had its oriental cults, games, and associa-
tions;4 Rome, as well as Antioch, had its ladies of high rank
who sympathized with Judaism in the mid-first century A.D.,s
even, it has been suggested, with Christianity.6 Antioch was
a model of Rome, not only in its magistracies and priesthoods,
its deliberative body of substantial citizens, its vici and its seven
I Hyginus in Grom. Velt. I. 177: 'quibusdam deletis hostium civitatibus, novas
urbes [Augustus] constituit.'
• Sutherland, The Romans in Spain, 143.
3 Hyginus, loc. cit.: 'quosdam in veteribus oppidis deduxit et colonos nominavit.'
4 For, e.g., a xystarches at Rome, see IGR I. 150 ff.
5 Dio LXVII. 14- ii (ed. Boissevain, 111.131).
6 Pomponia Graecina (Tacitus, Annals XIII. 32, with Furneaux ad loc.).
hills, but in the admixture of non-Italian elements within its

walls. Changes took place in the Italian aristocracy in the
colonies, not because there were Greeks, Pisidians, and Phry-
gians in the city, but because the Italian colonists were obliged
to intermarry with them l and failed to see that their children
were brought up as they would have been in Italy. At Rome,
in the same way, Italians broke into a purely Roman aristo-
cracy;2 this circle in turn was entered by men from Spain and the
Gauls, and eventually from remoter provinces, while from the
Orient and beyond other frontiers came slaves who, if they
were manumitted, might become the ancestors of knights,
senators, even emperors) If a colony founded at the beginning
of the Christian era was to take Rome as its pattern, it would
have to be a cosmopolitan town indeed. 4 Only with this parallel
kept in mind, then, is it possible to judge the development of
colonial societies. The parallel is not exact: Juvenal's Orontes
barely trickled into the Tiber; the colonies were islands in an
ocean. On the other hand, the colonists were countrymen from
central and northern Italy, and provincial, especially colonial,
societies are notoriously more conservative and more exclusive
than metropolitan. s Again, romanization did make some head-
way in the east. Greek ignorance of, and scorn for, things
Roman has generally been exaggerated. Whatever their feelings
towards their masters, the Greeks could not help but become
acquainted with their speech, law, and customs. The evidence
brought forward by Hahn should afford sufficient proof that
the traffic in ideas was not one that left the Romans hopelessly
in debt: a Latin-speaking actor was attracted to Delos; the
Roman system of measurement by milia passuum was known to
Eratosthenes; litigation in the eastern provinces could be
I At Lystra a quaestor and pontifex was married to a Lucilia Isaurica (MAMA
VIII. 12); ILS 2403 provides another example of the settlement ofsoldiersin~this
region of Anatolia and of their intermarriage with native women.
2 Tacitus, Annals Xl. 24; ILS 2l2: 'omnem florem ubique coloniarum ac muni-
cipiorum'.
3 Suetonius, Vitellius If.; Tacitus, Annals XIII. 27.
4 Cf. the whim of the aged Augustus (Suetonius, Div. Aug. XCVIII): 'ceteros
continuos dies inter varia munuscula togas insuper et pallia distribuit lege pro-
posita, ut Romani Graeco, Graeci Romano habitu et sermone uterentur.' Rome
might be described as a world in miniature (Athenaeus I. p. 20, Band 0). Lucan
says it is 'mundi faece repletam' (VII. 405) ; cf. Barrow, Slavery in the Roman Empire
(London, 1928), 208 ff.
5 See Syme, Colonial Elites 18, on the origin of the Spanish language as an
illustration of this point.
carried on by Roman officials in Latin. 1 It was perhaps at the

lowest level of all, where resistance was weakest, that Romanismus
made most headway. This was to a large extent due to the work
of Roman soldiers, who affected not only the allied troops who
served alongside them in the auxilia,z but also civilians in the
regions through which they passed and in which they were
stationed. The work of the armed forces was carried on and
consolidated by the traders and colonists who followed them.
Its effectiveness at a low level is nicely illustrated by the vogue
for gladiatorial games and wild-beast shows that swept the east. 3
The partnership between east and west in the Roman Empire
was indeed a marriage; but it began as a marriage by capture,
in which the weaker partner gave up her dowry and received
only protection in return. It was long before a reluctant affec-
tion grew up and a mutual exchange of goods was achieved.
Increasing familiarity ended misunderstandings and broke
down pride. It is the part played by the colonies in promoting
that familiarity which gives them a significant place in the
history of the Empire.
I Hahn, op. cit. 29 fr. ; cf. 213, note 7; for the influence of Latin on the Greek
spoken in the Orient, 218 f. ; for the tendency of Greeks living at Rome to become
romanized, [Dio Chrys.] XXXVII. 25.
2 Hahn, op. cit. 33 and 79 fr.
3 Robert, Les Gladiateurs dans l' Orient grec (Paris, 1940),239 ff.; 'La societe grecque
a ete gangrenee par cette maladie venue de Rome. C'est un des succes de la roma-
nisation du monde grec' (ibid. 263).
APPENDIX I
THE FOUNDATION OF THE GALATIAN
PROVINCE: 25 OR 20 B.C.?
Dro assigns the creation of Galatia to 25 B.C.,I and this date is

accepted in the text, page 29. Ramsay, abandoning a view he had
previously adopted, rejected Dio's date and argued for 20 B.C.2 The
Galatian era, according to Ramsay, is fixed by a coin of Tavium 3
which refers on the obverse to Caracalla as 'Antoninus' and
'K(aisar)'. As Caracalla became M. Aurelius Antoninus in r96 and
Augustus in r98, the coin must have been issued in the period
between the conferment of each of these titles, or rather, between
the times when the news of each conferment reached Tavium. On
the reverse of the coin appears ET(OYC) CHI, i.e. year 2r8. This
fixes the era of Tavium to 2r or 20 B.C., and with it, as Ramsay
thought, the era of the whole of Galatia. 2 r is impossible: Lollius,
the first governor, was consul at Rome in that year. Ramsay there-
fore dated the organization of Province Galatia to 20 B.C.
The most serious objection to this view is that Lollius was prob-
ably in Thrace, not Galatia, in 20 B.C.4 Moreover, the coin, at its face
value, dates only the era of Tavium itself: CETPO [TAO]VIANnN
and (in exergue) ETHCLS 'Quaedam Italiae civitates diem quo
primum ad se venisset initium anni fecerunt', says Suetonius,6 and
the more extravagant adulation of the east might well cause a city
to date its era from some small benefaction conferred by the Princeps;
Augustus was in the east ih 20 B.C.
Again, Ramsay laid much stress on Dio's tendency to describe
under one year a series of events which in reality lasted for several;
in this way Dio's dating of the organization of Galatia may be ex-
plained. But if Ramsay was right in dating the creation of the Galatian
province to 20 B.C., Dio is not following his normal practice, which
is to recapitulate events rather than to anticipate them. 7
Finally, Ramsay said nothing of the state of Galatia between the
death of Amyntas in 25 B.C. and the organization of the province in
20. The Romans would not have allowed this vast area to remain
I LIII. 26. iii. 2 Buckler 203.

3 BMC Galatia, etc., 28, no. 23. 4 RE XIII (1927), 1380 f.
5 As Magie, Roman Rule II. 1306, points out.
6 Diu. Aug. LIX.
7 See the examples quoted by Syme, ]RSXXlIl (1933),17, note 23.
814259 0
194 APPENDIX I
without a governor for five years. There would be, if no military
danger, a certain loss to Roman prestige, and a weakening of the
political structure of Asia Minor which Augustus would be anxious
to avoid so soon after the end of the civil wars; and there was always
the Parthian threat. R. K. Sherk's favoured solution, I that 'Galatia
was taken over by the Romans in 25 B.C. but did not become an actual
province with a lex provinciae until 22-20 B.a.', is an unsatis-
factory compromise for which the author quotes neither evidence
nor parallels.
I Legates of Galatia 14.
APPENDIX II
THE DATE OF THE COLONY AT LYSTRA
THE view adopted in the text, page 37 above, would raise the founda-
tion date of the colony at Lystra from about 6 B.C. to about 25 B.C.
Professor Grant' has proposed a far more drastic revision of the
date, one which severs Lystra's connexion with the Pisidian group
of colonies. His arguments will have to be examined in some detail.
The chief basis of Professor Grant's hypothesis is a colonial coin2
which he describes as follows:
M. RVTILVS PRO cos. COL. IVL. .. male head to right, with distinctive
features.
A. FERIDIVS IIVIR EX D.D. colonist ploughing to right3 with humped
oxen.
According to Professor Grant, the type of the humped buH limits
the colony of origin to Caria, Lycaonia, and the intervening terri':'
tories, while the style is pre-Augustan. The stipulated territory was
under direct Roman rule during the period between Pompey's an-
nexation and 38 B.C., when it passed to a client king. The Julian
colony of the coin is identified with Lystra on the ground that only
Lystra of the south Anatolian colonies had the title Iulia without
that of Augusta. Professor Grant remarks that the treatment of the
bulls resembles that on later colonial coins of Lystra. He develops
his theory by attempting to identify the proconsul who is named
and represented on the coin. From analogies with Sinope and else-
where, he concludes that this man was the founder of the colony
at Lystra and accordingly he restores the mutilated legend as
M. RVTILVS PRO cos. COL (oniam) IVL(iam) [DED(uxit)]. Professor
Grant goes on to identify this Rutilus with the Rutilus mentioned hl
Caesar's Bellum Gallicum. 4 His governorship should be put after the
death of Caesar, for before that event no governor was honoured by
having his portrait on the currency. Professor Grant would narrow the
time of the deductio to 44-43 B.C. Rutilus was left behind in Asia by
,Dolabella
'
to deal with Cornelius Lentulus Spinther.s In his short
I From Imp. to Auct. 238 ff. "
2 One specimen was published in ]HSxx:xJV ('914), 46 (Plate I, no. 185).
3 He is actually moving leftwards; cf. BMG Lycaonia, etc., 10, no • I; Mann. gree.
347, no. 121. 4 VII. 90. iv.
5 See Broughton, Magistrates, II. 481 and Suppl. 56, with Syme, GP L (1955),
130 f.
196 APPENDIX II
term of office, the deputy founded the colony to guard the great
high-road from Asia to Syria. The retention of the name Iulia shows
that, after a period in Republican hands, the colony was restored by
Antony after Philippi, while for the years 38-36 B.C. it was an enclave
in royal territories.
In· support of his hypothesis, Professor· Grant points out that
Antioch and Lystra regarded themselves as sister colonies, senior tQ
the other Pisidian foundations. There are two pieces of evidence
in favour of this view: a dedication by Lystra to ~her most distinL
guished sister-colony of the Antiochians" and two coins of Antioch:'
IMP A •.••••. r., TR. POT 1., head of Augustus r.
The reverse of one specimen reads:

PARENS CAESAREA COL: Priest ploughing with humped oxen, right.
Professor Grant writes: 'The word parens might refer to Augustus

(who is described as IMP. AVGVST. TR. POT. on the obverse)', but is more
likely to be cOllllected with the title of the colony: since the other
Pisidian foundations were not made until the construction of the Via
Sebaste in c. 6 B.C., Antioch might well consider itself their parent"city
or p:r}7'p6nOAts.' I should not wish to dispute the attribution of this coin
and its fellows to Antioch, but prefer to adopt the alternative view,
that the word parens refers to Augustus, who, as founder of the colony,
is called parens coloniae at Iader.3
Professor Grant's hypothesis thus rests on a pre-Augustan
colonial coin, on the fact that Lystra regarded Antioch as a sister
colony, and that of all the Pisidian colonies only Lystra is known
as Iulia and not as Iulia Augusta. Vittinghoff's rejection of the
hypothesis4 seems justified.
The coin, it must be remembered, has its obverse legend muti-
lated; what, if anything, followed IVL is quite uncertain. The non-
colonial name of the town which struck it is nowhere given, and the
type is a common one in this region of southern Asia Minor. One
may admit that there was a colony founded by Rutilus; its fate is
unknown, nothing connects it with Lystra. This, the main support
of the theory, is the weakest.
WE 352: T~V AUPJrrpoTCi.r7)v )!VTt0XEWV KOAwvtuv • • • T~V dBEA",»v.

I
NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (19'4), 312, no: 40; Berlin, under Caesarea Panias; see
2
From Imp. to Auct. 251 and Plate VIII. 12. _. '
3 ILS 5336. The state of the coin cited by Professor Grant does not rule out the
possibility that the word colonia was in the genitive case here as well. The form
may have been COLON'AI: cf. NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV ('914), 307, no. '4; BMC
Lycia,' etc., '78, nos. II-13; ]RS VI (1916), 90, no. !.
4 Ro-mische Kolonisation 133.
THE DATE OF THE COLONY AT LYSTRA 197
Again, Professor Grant would regard Antioch as a metropolis,
a parent in relation to the other cities, with Lystra, as a sister
colony of Antioch, a kind of aunt towards them. This, on his own
theory, is wrong. It does not appear that he regards Augustus as
refounding Lystra in any sense; it would thus consider itself a colony
founded in 43 B.C., nearly twenty years before Antioch. Lystra should
be the metropolis, Antioch one of the daughters, not the sister!-
especially as we have seen reasons for believing that the foundation
date of one of the minor colonies, Cremna, was as early as that of
Antioch itself.l It is hard to imagine one of the cities of the east,
whose rivalry with one another was notorious, calling a colony
twenty years its junior 'sister'- if these terms are to be taken seriously
at all. In fact, no conclusion can be drawn from the fact that at the
end of the second century2 one colony called another 'sister'. That
this term does not imply daughters and nieces is shown by a very
similar inscription set up by Tavium,3 a town which had no. right
whatsoever to claim Antioch as a sister or indeed any kind of
relative.
The topic of nomenclature is more complicated than Professor
Grant would have us believe, and it proves less. We have seen4 that
the fact that Antioch's title was Caesarea Colonia does not demon-
strate that the colony was founded before 27 B.C.: yet it, too, lacks
the title Augusta.
The early failure of Lystra's coinage raises another point. The
Roman element at Lystra was somewhat feeble, as Ramsay insisted,s
especially in comparison with its strength at Antioch. Of the town's
six coin types, only one6 may be called Roman in character. If the
colony had been founded in 43 and reorganized, presumably with
new settlers, by Antony in 38, this would be surprising. At Philippi
a double settlement ensured the vigour of the Italian element.
Lystra's quick decline as a colony is to be attributed, not to a bad
start, but to two other factors: a rather remote site in the foothills of
the Taurus, and a relatively low number of Italian settlers.?
I See above, pp. 35 fT.
Z So dated by Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul 281.
, 3 J~S II 51912), 8~, no. ,3: T~V Aap.1TfoT~T1J:' Kat a€f3c:ap.t,::rJ.~rJV };1v:toX'~V ~o)..w
vlav as<>'q,71V l:<f3aa"'71 TPOKf'WV Taovla <...Hf'71a<v "1"'1' T7IS Of'OVOWS aVOplaVT!,
OC.EVTVXEtTE.
• Above, pp. 34 f.
5 Bearing of Recent Discovery 97; Hist. Comm. Gal. 224.
6. BMO Lycaonia, etc., 10, no. I: 'priest ploughirig' ..
7 See above, pp. 94, 154. .
APPENDIX III
THE DATE OF THE COLONIES AT
GERME AND NINICA
BROUGHTON and Vittinghoff 1 would regard Germe and Ninica 2

as foundations of Augustus. The chief support for this hypothesis
comes from the names of the colonies: Colonia I ulia Augusta Felix
in each case. 3 Professor Broughton adds that Ninica placed on its
coins the type of the founder ploughing, which is found in Asia
Minor only on the coins of colonies of Caesar and Augustus. The
names are certainly difficult to explain; Felix itself offers no support
for an Augustan date, since it is borne not only by Cremna and
Lystra but also by a Flavian colony, Caesarea in Samaria. 4 lulia
Augusta was referred by Anderson and Heads to the daughter of
Titus and mistress ofDomitian. There might be other explanations.
If Sivastl is the site of Ninica it suggests that the original form of the
name Augusta was Sebaste, that is, that it was conferred before Ninica
became a colony, and converted into Augusta when the foundation
took place. That is speculation, and it does not of course preclude
colonization in the reign of Augustus himself. The name Claudio-
polis6 is a different matter altogether. It is not at first sight a likely
title for an emperor to confer on a Roman colony.7 Ninica must
I Broughton, AJP LXII (1941), 107; Vittinghofr, Romische Kolonisation 132, note 7.
2 According to Anderson, JHS XIX (1899), 86, Germe is at Karaca Pa~a Oren
in Galatia, on the Dorylaeum-Ancyra road; cf. S. F. Starr, Illustrated London News,
vol. CCXLIII, no. 6486 (23 Nov. 1963), 859, who specifies a site 'directly south of
Babadat'. For the site of Ninica, see Broughton, loco cit., who, following Ramsay
(RN, Ser. III, vol. XII (1894) 164 fr.), regards the Julio-Sebaste of Hierocles (Le.
SivastI) as identical with the colony, though a double community at Claudiopolis
(Mut)would not be surprising. Magie (Roman Rule II. 1328) is cautious, but gives a
useful discussion of the question, as well as a bibliography. It is hard to believe that
two communities, each issuing its own coins, were able to maintain a distinct
existence on the same site at least until the reign of Hadrian (see Hill, BMG Lycaonia,
. etc., lvii fr., and Jones, Gities if East. Rom. Provo 439).
J Germe; GIL Ill. 284 f. ; Ninica: HN 726.
4 HN802.
5 JHSxIX (1899), 87, and HN 726, respectively.
6 NZXXXIV (1902),18, no. 10, and elsewhere; cf. Claudioderbe, Claudiconium,
above, p. 165.
7 For the usual forms, see Col. Iulia Aurelia Gommoda Thuburbo Maius (ILS
498) and Col. Iulia Pariana Hadriana (Mommsen ad GIL Ill. 374, and BMG
Mysia, 104 fr., nos. 96 fr.).
DATE OF COLONIES AT GERME AND NINICA 199
surely have received colonial status later than the reign of Gaius. 1
In this connexion it is worth noticing also that the title Iulia never
appears on coins of Germe; it is always called 001. (Aug. F.) Ger-
menorum. The title Iulia may have been an illegitimate extension
by the colonists from the Sebaste of the native town; certainly it
would lend the colony a bogus air of antiquity and (under Domitian)
flatter the emperor.
Vittinghoff noticed the objection that neither Germe nor Ninica
was in Pisidia, but dismissed it. He was right to do so: if we include
Antioch and Lystra in the 'Pisidian' colonies, we can hardly reject
Ninica. But the position of the town raises another and more serious
objection to an Augustan foundation date. Oilicia Tracheia did not
become part of the Galatian province when Amyntas died; it was
left to client kings and eventually annexed by Vespasian in 72. 2 It is
only after this that we should expect the foundation of a colony,
though an earlier settlement is not absolutely precluded. 3
Finally, there is the evidence of the coinage. The first known
colonial coins of Ninica do not appear until the reign of Trajan;
those of Germe appear first under Domitian. As Vittinghoff points
out, that does not mean that the colonies had not already been
founded. What is striking is the remarkable correctness and com-
pleteness of the titulature as it appears on the Trajanic coins of
Ninica. 4 It gives an impression of freshness and enthusiasm that is
easiest to attribute to a newly founded colony. At Germe the
coinage seems to have begun under Domitian with a typically colonial
image: that of the priest ploughing; then there is silence until the
reign of Oommodus and the same type is issued once more (this
time with others). It is tempting to regard these coins s as foundation
and centenary issues respectively.
I Ammianus Marcellinus XIV. 8. ii: 'Claudiopolis, quam deduxit coloniam
Claudius Caesar'. This inference is accorded too much respect by Hill, BMC
Lycaonia, etc., lviii f.
2 Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Prou. 209 f. ; Suetonius, Diu. Vesp. VIII ; for the border
between Galatia and Cilicia Tracheia, see above, p. 29, note 5.

3 This point is made by Jones, op. cit. 440, note 37. .
4 e.g., on BMC Lycaonia, etc., 116, no. 2. Cf. the mere ANT COL on a coin of
Titus struck at Antioch towards Pisidia (BMC Lycia, etc., 176, no. 4).
5 Mion. Supp!. VII. 642, nos. 55 f.
APPENDIX IV
THE IDENTITY OF LEGIO V GALLICA AND

LEGIO VII
THE veterans at Antioch were from 'Leg. V Gal.' and 'Leg. VII'.'
The fifth, Gallic, legion has not been identified with any certainty;
it may be Legio V Alaudae, which colonized Augusta Emerita,
a foundation dating from the same year as that of Antioch,2 or the
more obscure Legio V Macedonica, which settled veterans at Bery-
tus in about 15 B.C.,3 or it may be a third, distinct Legio V, one
which lost its eagle in the Clades Lolliana. 4 This last view has little
to commend it; it would be better to adopt a more economical
identification with one of two well-known legions. To judge by the,
name alone, Legio V Gallica should be Caesar's V Alaudae, which
was originally recruited in Gallia Narbonensis in about 5 I B.C.S
On the other hand, there is no reason why a legion later called
Macedonian should not have had previous connexions with Gaul,
and, as Professor Schmitthenner has pointed out,6 the epithet
Alaudae was well established by 44 B.C. and was unlikely to be dis-
placed by the comparatively colourless Gallica. If this argument is
sound, it will be correct to identify our legion with V Macedonica.
This title will have derived from a period of service in Macedonia,
either at about the time of Caesar's death or in the Triumviral
period or under Crass us in 30-29.7 Probably the legion's service in
theBalkans was comparatively recent when the inscriptions mention-
I CIL III. 6824 f. (= ILS 2237 f.) and 6826, respectively.
2 Ritterling, REXII (1925), 1566.
3 Ibid. 1573. .
4 Velleius Pat. II, 97. i. M. Parker, Rom. Legions 266, identifies Gallica with
Alaudae or with the legion of the Clades Lolliana, ruling out the alternative adopted
by Syme (JRS XXIII (1933), 17 f.) and Ritterling (Z fiir. NXXXVIIl (1928), 56 ff.)
that it is Macedonica; he suggests that V Urbana formed the nucleus of V Mace-
donica and was raised by Caesar in 44. See also Ritterling in REXII (1925), I57If.
5 Suetonius, Div. lui. XXIV. For the date, Rice Holmes, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul
(ed. 2, Oxford, I9Il), 803, note 1.
6 Armies of the Triumviral Period I. 135.
7 It might have belonged to the Macedonian army mentioned by Appian,
Bell. Civ. III. 24; cf. Cicero, Ad Au. XVI. 8. ii: 'Iegiones Macedonicas' ; it might have
fought at Philippi; or it might have been one of the legions quartered in the Balkans
by Antony. See also Ritterling, RE XlI (1925), 1616. For Crassus' campaigns,
CAH X. 1,6 ff.
IDENTITY OF LEGIO V GALLICA AND LEGIO VII 201
ing Gallica were set up: that would account for veterans' preference
for the older and more glorious cognomen, as Professor Schmitthenner
has suggested.' A Legio Gallica either formed part of the forces of
Munatius Plancus in 43 (three legions recruited in Italy, two in
Gallia Narbonensis, no doubt from the numerous Romans settled in
the province as well as from the natives), or was one of the four left
in Gallia Comata under Varius Cotyla in 43 and added to the garrison
established by Plancus. 2 It may have been as one of the legions handed
back to Antony after the signing of the first treaty of Brundisium in
40 B.C. that Legio V Gallica came to join the forces of Antony in the
east. 3
There were also two legions numbered VII in the triumviral
armies. The seventh had been one of Caesar's oldest legions, and
in fact formed part of his original army.4 Veterans from it and from
the eighth had been settled in Campania,s but they were recalled
by Octavian, and the seventh legion was reconstituted to fight at
Mutina, gaps in the ranks being filled by recruits. 6 Legio VII took
part in the battle of Philippi,7 the Perusine war,s and the Sicilian
Mutiny, after which all who had served ten years were discharged. 9
Probably this was the legion that colonized Antioch. Although
Ventidius recalled veterans of Caesar's Legio VII for the benefit
of Antony,lO Professor Schmitthenner doubts whether these recon-
stituted legions ofAntony survived the battle of Philippi, and whether
the later Antonian Legio VII was still in existence after Actium."
I Schmitthenner, op. cit. I, 13 f.
2 Ibid. 38 and 72. For Plancus' legions, see Cicero, Ad Fam. x. 8. vi; cf. 24. iii;
for their origins, Schmitthenner, op. cit. 1. I I and 38; A. von Domaszewski, Xeue
Reidelberger Jahrbilcher IV (1894), 182; Hanslik, RE XVI (1935), 546; for the
Narbonensian Romans, Cicero, Pro Font. 13. Note the Munatii of Antioch: EJ
147; WE 353 and 360; unpublished in Konya Classical Museum. For Varius
Cotyla, see Plutarch, Vito Ant. XViII.
3 Schmitthenner, op. cit. II. 246, note 64. For the number and composition of
these legions, ibid. II. 212, note 16.
4 Bell. Gall. VIII. 8. ii; Rice Holmes, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul 42.
5 F. Jacoby, FGrRist, Part IIA. 90: Nicolaus Damasc., Fr. 130, Vito Caes. XXXI.
132; lLS 2225; CIL X. 3884.
6 Cicero, Ad Alt. XVI. 8. i (veterans from Casilinum and Calatia) ; for the new
recruits, see Kromayer, RermesxxxI (1896), 15, based on Appian, Bell. Civ. III. 47.
7 Schmitthenner, op. cit. 1. 54.
8 Ibid. 1. 69.
9 Ibid. 1. I I I. Discharges: Dio XLIX. 14. i. Local recruiting after the mutiny in
Sicily may lend significance to the presence at Antioch of a L. Cornelius Marcellus
(lLS 7199); cf. the homonymous senator, 'oriundus fortasse ex Sicilia', of P1R2
C 1403.
10 Schmitthenner, op. cit. I. 40 f.; the evidence is Appian, Bell. Civ. III. 66, Cicero,
Ad Fam. X. 33. iv, and Phil. XI. 37.
II Op. cit. 1. 42 and 140.
202 APPENDIX IV
The presence at Antioch of veterans bearing the. same rare name,
Cissonius, one from Legio V,1 the other from Legio VII,2 certainly
suggests that at one period at least the legions were recruiting from
the same areas, even from the same town. But the recruitment of the
Cissonii may go back to the beginning of the civil wars in 49, or it
may be as late as the campaigns of Crassus in the Balkans. The
Cissonii may have been cousins and neighbours, but they could
have fought on opposite sides at any time between 49 and 31.3
Another reason for identifying the Legio VII which settled veterans
at Antioch with Octavian's evocate legion rather than with Antony's
later legion of that number is that the inscriptions of veterans
mention simply Legio VII, never, as they do with Legio V, adding
the epithet Gallica, which may have been borne by Antony's legion:
only later did Octavian's seventh acquire a cognomen. 4
I GIL Ill. 6825 (= lLS 2238).
• GIL Ill. 6826.
3 Cf. Lucan IV. 177 If.
4 Legio VII of the Principate is sometimes assigned the cognomen Macedonica
(GIL III. 7386, from the Thracian Chersonese; X. 171 I (= ILS 2695),4723,8241);
this may imply, as Parker suggests (op. cit. 267), the presence of this legion in
Macedonia before it was removed to Dalmatia; cf. Ritterling, RE XII (1925),
1615 f. The legion also colonized Rusazu (AE 1921, 16), Tupusuctu (GIL VIll.
8837), and Saldae (ibid. 8931). Antony's Legio VII Gallica: Schmitthenner, op.
cit. I. 135.
APPENDIX V
THE HOMANADENSIAN WAR
THERE are three main problems connected with the Homanaden-

sian war: field of operations, date, and importance. None can be
isolated and dealt with separately; in particular, the view taken ofthe
importance of the war will depend on the relation of its dating to the
formation of the Galatian province and the foundation ofthe Pisidian
colonies; it will depend to a lesser extent on the size and difficulty
of the field of operations. The following notes are an attempt to
justify the view adopted in the text.
(I) THE FIELD OF OPERATIONS

(i) Straboxll, p. 569 £: €un S~ EV VrpYJ>"OLS 'TOU Tavpov piPWL, KPYJfLvOLS
d170'T6fLOLS u</>6Spa Kat 'TO 17),iov d(Ja'TOLS EV fL€Ucp KOL>"OV Kat EVYEWV
17E8{OV eds atUWvas 17>"dovs SLTJPYJfL€VOV' 'TOU'TO S~ YEWPYOUV'TES qJKOVV EV
TaLS V17EpKELfL€vaLS d</>pvuw ~ u17YJ>..aloLs, 'T.1 170>..>...1 S' €V017>"OL ?Juav Kat
Ka'T€'TpEXOV T~V d>">,,o'Tplav €XOV'TES CPYJ 'TELxl,ov'Ta 'T~V xwpav av'TWv.
UVVa<PELS S' Elut 'TOV'TOLS 01: TE &>">"OL llwlSaL Kat ot E€>"YEfs, Ot17€P Elutv
dtLOAoYW'Ta'TOL TWV llwLSwv. TO fL~V OVV 17>..€OV av'TWV fL€POS Tns dKpwpdas
TOU Tavpou Ka'T€XEL, nv~s S~ Kat {J7TJp ElSYJs Kat .i1U17€VSOV llafL</>v>"LKWV
7T6>..€wv Ka'T€XOUUL YEw>..o</>a xwp{a E>..aL6</>uTa 17aV'Ta, 'T.1 S' V7TJp TOV'TWV
ifSYJ dpEwa, Ka'T€VV€LS OfLOpOL E€>"Y€UUL Kat 'OfLOVaS€UUL, Eaya>..aUUEfs
8'E17t 'Tn EVTOS Tn 17pOS 'TV ML>"uaSL.
(ii) Strabo XIV, p. 668: 'Tijs KL>"LK{as 8~ 'Tijs €tw 'TOU Tavpou ~ fL~V
>..€YE'TaL 'TpaXELa, 0 0
8J 7T€8uis- 'TpaXELa fL€V, ?Js 17apaMa UTEV~ Eun
Kui OVO€V ~ (j7l'av[w~ EX€r, T(' xwptov E1TL1T€DOV, Kat. €Tl. ~s trrr€pK€I/ru(. 0:
Taupos OlKovfLEVOS KaKWS fL€XpL Kat TWV 7Tpou{36ppwv 7T>..EVpWV TWV 7T€pt
"luaupa Kat TOVS 'OfLOva8€as fL€XPL Tijs IIwL8{as.
(iii) StraboxIV, p. 679: ot OVV E17' .i1v'TL7Ta'TPcp 1'0 AEp{3~TTJ (Cilicians)
Kat ot 'OfLovaSEfs Kat &>"AOL 7T>"dous ot UUVa.17'TOV'TES 'TOLS IIw{8aLs, • ••
T{va >..c5.{3WUL Tatw;
(iv) Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 94: Ciliciae Pamphyliam omnes iunxere
neglecta gente Isaurica. oppida eius intus Isaura, Clibanus, Lalasis;
decurrit autem ad mare Anemuri e regione supra dicti. simili modo
omnibus, qui eadem composuere, ignorata est contermina illi gens
Omanadum, quorum intus oppidum Omana. cetera castella XLIIII
inter asperas convalles latent.
APPENDIX V
(v) Council Lists and Notitiae. The Homanadenses appear at the
Council of Nicaea in 325 (Mansi, Collectio vr. II38 f., cf. II. 696:
'Cyrillus Sidensis. Cum~nadensis', both under Isauria), at Constan-
tinople in 381, (III. 570, Lycaonia), at Chalcedon in 451 (VI. 949 f.),
at Constantinople in 536 (VIII. 1049 f., Pamphylia), and in the Canones
Trullani of 692 (XI. 1003 f., :4.Mgavopos l:ovJLavowv of Lycaonia and
ID,aTwv MavO€wv of Pamphylia). They occur in Hierocles (Lycaonia),
in Notitiae VII and IX (Lycaonia), VIII, I, III, XIII, and X (Lycaonia and
Pamphylia), and in the tenth-century Nova Tactica (Lycaonia and
Pamphylia).
Ramsay's view (which he did not always formulate in the same
terms)1 was that the Homanadenses occupied the shores of Lake
Trogitis. He was followed by Calder,' Professor Broughton,3 and
Professor Jones. 4 In his paper Broughton attempted to fix the outer
limits of the Homanadenses by showing where the territories of
long-established towns began. In the east the Homanadenses were
bounded by the Isaurians, whose centres were Isaura Vetus and
Isaura Nova, on the south-east by Selge, Etenna, and Cotenna, the
territories of which must have been large, since the first at one time
had a population of 20,000 5 and the second fielded 8,000 hoplites/
The territory of both cities probably extended to Haydar Dag, as the
Gagras inscriptions show'? The north-west limit of the Homana-,
denses was at Amblada; other surrounding territories may have
been those of Vas ada and Dalisandus. 8
JUthner and his associates held another view,9 which is worth
mentioning although they later abandoned it:IO the Homanadenses
occupied Klmyos Ova and the mountains round it, i.e. an area
south of the south-west corner of Bey~ehir Gol. JUthner and his
friends based this identification on the similarity between the dis-
trict and the territory of the Homanadenses as described by Strabo.
Calder II rightly considered Klmyos Ova to be too far to the west for
the Homanadenses; Broughton I2 agreed, but was prepared to allow
that their territory extended west of Lake Trogitis and north of
Selge as far as JUthner's plain.
I Hist. Geog, 335, 4'9 (northern and eastern shores); cf. ABSA IX (1902-3),
268 f. (the Homanadenses lived on three sides of Lake Trogitis and extended
south to near Cotenna, west to near SeIge, and east to the neighbourhood of
Isaura); JRS VII (1917), 247 f., 258, 263.
2 CR XXIV (1910), 76, following Ramsay's second formulation.
3 AJP LIV (1933), 134 if. 4 Cities of East. Rom. Provo 138.
S Strabo xu, p. 570. 6 Polybius V. 73 iii. 7 JRS XII (1922), 53 if.
.8 for Dalisandus see Calder, Note to a Classical Map of Asia Minor, and Jones,
op. cit. 4'4.
9 Vorliiufiger Bericht. 33. 10 Denkmiiler aus Lyk. 47.
II CR XXIV (1910), 76. 12 AJP LIV (1933), '37.
R. Shafer, on the other hand, claimed' that the only region which
would fit Strabo's description 'would be the valley of the Eury-
medon above Selge and not far from the Pisidian-Isaurian frontier.
The upper part of this valley had no known large cities, which is
to be expected if the valley were inhabited by a wild tribe ... the
Homanadeis territory extended close to Cremna.'
Shafer's view surely cannot be correct. Pliny describes the Homana-
denses as bordering on Isauria. This does not suit a tribe living in
the upper Eurymedon valley, near Cremna. Shafer thinks that Strabo's
words in XII, p. 569 (0 S' oov }1p.vvTas T~V p.ev Kpfjp.vav ED\'EV, Els oe TOVS
'Op.avaMas 7TapEI..OWV • , . €1..~<pO'rJ), are to be taken strictly, and show
that the Homanadenses were next door to Cremna. But Strabo's
account of Amyntas' operations elsewhere displays nothing like this
exactitude: he mentions a number of towns which Amyntas possessed
or captured; he does not give an itinerary of Amyntas' progress. In
this passage he is merely contrasting an earlier success with the final
failure. Strabo uses the words KaTEvvE's op.opot 1:El..ydJat Kai 'Op.ava-
oEva•. If the Homanadenses inhabited the upper Eurymedon valley,
some sixty miles from Cotenna (for which see RE, s.vv. Katenna,
Kotenna), this would be impossible; the country of Selge would lie
between the Homanadenses and Cotenna.
Magie thinksZ that the Homanadenses lived in the country south
of Lake Trogitis, 'which is separated from Pisidia by Haydar Dag
and from Cilicia Aspera by the main chain of the Taurus'. He
suggests that the Homanadenses lived near enough to the route
through Sarut Yayla and Sis am Bel to threaten communications
between Isaura and Side; this would account for Amyntas' attack'
on them.
Magie's is the most plausible of these views, but there is something
to be said for most of them, for they overlap and we do not know how
far Homanadensian territory extended. ,.
Nevertheless, it is possible to decide where the nucleus was. The
most noticeable feature of the Homanadenses is their apparent
ubiquity. They border on the Pisidians (i) and (iii), notably on the
. Cotenneis and Selgians (i). They are situated on the same slope of
the Taurus as Isaura (ii). They may be called Cilicians (iii) and
they are neighbours of the Isaurians (iv). In the Byzantine period
they may be assigned to Isauria, Pamphylia, or Lycaonia (v). They
. are in fact a border people par excellence.
There is only one area which will satisfy the requirements of all
the evidence. That is on the southern shore of Lake Trogitis, the
plain to the south of the lake towards Bozklr and the mountain ridge
I AJP LXXI (1950), 247 f. Z Roman Rule ll. 1303 f.
206 APPENDIX V
to the south-west in the direction of Cotenna, which is always ascribed
to Pamphylia. Here the Homanadenses could be the neighbours of
both Selgians and Cotenneis; here was a tract of high and difficult
country which as far as we know contained no large towns in ancient
times, and which bordered on Cilicia Tracheia, Isauria, and Pisidia.
Here the Homanadenses could be said to be, like Isaura, on the north-
ern slopes of the Taurus, and here they might well be assigned some-
times to Byzantine Lycaonia, sometimes to Pamphylia. I
(2) THE DATE OF THE WAR
The Homanadensian war must be fitted into the career of Sul-
picius Quirinius, which is imperfectly known and controversial.
Quirinius conducted a census in Judaea, in A.D. 6 according to
Josephus, at the time of the birth of Christ according to Luke's
Gospel. Christ is usually thought to have been born in about 4 B.C.
If Quirinius was in Syria conducting a census in that year, he cannot
have been in Galatia fighting the Homanadenses. The intrinsic in-
terest of each element in the problem has caused disagreement about
the starting-point of the discussion: Mommsen dated the war by
Quirinius' career, Cheesman and Ramsay Quirinius' career by the war.2
Here the evidence relating to Quirinius' career and the census of
Judaea will be set out first,3 then the evidence for the war itself.
(vi) Tacitus, Annals III. 48.4 Sub idem tempus (A.D. 2 I) ut mors
Sulpicii Quirini publicis exequiis frequentaretur petivit (sc. Tiberius)
a senatu. nihil ad veterem et patriciam Sulpiciorum familiam
Quirinius pertinuit, ortus apud municipium Lanuvium: sed impiger
5 militiae et acribus ministeriis consulatum sub divo Augusto, mox
expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis insignia triumphi
adeptus, datusque rector G. Caesari Armeniam optinenti. Tiberium
quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat: quod tunc patefecit in senatu,
9 laudatis in se officiis et incusato M. Lollio, quem auctorem Gaio
6 perl super Haupt, Nipperdey-Andresen Homonadensium Strabo XII, p. 569:
onomadensium M 7-8 ita interpunxit Mommsen: datusque ... coluerat. vUlgo
9 Lollio Lipsius: folio M
I In some lists they are assigned to both. This cannot be explained by assuming
that fluctuations in the provincial boundaries are imperfectly recorded in the
sources, although the indubitably single city of Selge suffers the same fate in
Notitia VIII, and it is worth noticing that Selge and Dalisandus (which oscillates
between Sidensis and Seleuceia) are in the same latitude as the centre of the region
proposed here for the Homanadenses. Two bishops are named in the Canones Trullani
of 69?. I conclude that a large bishopric was transferred from Lycaonia to
Pamphylia before 536 (but after Hierocles' Synecdemus was published in 530?),
then divided between two bishops and two provinces. Cf. Ramsay, op. cit. 275 f.
2 See ]RS VII (1917), 231.
3 See Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the N. T. (Oxford, 1963),
163, note I. 4 Ed. C. D. Fisher (Oxford, 1906).
Caesari pravitatis et discordiarum arguebat. sed ceteris haud laeta
memoria Quirini erat ob intenta, ut memoravi, Lepidae peri cuI a
sordidamque et praepotentem senectam.
(vii) Tacitus, Annals III. 22 (A.D. 20): At Romae Lepida, cui super
Aemiliorum decus L. Sulla et Cn. Pompeius proavi erant, defertur
simulavisse partum ex P. Quirinio divite atque orbo. adiciebantur
adulteria venena quaesitumque per Chaldaeos in domum Caesaris,
defendente ream Manio Lepido fratre.
(viii) Suetonius, Tib. XLIX: Condemnatam et generosissimam
feminam Lepidam, in gJ;'atiam Quirini consularis praedivitis et orbi,
qui dimissam earn e matrimonio post vicensimum annum veneni
olim in se comparati arguebat.
There can be no doubt that Tacitus' account (vi) is chronological;
but it leaves the crucial middle period of Quirinius' career, from
12 B.C. until A.D. 2, without absolute dating. Even the year of his
appointment as rector to Gaius is uncertain, although Mommsen
and FurneauxI were probably right to opt for A.D. 2. This certainly
leaves very little time for Quirinius to pay court to Tiberius before
the latter's return to Rome, and Mommsen and Furneaux suggested
that Quirinius had been in the neighbourhood of Rhodes as governor
of Asia between 7 and 3 B.C. The punctuation they adopted (which
is followed by Fisher in the Oxford Classical Text) destroys the
contrast that Tacitus seems to be pointing between Quirinius' post of
rector to Gaius and his cultivation of Tiberius. An assurance from
the new rector that he would not be the cause of 'pravitatis et dis-
cordiarum' would not take long to make and would be sufficient
cause of Tiberi us' gratitude.
(ix) Josephus, Ant. Jud. XVIII. I. i fr., adds the important detail
that Quirinius held a census in Syria in A.D. 6: Kvp~vws OE, TWV Ids
T¥ {3ov)..¥ avvayofk€vwV avryp, TeLS T€ uAAas apXas J7TLT€T€A€KWS Kat OLa
1Taawv aoniaas ws KaL v1TaTos Y€V€a(JaL TeL T€ UAAa agLwfkaTL fk€yas auvd'\{-
YOLS J1Tt Zvp[as 1Tapfjv, lm6 Ka[aapos oLKaw06T'1)S TOV l(Jvovs a1T€aTaAfk€VOS
Kat T"fk?)T~S TWV otlaLwv y€v?)a6fk€Vos. KW1TWVL6s T€ atlTip aVYKaTa1T€fk1T€Tat,
TeLYfkaTOS TWV l1T1T€WV, ~y?)a6fkEVOS '!ovoa{wv Til J1TL 1TB.a!V Jgova{q..
1Tapfjv OE KaL Kvp~vws €ls TfjV '!ovoa[wv 1Tpoa(J~K?)V TfjS Zvp[as YEVO-
fk€V?)V a1TOTLfk?)a6fkEV6s T€ atlTwv TaS otla[as KaL a1Toowa6fk€VOS TO.
}1PX deLOV xp~fkaTa.
(x) Luke II. I and 2 also mentions a census conducted by Quirinius:
•••• JgfjA(J€V o6YI-'a 1Tapa Ka[aapos AtlyovaTov, a1ToypeLcpW(Jat 1TB.aav
1 Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Aug. (ed. 2, Berlin, 1883), 173 If.; Furneaux,
ad loe. cr. Sherwin-White, op. cit. 164 f., note 1.
208 APPENDIX V
T~V OlKOVI'.€Vryv. aUTry .q d7Toypacp~ 7TPWTry EYEI'€TO .qYEf.!.OVdOVT09 T~~

J;vplas Kvpryv[ov.
(xi) Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV. 19, mentions a census, but not one
conducted by Quirinius: Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto
tunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus eius
(sc. Christi) inquirere potuissent. .
Mommsen I and Ramsay2 tried to reconcile the evidence of Luke
and Josephus by supposing that Quirinius was twice governor of
Syria (both times conducting a census);3 it was during the first tenure
(3-2 B.C., accordirrgto Mommsen, c. 1I-7'B c. Ramsay) that Quirinius
directed operations against the Homanadenses. In support of this
hypothesis, Mommsen and Ramsay cited epigraphic evidence: the
Lapis Tiburtinus.
(xii) ILS 918 (Lapis Tiburtinus):
[r]egein, qua redacta in pot[estatem imp. Caesaris]

Augusti populique Romani senatu[s dis immortalibus]
supplicationes binas ob res prosp[ere gestas, et]
ipse ornamenta triumph [alia decrevit];
pro consul. Asiam provinciam op(tinuit; legatus pro pr.]
divi Augusti iterum Syriam et Ph(oenicen optinuit].
On the view of Mommsen, Ramsay, and Dessau (ILS ad loc.)

this stone records the career of Quirinius, the regem referring to
Amyntas and the gens (?) which was subjugated, to the Homana-
denses; the last line would refer to Quirinius' second tenure of Syria
in A.D. 6.
The attribution of the Lapis to Quirinius has been attacked,
mainly on the ground that the last line should mean, not that the
unnamed senator was twice legatus Augusti pro praetore of Syria, but
that when he was legatus Augusti pro praetore for the second time his
province was Syria: to yield the sense that Mommsen and Ramsay
require, the stone should read legatus Augusti pro praetore Syriam et
Phoenicen iterum optinuit.
This view, advanced by Groag, has won considerable acceptance,4
'Op. cit. 161 If. Z Op. cit. 271 If.

3 For a variant of these views, see H. U. Instinsky, Das Jahr der Ceburt Christi 39 f.
. , Groag, JOAlxXI-XXII (1922-4), Beibl. 473 f.; A. G. Roos, Mnemosyne, Ser. III.
vol. IX (1941), 315 f.; Syme, KlioxxvlI (1934),132 f. Taylor, JRSxxvl (1936); 166;
prefers Mommsen's interpretation, although she attributes the Lapis to M.
Titius, cos. 31 B.C. (Titius would have had to win the ornamenta triumphalia before
14 B.C., the year in which Dio (L1v. 24. vii f.) implies that they were instituted). See
THE HOMANADENSIAN WAR 209
and, even ifit is not correct (it has been attacked by Sherwin-White'),
there are other reasons for believing that the honorand of the Lapis
is not Quirinius. 2 Firstly, there is no mention of Quirinius' important
mission as rector to C. Caesar. Secondly, Quirinius died fairly early
in Tiberius' reign, in A.D. 23. The elogium on the Lapis lacks the
stark severity of Augustan tituli: cf. ILS 886 (L. Munatius Plancus)
and ILS 92 I (M. Plautius Silvanus); a failed upstart like Paquius
Scaeva had his career set out at length (ILS 915); Quirinius was
an upstart, but not a failure.
The best way to withdraw the Lapis from the controversy is to
show that it fits the career of another senator better than that of
Quirinius. Unless we are faced with a man otherwise completely
unknown, which is unlikely, since the Lapis is clearly dealing with
the res gestae of a person of considerable distinction, the honorand
is L. Calpurnius Piso the pontifex (PIR2 C 289), consul in 15 B.C.3
Piso's war against the Bessi, whom he reduced c. I I B.C., perhaps as
proconsul of Macedonia, involved a king and won him supplicationes
and the ornamenta triumphalia (Dio LIV. 34. v ff., Tacitus, Annals VI.
10 f.). Later he became proconsul of Asia (Anth. Pal. x. 25)4 and
governor of Syria,s previously having been legatus Augusti pro praetore
of Galatia-Pamphylia (Dio, loco cit.). He lived on until A.D. 32
(Tacitus, loco cit.), and seems to be mentioned in an inscription
from Tibur (CILXIV. 3591/2), where the Lapis was found. The career
of Piso is not without difficulties and ambiguities (cf. PIR2, loco cit.);
none makes it impossible to attribute the Lapis Tiburtinus to him.
There is indeed one serious objection: the career set out in the Lapis
is evidently arranged in chronological order, yet there is no mention
of Piso's praifectura urbis, which Tacitus (loc. cit.) implies he took up
in A.D. 13. The answer must be that Piso's praefectura, with his most
important priesthoods, was considered important enough to join
the consulship at the head of the stone (cf. ILS II 39, Il42, II 86,
1210).
RODS, op. cit. 314 f. Groag claims the Lapis for M. Plautius Silvanus, but this view
is equally unacceptable; see Anderson, CAR X. 878.
1 Roman Society 164, note 5; cf. R. Bergmann, De Inscriptione Latina ad P. Sulpicium
Quirinum . . Referenda (Berolini, 1851), V.
2 Good ones are given by Sherwin-White, op. cit. 164, note r.
3 The suggestion was first made by Syme, Rom. Rev. 398, note 8. Sherwin·White
(loc. cit.) seems inclined to accept it; contra, Atkinson, Historia VII (1958), 316f.
4 3-2 B.C. according to PIR2, followed by de Laet, Samenstelling 34 f., no. 84; in
2-1 B.C. Asia was governed by a consul of 14 B.C.; but the interval between the
consulship and the proconsulship of Asia was not the same in every case; see de
Laet, op. cit. 300. The career of a very distinguished man is unlikely to be typical;
Piso could have been proconsul earlier in the decade.
5 Between 4 and I B.C., according to Syme, Klio XXVII (1934), 128.
814250 p
210 APPENDIX V
There is thus no evidence, apart from that of Luke, that Quirinius
governed Syria before A.D. 6. Moreover,Josephus writes of Quirin ius
in A.D. 6 as if he was holding the governorship for the first time.
There is also Tertullian's statement that Sentius Saturninus was
governor of Syria at about the time of Christ's birth. Ramsay tried
to evade this difficulty by postulating two legates holding office
together, Quirinius conducting the Homanadensian war and Sentius
Saturninus the Jewish census. Such an arrangement would be
unique in the Augustan Empire. l Fr. Corbishley's attempP to re-
concile Luke and Tertullian by suggesting that Saturninus succeeded
Quirinius while the census was being carried on in 8 B.C. is equally
unsatisfactory. Not only is there no room for Quirinius on the list
of governors of Syria between 13 and 4 B.C.,3 but even if there were,
it is highly unlikely that he conducted a census of Judaea before
that country was reduced to provincial status in A.D. 6.4
The only alternative is to admit that Quirinius was not governor
of Syria at the traditional time of the birth of Christ-that is to say,
when Herod was still alive. Perhaps Luke himself, knowing of the
notorious census conducted by Quirinius and recorded by Josephus,
wrongly concluded that it was identical with a census that was in
progress at the time of the Nativity, or an early reader made the
same mistake, his marginal comment being incorporated into the
text. S A third possibility is Sherwin-White's attractivesuggestion6
that Luke was deliberately, but not consistently, rejecting the tradi-
tional date and bringing down the birth of Christ to A.D. 6.
The central period of Quirinius' career thus remains obscure, and
with it the date of the Homanadensian war. A second line of attack-
the evidence relating to the war itself-is more likely to prove fruit-
ful. To the testimony of Pliny (iv) and Tacitus (vi) we may add a
further passage from Strabo.
(xiii) StraboXII, p. 569: KaLTovToviFJ.Jv (sc.Amyntas) EKELVOtodcp(lEtpav,

EKEtvoVS of: Kvplvws E~€7T6p()YJO'E Atfh0 KaL TETpal(tO'XtA[ovs avopas If.,tfJYPYJO'E
KaL O'VV<!)J(WEV Els TOS EYYVS 1T6AEtS, T~V of: xtfJpav a7T€At1TEV EPYJfhoV TWV EV
aKfhii·
I This was pointed out by Taylor in AJP LIV (1933), 124.

2 KlioXXIX (1936), 92.
3 De Laet, op. cit. 241.
4 H. Braunert, Historia VI (1957), 210 fr.
5 See, however, F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N. T.
(London, 1901), 8, for the relative infrequency of this type of corruption.
6 Op. cit. 166 fr. He argues on lines similar to those used by Braunert, op. cit.
212 fr. Tertullian, in Sherwin-White's view, is repeating a version of the Nativity
which already aimed at removing the contradiction posed by Luke (op. cit. 170).
(xiv) The Via Sebaste milestones show that part at least of this
road was constructed in 6 B.C. (for the references see above, p. 39,
notes 1-7, p. 40, note I).
The epigraphic evidence is most helpful. Two stretches of the
Via Sebaste road system (Antioch-Isaura Vetus by Lakes Caralis
and Trogitis, and Antioch-Misthia-Side) enclose, if they do not
run through, Homanadensian territory. Ifwe knew when they were
built we should have a terminus ante quem for the war. Ramsay's
argument! that the Via Sebaste could not have been constructed
before the conquest of the Homanadenses is certainly applicable
to these parts of it (but not to the system as a whole). In Britain,
before Wales was conquered, a Roman road ran from north to south
along its eastern boundary. If Wales had not been a peninsula it
might have been surrounded in the same way as Pisidia was sur-
rounded by the Via Sebaste. But it is one thing to throw a cordon of
roads round a hostile territory, quite another to drive them through
it. Sometimes even the enclosure of an enemy might take place later
than his subjection-if he were thought to be still dangerous. In
north-west Spain Augustus and his legates defeated the Cantabri
and Astures in 26-25 B.C.,2 but the tribes continued to rebel at
least until 16 B.C.,3 and there is no evidence that any part of the
road system that enclosed them4 was built before 2 B.C.S The north-
south roads that flanked the Astures on the west and ran through
the Cantabri from Segisamo to Iuliobriga and the sea do not seem
to have been built until A.D. 11-12 and 13 respectively.6
The absence of Via Sebaste milestones from each of the stretches
of road mentioned above (if indeed they are sections of the Via
Sebaste proper) suggests, though it does not prove, either that the
Homanadensian war was in progress in 6 B.C. or that the war had
not yet begun.
The first of these possibilities may be eliminated by considering
the office held by Quirinius when he was conducting the war. There
are several alternatives. He might have been a legatus Augusti
pro praetore without defined competence. 7 This is an unsatisfactory
I JRS vn (1917), 238f. Ramsay was assuming that the Romans built all
parts of this road system at the same time; see Syme, KlioxxvlI (1934), 136f.
2 For the war, see Syme, AJP LV (1934), 293 ff.
3 Dio LIV. 20. iii.
4 See A. Schulten, Los Gdntabros y Astures y su Guerra con Roma (Madrid, 1943),
186 ff.
5 The Bracara Augusta-Asturica Augusta road: GIL II. 6215.
6 Bracara Augusta-Brigantium or Bracara Augusta-Lucus Augusti: ibid. 4868;
Segisamo-Portus Victoriae: ibid. 6344.
7 So Last apud Rice Holmes, Architect of the Roman Empire II (Oxford, 193 I), 89,
212 APPENDIX V
solution and may be dismissed at once:! the war was surely not
important enough to justify so violent a disruption of the normal
arrangement of the eastern provinces. Another unlikely hypothesis z
is that Quirinius was proconsul of Asia at the time of the war,
governor, that is, of an unarmed province far from the theatre ofwar. 3
Amore attractive view is that Quirinius conducted the war as legate of
Syria;4 but it is impossible that he should have done so before 6 B.C.,
and unlikely that he did so soon afterwards, for, as we have seen,
Sherwin-White has explained the only evidence in favour of this
view, that of Luke, in another way. Syria was, it is true, an armed
province of consular standing; but would such a province be aban-
doned while its governor conducted a war which may well have
lasted more than one year against a tribe who lived 130 miles from
its borders as the crow flies and on the other side of Cilicia Tracheia?
The solution put forward by Professor SymeS remains the best:
Quirinius' province was Galatia-Pamphylia.6 Augustus did not
always maintain a rigid distinction between praetorian and consular
provinces. 7 The fact that the Homanadenses lived well within the
boundaries of the province of Galatia makes it likely that the general
who subdued them was legate of that province. Again, the most
convenient line of attack would be from Antioch, north of the tribe
(down the Via Sebaste, if any of it had been constructed in time for
the war).8 Antioch was the focal point of the operations9 and it is
at this colony that Quirinius is mentioned in a pair of inscriptions
which honour a local magnate. Caristanius Fronto acted as Quirinius'
praefectus in the colonial duovirate: Io
note I. Some scholars have taken the same view ofL. Calpurnius Piso in Pamphylia,
13-12 B.C.; see P!Rz C 289.
1 See Syme on L. Calpurnius Piso, Klio XXVII (1934), 128 f.
z It was proposed by Groag, JOA! XXI-XXII (1922-4), Beiblatt 460; RE IVA
(1932),829 ff. On this view, the honorand of the Lapis cannot be Quirinius.
3 See Syme, op. cit. 133 f., and Roos, op. cit. gl 7. Taylor, AJP LIV (1933), 126 ff.,
would not reject the hypothesis out of hand.
4 Mommsen and Ramsay, loce. citt.
SOp. cit. 134, followed by Roos, op. cit. 317, by Anderson, CAHx. 271 f. and
877 f., and by Sherk, Legates 2 I ff. Roos continues to refer the Lapis to Quirinius
and, like Sherk, to date the war before 6 B.C.
6 H. Dessau, Geschichte der riimischen Kaiserzeit II. ii (Berlin, 1930),612, thought
of Pamphylia alone as Quirinius' province, but see above, pp. go f.
7 Syme, loco cit.; for Roman flexibility in general see also Ramsay, op. cit.
246 f.
8 Magie, Roman Rule II. 1322, thinks of an attack from Pamphylia, and compares
the route taken by Servilius Isauricus. For Servilius' route, see above, pp. 22 f.
9 This was brought out clearly by Ramsay, op. cit. 242 ff.
10 There is no need to suppose with Cheesman (JRS III (1913), 255 ff.) and
Ramsay (op. cit. 243 ff.) that Quirinius' tenure of the Antioehian duovirate put
(XV) ILS 9502: C. Carista[nioJ I C.f. Ser. Front[oniJ I Caesiano
Iuli[oJ I praef. fab., pon[tif.], I sacerdoti, prae[f.] I P. Sulpici
Quirini IIv[iri] I praefecto M. Servili. I Huic primo omnium I
publice d.d. statua I posita est.
ILS 9503 is similar.
If Quirinius was legate of Galatia when he crushed the Homana-
denses, the war cannot have been in progress in 6 B.C.: it was in
that year that Cornutus Arruntius Aquila held the province and
constructed the Via Sebaste, no doubt with the labour of the
soldiers who either had jus~ been led against the Homanadenses or
were about to be led against them.
The silence of Dio on the Homanadensian war is significant.!
Dio's text is complete down to 6 B.C.; from that year until A.D. 4
we depend upon the epitomators. Dio is interested in wars: of
the sixteen 2 awards of the ornamenta triumphalia (this figure excludes
those made to Quirinius and to the honorand of the Lapis Tibur-
tinus) known to us in Augustus' reign, Dio makes separate mention
of seven and included perhaps three others anonymously as sharing
in the award to Germanicus in A.D. 9. Three or four generals won
their successes in the period for which the text of Dio is defective.
It is tempting to suppose that Quirinius' war is not mentioned in
Dio's history because it, too, fell between 6 B.C. and A.D. 4. A rising
of the 'Isauri' in A.D. 6 is mentioned only by Dio.3 He also tells us4
that the temple of Janus was to have been closed in about 10 B.C.;
this could not have been so if the Homanadensian war had then been
in progress. The years I I and 9-6 B.C. remain open for the war, but,
unless it was utterly insignificant, a date later than 6 B.C. is much
more likely. Professor Syme points out that the garrison of Syria
seems to have been under strength during the years 4-3 B.C.,S and
his suggestion that the war is to be assigned to those years is probably
to be accepted.
(3) DURATION AND IMPORTANCE OF THE WAR
We must distinguish between Quirinius' personal achievement

in subduing the Homanadenses and the long-term results of the war.
The Homanadenses were a populous tribe: Quirinius took 4,000
prisoners (xiii). They lived in an oppidum and forty-four castella in
the colony under a kind of dictatorship. The duovirate was probably offered to
Quirinius after the war as an honour.
t Syme developed this point (op. cit. 138).
• Information about the omamenta triumphalia is taken from Gordon, Quintus
Veranius, Consul A.D. 49, 3!2 ff. 3 LV. 28. iii; see Magie, Roman Rule n. 1323 .
• LIV. 36. ii. 5 Op. cit. 145 f.
214 APPENDIX V
the most inaccessible parts of the Taurus (iv), and Quirinius had
to starve them out (xiii). How long the campaign took can only be
guessed. Ramsay was in favour of three years,l but this is no more
than a reasonable conjecture. Mommsen's view,z that the two sup-
plicationes were earned in two separate assaults on the tribe, is based
of course on the Lapis Tiburtinus. .
We may estimate Quirinius' achievement by setting it side by
side with those of other Augustan generals who won the same award,
the ornamenta triumphalia. 3
In the first place, the award was made four times to members of
of the imperial family; Augustus would not wish to cheapen it.
Secondly, the main theatres of war provided most of the instances:
seven from Pannonia, Dalmatia, and Illyricum, four from Germany,
three from Africa, one perhaps from Moesia, awarded for operations
against the Getae, and one from Thrace; in the last case the war
lasted for three years. 4 The subjugation of a single tribe in central
Asia Minor thus ranked beside the separate campaigns of Drusus
and Tiberius and their aides in Germany and the Balkans; no
wonder that in Tacitus' view (vi) it played an important part in
Quirinius' advancement.
The importance of the conquest lay in its difficulty rather than
in its intrinsic magnitude. The area occupied by the Homanadenses
was a relatively small one; they were not part of an alliance of
rebellious tribes, like the Cantabri and Astures of north-west Spain,
but, like the Salassi in the Alps, were a single tribe defying the
imperium Romanum, obstructing communications, and hindering the
development of a difficult area. Augustus sent Terentius Varro to
deal with the Salassi; the Cantabri and Astures demanded his own
attention as well as that of several subordinates. s In time, and with
the advance of civilization in Pisidia, the resistance of the Homana-
denses would have weakened; but Quirinius did the work more
quickly.
'Op. cit. 273 f. 2 Op. cit. 169.
3 Gordon, loco cit. 4 Velleius Pat. II. 98. ii.
5 Dio Lin. 25. ii. ff.
APPENDIX VI
CLIENT KINGS, ROYAL DOMAINS,
AND IMPERIAL ESTATES
I T is the main purpose of this Appendix to inquire how much

property in Asia Minor was owned by the imperial family, how it
was obtained, and whether it was the source of the land used for
Augustus' Pisidian colonies. There is evidence, both epigraphic
and literary, which may be examined independently and which
mayor may not afford proof of the existence of an imperial estate
in a given district. Such evidence is not enough to provide an answer
to the question in more general terms, for it was not upon this that
Ramsay and others based their view that imperial ownership ofland
was very extensive indeed, but upon the hypothesis' that a great
part of the peninsula had once belonged to temple estates, that these
properties had largely been confiscated by the Hellenistic kings,
that they became ager publicus under Roman rule, were taken over
with the proceeds of the proscriptions by Antony, and passed in
this way, with the royal lands of the client kings, into the possession
of Octavian.
It is clear that some attempt must be made to examine Anatolian
land tenure in the pre-Roman period, in relation to kings, free
cities, and private individuals, and to decide what is likely to have
happened during the Roman occupation. The story will not be the
same for all parts of the peninsula, for Roman control took various
forms. The basis on which client kings held their kingdoms-their
title to rule-is crucial for the question of the development of im-
perial estates. Were they allowed or encouraged to carve out pro-
perties for themselves in the territories they were allotted? If so, what
happened to those properties when the kingdoms reverted to direct
Roman rule? Could they bequeath their kingdoms, or these pro-
perties, to Rome, or to their patrons, or were they indeed compelled
to do so? Was it then from royal estates that had become imperial
property upon the death of Amyntas that Augustus obtained the
land for his colonies in Asia Minor?
I Set forth by Ramsay, History and Art of the East. Provo 305, and (more fully)
by Jones, Greek City 309 f. The theory is also described by Broughton, TAPA LXV
(1934), 207f., in an article which is the basis of the views expressed in this Appendix
and which is supplemented by his paper in Studies in Roman Economic and Social
History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, 236 ff.
216 APPENDIX VI
The original source of the extensive estates supposed to have
been owned by the imperial family is said to have been lands
attached to the temples which once possessed almost the whole of
Asia Minor. Such temple estates are known to have existed in later
times,1 but their territories were not on the vast scale that might be
expected, and one of them, converted into a principality by Pompey,
had to have its territories enlarged. Most of the temples listed by
Professor Jones lie east of 31°; it is strange that the western temples
suffered so severely from the encroachments of the kings, while
those in the east escaped more lightly, and the most natural ex-
planation of the discrepancy is that conditions in the east were
simply more favourable to the development of temple estates than
they were in the west. Nor is there any evidence of extensive seizure
on the part of the monarchs,2 none, for example, that the Seleucids
'took possession of ... estates, and founded Apollonia and Antioch
by granting to the settlers whom they planted there some of the god's
land'.3 In this case, of course, there is very little evidence at all
about the foundations and their territories, but in general it seems
that temple territories were increasing in size during the Hellenistic
period. The fact that many of the temple estates were scattered,
instead offorming a solid block surrounding each temple,4 supports
this view: gradual growth by legacy might well cause untidiness:
confiscation would not.
It was not from the impounded properties of vast temple estates,
then, that the rulers of Asia Minor derived most of their royal land.
It may indeed be wrong to draw any sharp distinction between the
kingdom as a whole and crown property. Professor Magie takes
the views that the whole land, except for that of free cities, temple
estates, and probably the holdings of private landlords, was regarded
as the property of the king. 'The Persians think that the whole of
I They are listed by Jones, Greek City 309; see also Broughton, Economic Survey
IV. 676 ff.
• See Magie, Roman Rule!. 140, who, like Jones, op. cit. 310, brings forward
evidence of the respect shown by Alexander and his Seleucid and Pergamene
successors for the property of the gods. See, e.g., OGIS 262 and (for Men before 25
B.C.) StraboxII, p. 577. Broughton, TAPA LXV (1934), 208 and 220, note 72, claims
that the Romans, too, were chary of despoiling temple land. For land 'of wide
extent' given to the church by Anglo-Saxon kings, see F. W. Maitland, Domesday
Book and Beyond (Cambridge, 1897),227 f.
3 Ramsay, History and Art of the East. Provo 31I.
4 Jones, loco cit., makes this point; he cites the boundary stone of Men found
at Apollonia (JHS IV (1883), 417, no. 32) as evidenc'e that the property of the
temple at Antioch was scattered, but there are two other possibilities: the stone
may have been moved, or there may have been a temple of the god at Apollonia,
where he appears on coins (HN 706).
5 Roman Rule I. 138.
KINGS, DOMAINS, AND IMPERIAL ESTATES 217
Asia belongs to them and to the reigning king', says Herodotus.!

Ifhe is correct, the taxes and tithes paid by those to whom the kings
had made over land must be regarded as rent. M. Rostovtzeff,
indeed, went so far z as to claim that the Pergamene king was the
ultimate owner of all land except that of the free cities. This is shown
by 'his assignments of land to new settlers, ... by sales of land, by
his building of fortresses, and by the fact that he exercised his right
of taxation even as regards the native temples. It is difficult to assume
that he acted in this way exclusively on land which he owned
privately in the way of purchase or which he had inherited from the
former lords of the country.'
The usual way of combating this view is that employed by
Broughton, who maintains that the transactions mentioned by Ros-
tovtzeff were all carried out in relation to royal land proper. Pro-
fessor Broughton adopted Tenney Frank's view that there were two
kinds of royal land:3 that which belonged to the king as a private
landlord4 and that which was permanently attached to the monarchy
(crown lands). This seems to be a valid distinction, though in a
period of political stability the first class would tend to be absorbed
into the second. The two kinds of royal land might well differ in
the way they were acquired, legacies accruing to the king, con-
fiscated property to the crown.
There may be another explanation of the words of Herodotus,
the conflicting testimony of inscriptions, and the disagreement
among modern scholars. The despotism of the Persian government
might well lead a Greek to think that it was a consciously held
theory that the Great King owned the lands he ruled. All the
actions mentioned by Rostovtzeff have been carried out by strong
I IX. 116.
2 CAH VIII. 603; see also Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 45 f. It is interesting to
compare the situation in Anglo-Saxon England. 'The king derived his income
partly from royal estates .... Another important source of revenue was his "farm",
a food rent paid to him by all the lands in his realm that had not been freed from
this charge by special exemption' (D. Whitelock, Beginnings if English Society
(London, 1952),64), For 'book-land' ('land freed for religious purposes from the
payment of royal dues'), ibid. 153 f. See also Maitland, op. cit. 257: 'The holder
of folkland is a free landowner, though at an early date the king discovers that
over him and his land there exists an alienable superiority. Partly by alienations of
this superiority, partly perhaps by gifts of land of which the king is himself the
owner, book-land is created.'
3 Frank, ]RSXVII (1927), 148; Broughton, TAPA LXV (1934), 208. Maitland,
op. cit. 253 If., discussing king's land and crown land, states the difficulty of dis-
tinguishing the two in Anglo-Saxon England: 'Even on the eve of the Norman
Conquest no definite classification of the king's estates had been framed.'
4 Such as that mentioned in IGR IV. 289, line 25, and F. rIilIer v. Gaertringen's
Inschrift. v. Priene (Berlin, 1906), 98, no. 1 I I, lines I 12 If.
218 APPENDIX VI
modern governments invested with powers of compulsion from
which there is no appeal, not only by Communist governments but
by those which subscribe to no theory of state ownership. In other
words, much of the activity which has been taken to show that the
whole of the land belonged in theory to the king was merely the
brutal manifestation of absolute power and regarded no theory
whatsoever.' This view would not deny the existence of royal lands
proper in both the senses used by Frank and Broughton.
According to Professor Magie,2 royal land tended to diminish in
size under the Seleucids and Attalids; parts were sold to existing
cities or allotted to new foundations or made over to favourites and
veterans. With the transfer of power in 133 B.C., it is plain that the
remaining royal lands came into the ownership of the Roman people
as ager publicus. How much of this was sold we do not know. Much
ager publicus must have been absorbed by Pompey's settlements,
though more had been created in the Taurus region by the con-
quests of Servilius Isauricus, and Pompey's own annexations will
have increased the stock.3
It is at this point that the two conflicting hypotheses diverge most
sharply. Ramsay assumed that there was an unbroken development
from royal domain through ager publicus to imperial estate. Accord-
ing to the more conservative theory of Professor Broughton, the
phenomena that would be expected in the course of such a develop-
ment do not occur: no ager publicus can with any certainty be derived
from crown lands, nor are the Romans who appear in the peninsula
landowners, but negotiatores. Those who, in the post-Sullan period,
are known to have possessed land in Asia Minor were shown by
Broughton4 to have acquired it usually by normal, if not always
creditable, business methods in the course of private deals. In his
view, the proscriptions of Antony do not make it necessary to postu-
late previously existing tracts of public land on a large scale. Frank
went even furthers and denied that any land but that which was
the personal property of the king became ager publicus. The Romans,
he says, probably 'treated the former quasi-serfs as free tenants and
the fief-lords as holding valid titles of ownership'. This view seems
to attribute to the Roman government a greater degree of altruism
, Maitland, op. cit. 233 fT., dealing with conveyance by the Anglo-Saxon kings
and postulating a similar confusion, asks: 'may it not be that what Aethelwealh
had to give and gave to Wilfrid was what in our eyes would be far rather political
power than private property?'
2 Roman Rule I. 139. For similar sales and gifts in Anglo-Saxon England, see
Whitelock, op. cit. 36.

3 Cicero, De Leg. Agr. 1.5; II. 50. See TAPA LXV (1934), 212, note 23.
4 Op. cit. 209fT. 5 ]RSXVII (1927), 149f.
than is reasonable or necessary. I am inclined to think that crown
lands, which cannot always have been easily distinguishable from
personal estates, were likewise regarded as the property of the
Roman people. Some proportion of these lands will have passed
into the hands of private citizens and become the foundation of
the properties which many illustrious families possessed in this area
during the Principate.
Strabo states that Augustus sent commissioners to the KATJpovofda
left him by Amyntas and that they disbanded the priestly organiza-
tion of Men at Pisidian Antioch.' This statement is one of the pillars
of the theory that there were extensive imperial estates in Galatia. 2
Kleronomia properly means an inheritance, and an inheritance
usually implies a will. From this Ramsay concluded3 that Amyntas
made a will in which he left his kingdom to Augustus. In support of
this inscriptions from Rome are cited.4 They mention (among
others) aM. Livius Aug. lib. Anteros Amyntianus ab supellectile and an
Epinicus Caesar. ser. Amyntianus. A. Zwintschers was among those
who accept the connexion between the Arnyntiani and Amyntas of
Galatia. He divides the slaves into two classes. Some 'neque Amyntae
neque Augusti fuerunt servi privati, sed solum regni eorum'. In the
other class 'videmus ... servos a Caesare ipso Romam translatos et in
us urn privatum domus imperatoriae adhibitos esse'. Zwintscher
thinks that this proves that there must have been 'hereditas quae-
dam'. The conclusion that part of Amyntas' private property was
left to Augustus by will is impeccable, but there is no proof in the
Amyntiani that some slaves had been crown property in Amyntas'
kingdom and consequently became public property of the Roman
state, to be exploited at the discretion of the Princeps.
It may be that the word kleronomia was used metaphorically;6
kleronomos, if not kleronomia, was so used as early as the time of
Isocrates. If it was not so used in the Strabo passage, it can hardly
be intended to apply to the whole of Amyntas' kingdom or indeed
to the crown land. It is inconceivable that a client prince who could
I XII, p. 577.
2 See Magie, Roman Rule II. 1304 and 1326 f.
3 ]RSVII (1917), 234 f.; Klio XXIII (1929-30), 250.
4 GIL VI. 4035,4715,8738 (=ILS 7866),8894, 10395.
5 De Amynta Rege 44. Similarly Gwatkin, Gappadocia 20 If., accepts the con-
nexion of the servus Archelaianus of GlL VI. 4776, with the last king of Cappa-
docia, and uses it as 'further proof' that Tiberius inherited considerable estates
in that country, the revenue from which enabled him to halve the centesima rerum
venalium (Tacitus, Annals II. 42): 'The Cappadocian revenue came first into the
emperor's patrimonium and was then from that source disbursed into the aerarium
militare.' Gwatkin is followed by Magie, op. cit. I. 495.
6 This was suggested to me by Mr. E. W. Gray. So Zwintscher, loco cit.
220 APPENDIX VI
be set Up,l confirmed,2 deposed,3 transferred,4 and even executed5
at the will of his patrons, might leave his kingdom to them in his
will, as though it were at his absolute disposal-unless it were part
of the conditions of his tenure that he should do so. His personal
property was a different matter; but territory which had belonged
as crown land to his predecessors and which Amyntas took over
. as such cannot have been his to dispose of by bequest,6 since it was
the property of the ruler of the land as such. Deiotarus of Galatia
probably died a very wealthy man, and much of his wealth will
have consisted in land. No doubt Amyntas added to it by conquest,
and probably he added to his personal possessions as well, if he
made the distinction. Strabo says that he had 300 flocks of sheep
in Lycaonia,' and according to Frank,8 Amyntas was 'engaged in
building up a vast estate for himself'-an estate which mayor may
not have included the revenues from a secularized temple of Men. In
Frank's view the estate was afterwards 'exploited by the procurators
to the advantage of the fiscus'. There are two distinct difficulties
here. Firstly, it does not seem clear to which class of royal land
Amyntas' acquisitions (even the sheep) belonged; secondly, there
is the well-known problem of the extent to which Augustus and his
immediate successors controlled the finances of the Roman Empire,
and of the means they used to do so. Ifwe could distinguish between
Amyntas' crown lands and his personal property, what would have
been the fate of each when he died?
Much has been written on this subject,9 but the most satisfactory
explanation of the imperial finances seems to be that outwardly at
I e.g. Archelaus of Cappadocia, by Antony (Strabo XII, p. 540).

2 e.g. Polemo of Pontus (Dio LIIl. 25. i; StrabOXII, p. 578).
3 For depositions en masse, see Dio LI. 2. if.
4 Dio XLIX. 25. iv, and 32. iii; Strabo XII, p. 568; Dio LX. 8. ii (ed. Boissevain,
II. 679), with a confusion between two Polemos; see Magie, op. cit. II. 1407.
S e.g. Antiochus of Commagene (Dio LII. 43. ii); Alexander the brother of
Iamblichus (Dio LI. 2. ii).
6 Compare the tone adopted by Masinissa's son to the Senate (LivyxLv. 13. xv):
'Masinissam meminisse regnum a populo Romano partum auctumque et multi-
plica tum habere: usu regni contentum, scire dominium et ius eorum qui dederint
esse.' See also [Anderson], ]HSxxx (1910), 181 f., and Ramsay, ]RS VII (1917),
234. On Augustus' treatment of Herod, see T. Corbishley, Klioxxlx (1936),88 f.;
for his control over the marriage of client kings, Dio LIV. 24. vi;
7 XII, p. 568. 8 Op. cit. 157.
9 See, e.g., Frank, 'On Augustus and the Aerarium', ]RS XXIII (1933), 143 ff.;
Sherwin-White, 'Procurator Augusti', PBSR, N.S. II (1939), I I ff.; Last, 'The
Fiscus: a Note' ]RS XXXIV (1944), 51 ff.; Sutherland, 'The Aerarium and the
Fiscus during the Early Empire', A]P LXVI (1945), 151 ff.; Jones, 'The Aerarium
and the Fiscus', ]RS XL (1950), 22 ff.; Millar, 'The Fiscus in the first two
Centuries',]RS LIII (1963), 29 ff.
least they followed the pattern laid down in the Republic. Augustus
was careful to avoid the high-handed behaviour of an autocrat,
and the revenues even of Egypt flowed into the Aerarium. 1 On the
other hand he was extremely rich2 and by means of subsidies gained
virtual control over the expenditures of the Aerarium. His wealth
was increased by the bequests of friends and relatives 3 and (ex-
ceptionally) by the property of political offenders. 4 In his part of
the Empire, provincial finances were in the hands of procuratores,
officials whose very title suggested that they were acting on behalf
of an individual rather than for the State. This impression will have
been strengthened by the use of imperial freedmen in the organiza-
tion that supervised the financial arrangements in each of Augustus'
provinces. s In the next reign there were important developments
in the system. The Aerarium not infrequently had its revenues cut
off by the emperor, notably where the confiscation of property was
concerned. 6 The appropriation of such revenues will have developed
the impression created by Augustus' subsidies to the Aerarium that
the emperor's property had a quasi-official status, especially if, as
seems reasonable, Tiberius kept the property he had inherited from
Augustus separate from his own private property. With the death of
Nero, who was the last of the Julio-Claudians and so their sole heir,
there came a break. Whatever Nero had possessed must have passed
successively to Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian, and it passed
to them because they were emperors. It had, in fact, finally become
'crown' property.7
Distinctions that later became blurred must have been clear
enough in Augustus' time, 8 if anyone troubled to think about them.
We may presume that money flowed into Augustus' purse only
from his own property and so only from those estates in Galatia
which had been Amyntas' own. Crown lands should have become
t Velleius Pat. II. 39. ii.
Z Cf. Lucan III. 168: 'pauperiorque fuit tum Caesare Roma'.
3 e.g. Agrippa: Dio LlV. 29. v; cf. Suetonius, Div. Aug. Cl.
• e.g. Cornelius Gallus: Dio LIII. 23. vii.
S e.g. ILS 1514 (Gaul).
6 See Tacitus, Annals I. 75; II. 47; IV. 20; VI. 19.
7 Ulpian, Dig. XLIII. 8. 2. 4: 'res enim fiscales quasi propriae et privatae
principis sunt', recalls the origin of the fiscus.
S In finance, as in other respects, Augustus was a model for later emperors.
Nero promised 'discretam domum et rempublicam' (Tacitus, Annals XIII. 4);
cf. the despair ofDio LIII. 22. iii. The statement of Strabo, XVII, p. 840 (Kal {JaaL).ds
a~ Kal ovvaaTaL Kal ~)(:'Kapx{aL 'Tfjs €Kdvov fiEp{3os Kul da" Kat inTfjptav dEt), means no
more than that client kingdoms were regarded (de facto or because he held consulare
imperium, cf. Caesar, Bell. Civ. III. 107) as part of Augustus' province. Dynasts were
his puppets and he might expect to inherit some part of their personal property. The
story in Plutarch, Vito Ti. Gracchi XIV, is more suggestive.
222 APPENDIX VI
ager publicus populi Romani in the normal way. Unfortunately we do
not know where the boundary was set. It is natural to suppose that
Augustus took advantage of any ambiguities in the position.
The question of land for the Pisidian colonies may be looked at in
another way. If Caesar or Augustus settled their colonists on publicly
owned land, or on properties that came into their possession by
bequest, it may be assumed that there were considerable tracts of
land in the neighbourhood of colonies which were ager publicus or
imperial estates.
It is certainly possible in the case of many Julian and Augustan
colonies in Asia Minor that territoria were carved from land which
had long been royal domains or which had more recently been
confiscated for the Roman people. Broughton points out' that Sinope
had technically been captured from Pharnaces, and public land was
available for the Roman settlers at Attaleia. 2 AugustuS' Pisidian
colonies are surely not all to be explained in this way. Some of the
sites may have been selected because there was land available in
the district; the point is, what sort of land? At Antioch there was the
temple of Men, the staff of which was disbanded by Augustus'
commissioners and its administration entrusted to the colony. In
the course of such a radical reorganization it would not be at all sur-
prising if some of the land which was now to be controlled by the col-
ony should actually have been divided among the colonists. 3 But this
cannot be the whole story. Before colonization there were already
cities at Antioch, Cremna, Comama, and Parlais (as pre-colonial
coins show); nor is there any evidence that the territorium of any
of these colonies except Antioch was on or near temple land. Towns
enlarged with new settlers who were landed proprietors par excellence
would clearly need correspondingly enlarged territoria. 4 The previous
inhabitants of the area or the inhabitants of neighbouring areas
must have lost at least part of their property;5 that will have meant
leaving the district altogether or staying on as tenants. In the Res
Gestae Augustus claims to have bought the land he gave to his colon-
ists, and to have been the first to do SO.6 U. Wilcken showed7 that this
I TAPA LXV ('934), 213, note 26.

2 SEC. VI. 646, cf. Cicero, De Leg. Agr. 1. 5, etc.
3 Administration by the colony: above, pp. 85 f. Ramsay regarded the territory
of all the Pisidian colonies except Cremna as part of the spoils taken from temple
estates. See Social Basis 184 (Lystra, Olbasa, Comama, and Antioch), and
History and Art of East. Provo 31 I (Antioch, Parlais, i.e. Benehir, and Olbasa).
4 Contra, Magie, Roman Rule I. 464.
S Cf. Strabo XII, pp. 542 and 546, for Heracleia and Sinope.
6 Res Cestae XVI.
7 Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin, phil.-hist. Kl. XXVII (193'), 779 f.
means he paid for the land out of his own pocket. Pe;haps the dispos-
sessed Pisidian landowners received some compensation for the loss of
their estates and their town houses. Only one alternative remains-
for the chronology adopted in the text does not allow me to accept
Broughton's suggestion' that Augustus confiscated additional territory
when with Quirinius' aid he completed the task of pacifying the Pisi"
dians. Augustus may have inherited personal property or crown land
of Amyntas which lay near the future colonies,' or have bought it
from the State if it had become ager publicus. Olbasa is not far from the
Ormelian estates, and some scholars hold that there were estates near
Pogla. The Ormelian estates were private, not imperial, property, and
they may have been sold to private owners on the death of Amyn-
tas; on the other hand, they may always have been privately owned.
All this is conjectural; there is not enough evidence available to
allow us to reach definite conclusions as to the origin of all the
colonial territaria.
Much of the evidence for imperial estates comes from the second
and third centuries A.D. How and when were they acquired? Brough-
ton failed to discover any cogent reason for supposing that a signifi-
cant part of them was derived from the crown lands of Hellenistic
kings: no links between the earlier and the later properties could
be established. The acquisition of crown lands and the acquisition of
imperial estates were two separate processes. For the latter the
methods were not novel: bequest and confiscation. Some properties
obtained by negatiatares were handed down to their descendants of
imperial times, some were sold to other wealthy Romans. At the same
time, there remained many native landowners whose importance was
not diminished.3 Naturally the class of Roman landowners included
members of the imperial family and the emperors themselves,4 but at
first their properties were probably not much larger than those
of private individuals. The difference lay in the fact that the em-
perors had exceptionally good chances of increasing their holdings,
especially if they were unscrupulous. The Roman aristocracy and
the rising families of the provinces were soon running the same
risks of confiscation. The distinction between public money and the
private property of the Princeps began to be blurred as early as the
reign of Tiberius, as we have seen; Nero played a crucial part in
this process, both as the last survivor of the Iulii and Claudii and
in his later period as a notorious confiscator of property. It was in
I Economic Survey IV. 650.

2 So Broughton, Economic. Survey, loco cit.
, Broughton, TAPA LXV (1934), 21 If.
4 Agrippa, see above, p. 221, note. 3; Livia: fGR IV. 1204, 1213.
APPENDIX VI
his reign, too, that orientals began to enter the dangerous arena of
politics.
We may now pass from the theory to the criteria which have been
used to establish the existence of particular estates. Of these there
are two main forms: (I) the presence of certain officials in an area;
and (2) the distribution of certain nomina.
(I) The more prominent of the officials will be examined one by one.
(i) Brabeutae. Their presence has been used as evidence of an im-
perial estate round Sag!r in the Sultan Dag near Antioch (Hist.
and Art of East. Rom. Provo 312; JHS XXXII (1912), 153 ff.; RE
v A (1934), 165 f.): 'flpaflwrat are known as officials who managed the
business affairs of a synodos or koinon, i.e. a private society for religious
purposes' (Hist. and Art of East. Rom: Provo loco cit., comparing K.
Buresch, Aus Lydien (Leipzig, 1898), 10,41, and 130, where they are
the annual officials of a city or village). In themselves they do not
establish the existence of an estate, whether imperial or private.
(ii) A dispensator (OtoLK"lr~s) occurs in the Tembris valley (CIL
III. 7002), where he is taken by Ramsay to be evidence for an imperial
estate (Hist. and Art of East. Rom. Provo 188). He is an imperial freed-
man and must be regarded as representing the imperial interest, but
Magie, Roman Rule II. 1548, prefers the view that he was 'connected
with the general administration of the emperor's property'. The pro-
vince of the dispensator seems to have been financial without necessarily
being connected with real estate: see ILS 1514, Martial, Epigr. V.
43. 5: 'dispensatorem fallax spoliabit amica', and Juvenal, Sat. I.
91 f.: 'proelia quanta illic (at the gaming table) dispensatore videbis
armigero.' The dispensator by himself is not proof of the existence
of an imperial estate.
(iii) The presence of a procurator (brtrp07TOs) is sometimes regarded
as most cogent evidence for an estate. For a procurator in the Cher-
sonese, which was bequeathed to Augustus by Agrippa (above, p. 221,
note 3), see the Austrian Archaeological Institute's Forschungen in
Ephesos III (Wien, 1923), 134 f., no. 48, and Cities of East. Rom. Provo 16.
For Asia, see Strabo XIII, p. 618, Dio LVII. 23. iv, Tacitus, Annals IV. 15,
(Lucilius Capito, in charge of the servitia et pecuniae familiares of
Tiberius), and XIII. I (P. Celer and Helius, in charge of the resfamiliaris
of Nero). Other imperial brtrpo7ToL: J. Keil and A. von Premerstein,
Bericht uber eine dritte Reise in Lydien (Wien, 1914), 37 f., no. 55 (Aga
Bey Kay, in the upper Cogamis valley); OGIS 502, line 10 (Aezani);
ibid. 501 (Tralles); EJ 188, cf. JHS XXII (1902), 107, no. 17, and Klio
XXIII (1929-30), 253 (Kireli Kasaba: EEflauroiJ a7TEAEvOEPOS €7Ttrpo7Tos)
IGR IV. 165 I (Philadelpheia). A procurator erected a boundary stone
illthe Tembris valley (CIL III. 7004). For imperial freedmen at the
Synnada marble quarries, see Roman Rule II. 1425 f. In IGR IV.
1204 and 1213 there is an brtTpo7TOS Z4JuaToO :APKTJS ilWVLUVijS. All this
is convincing evidence that the emperors employed officials called
procuratores to look after their estates in the provinces. Such royal
officials were called €7T{Tp07TOL as early as the time of Herodotus
(I. 108). What this does not prove is that all procurators were em-
ployed on imperial property, for the title of the imperial official is
derived from that given to the agent of a private landowner under the
Republic, and the word continued to be used in this way in imperial
times; cf. Cicero, ad Au. IV. 16. vii [xv]; Petronius, Sat. 30; Dig. XI.
4. 1. 1 ; even a woman could have a procurator: Martial, Epigr. v. 61.
Accordingly, we cannot assume that the Ormelian estates were the
property of the emperor simply because €7T{Tp07TOL appear on them
(IGR IV. 887-93).
(iv) The presence of a p,WeWT~S (conductor) is likewise said to be
proof of the existence of an imperial estate (Hist. and Art of the East.
Provo 311 f.); cf. the p,WeWT~S TOO • •• Xwp{OV Ka{aapos of MAMA v.
xxviii, and IGR IV. 592. The remarks made above about procuratores
apply equally to misthotae. A freedman of M. Calpurnius Longus
was p,WeWT~S Taw 7Tept :AAUaTOV T67TWV (IGR IV. 894) ; but, as Professor
Jones has pointed out (Cities of the East. Rom. Provo 76), Longus was
probably the owner of the estate. Similarly the p,WeWT~S TOO Xwp{ov,
KaTa T67TOV p,.aeWT~S of fGR III. 477 f., IV. 927, on the shores of Lake
S6gUt, may belong to a private estate (so Magie, Roman Rule II. 1326),
like the p,LaeWTat xwp{ov }4pa'\'\Elwv of Atlandl, (MAMA I. 292, cf.
Roman Rule II. 1327). Misthotae occur on the Ormelian estates (IGR IV.
889) and perhaps at Saglr (Hist. and Art of the East. Provo 321).
(v) An OlKov6p,os or viliCl/S of the emperor is found in the Tembris
valley (JRS XXVII (1937), 19, no. I): Ze{3. OlKov6p,os Xwp{wv Kwvad3LavWv.
Nevertheless, this official is equally likely to be found on a private
estate; see Cicero, Verr. II. iii. II9, Rep. I. 59; Horace, Ep. I. xiv. I,
and II. ii. 160 ff. An unpublished inscription from Pisidian Antioch
mentions an OlKov6p,os of one Marullinus.
(vi) The presence of 7Tpuyp,aTwTu{ or aclores has been adduced as
further evidence for the existence of an imperial estate in the Lysis
valley (IGR IV. 888-91) and at Saglr (JHSXXXII (1912),152); but
for a private pragmateutes at Antioch towards Pisidia, see EJ 147.
(vii) Saltuarii were taken to show the existence of an imperial
estate in the Tembris valley in Cities and Bishoprics II. 615, cf. JHS
XVII (1897), 421, but Keil and Premerstein show (op. cit. 13), that
they could be guards on private domains as well.
814259 Q
APPENDIX VI
(2) The frequency of the name M. Antonius in the Hermus and
Cogamis valleysl has been regarded as evidence for imperial estates
there, confiscated by Antony and passing on his fall into the hands of
Octavian. The evidence has been dealt with by Professor Brough-
ton;2 although there were imperial estates in these regions in the
second and third centuries, and village organization was preserved
there, the Marci Antonii do not afford a link between the later
estates and the close of the Republican era. Professor Broughton
points out that there ought to be as many Marci Antonii in Phrygia,
where equally there were large estates. Most, he thinks, are to be
accounted for by the assumption of gifts of citizenship: 'only two or
three could have been Antonian freedmen or officials.'
Near the Pisidian colonies only three imperial estates stand up to
examination: those at Kireli Kasaba,3 those further to the south-
east at Bademli,4 and Nero's domain a few miles south-east of Lake
Ascania. s None may be traced back to the period of colonization,
and between Antioch and the Kireli Kasaba and Badernli estates
lay Neapolis, a city which had been in existence since the third
century B.C. 6 It is just possible that Nero's Pisidian estate is the relic
of a property that had provided Olbasa with its territorium, but the
much nearer Ormelian estates were in private hands in the second
century, and it is just as likely that the property was inherited by
Annia Faustina from Ummidius Quadratus as that it was bestowed
by the emperor. 7 The estates at Pogla are less well supported8 and,
like those near Sag-Ir, must at present be regarded as putative.
I Rostovtzelf, Studien zur Geschichte des riimischen Kolonates (Leipzig, etc., 1910),
290 f.; Buresch, AusLydien 37 ff., no. 23; lGRlv. 1227, 1357.
• TAPA LXV (1934), 213 If.
3 lGR III. 242 f.; ]HSXXII (1902), 104; KlioxxlII (1929-30), 251 If.; so Broughton,
op. cit. 233. Cf. Robert, Hell. XIII (1965), 77 If. When they were acquired is not
known.
4 ClL III. 12143(T.FI. Diomedianus, etc.); Broughton, loc. cit. Corbishley, Klio
XXIX (1936), 91, suggests that one reason for prosecuting the Homanadensian war
was to protect Augustus' properties in southern Phrygia and Galatia. This seems
far-fetched.
5 See now Bean, Anal. Stud. IX (1959), 84 If., no. 29.
6 Jones, Cities of East. Rom. Provo 141.
7 So Broughton, op. cit. 225. 8 By lGR III. 409.
APPENDIX VII
LYCIA AND PAMPHYLIA UNDER NERO
AND GALBAI
TACITUS says:2 'Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio

Asprenati regendas permiserat'. Observing the plural, 'provincias',
Professor Syme suggested long ago 3 that it indicates that Galatia
and Pamphylia had been separated before Galba made this appoint-
ment. There is some evidence for a temporary amalgamation of
Galatia and Pamphylia during the administration of Cn. Domitius
Corbulo. Of his subordinate, Rutilius Gallicus, Statius writes: 4
Hunc Galatea vigens ausa est incessere bello ,
(me quoque), perque novem timuit Pamphylia messis'
Pannoniusque ferox arcuque horrenda fugaei
Armenia et patiens Latii iam pontis Araxes.
This passage links Galatia and Pamphylia, and an inscriptions calls

Rutilius legatus provinciae Galaticae. If this man was sent to the east
after holding a praetorship in 55 and held office for nine years,6 Galatia
and Pamphylia must have been united between 55 and 64; but the
nine years of the Statius passage may include Rutilius' activities in
Pannonia as welL7 Two Neronian governors of Lycia are known:
Epriu~ Marcellus, prosecuted by the provincials in 57, 8 and Licinius
Mucianus, who is honoured in an inscription from Attaleia in Pam-
phylia 9 and who is usually supposed to have succeeded Marcellus
in about 58.10 There would thus be ample room in Nero's reign
after the governorship of Mucianus for a period of amalgamation
with Galatia, but no obvious occasion for it or for the liberation
• See Jameson, Lycia and Pamphylia under the Roman Empire from Augustus to Dio-
detian (Oxford D.Phil; thesis, 1965),68 ff.
2 Histories II. 9; cf. Inser. Rom. Tripolitania 346: Asprenas is 'legatus pro praetore
provinciae Galateae Paphlagoniae Pamphyliae Pisidiae'.

3 Klio xxx (1937), 231. 4 Silvae I. iv. 76 ff.
5 ILS 9499. 6 See Sherk, Legates of Galatia 35 ff.
7 Groag, RErA (1920), 1257 f., was inclined to accept the Statius passage at
its face value; Syme, KlioxXVIII (1934), 127, and xxx (1937), 230 f., was sceptical.
8 Tacitus, Annals XIII. 33. He is never mentioned in connexion with Pamphylia.
9 AE 1915, 48; cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist. XII. 9, and Xlii. 88; lLS 88r6.
'0 So de Laet, SammsteUing 158, no. 1042; Syme, Tacitus II. 790, would put his
governorship a little later. Licinius left many traces of his tenure in the nomen-
clature of Lycia.
APPEN~IX VII
ofLycia. On the other hand, Nero rather than Galba is the emperor
who might have been expected to liberate the Lycians, and it may
be that Tacitus speaks of Galatia and Pamphylia as provincias be-
cause they were parts of separate provinces in his own day. If this
were so, the Lycians regained their independence between 58 and
68 and kept it until Vespasian's reorganization of the east.
APPENDIX VIn
THE DIVISION OF GALATIA AND CAPPADOCIA
L. CATILIUS was leg. Aug. pro pr .... provinciae Cappadociae et Ar-

meniae Maior. et Minor. between A.D. II4 and the death of Trajan. 1
Galatia is not mentioned in this inscription, and it may be con-
cluded that the division had already taken place. This is the only
firm chronological evidence. The first independent governor of
Galatia of known date does not appear until about I 17. 2 Very close
to him comes a man called Gallus, honoured, like his predecessor,
in a titulus set up at Pisidian Antioch,3 At the same town was in-
scribed the dedication to Sospes, who is called leg. Aug. pro pro
provine. Gal. Pisid. Phryg. Luc. lsaur. Paphlag. Ponti Galat. Ponti Pole-
moniani Arm.4 The date of this stone is disputed. The view of A. von
Domaszewski5 that it belongs to the Antonine period has now
generally been abandoned: Sospes was decorated for his services as
legate of Legio XIII Gemina 'expeditione Suebica et Sarmatica'.
A legion that took part in this expedition should have been stationed
not in Dacia, the home of XIII Gemina since the creation of the
province, but in Pannonia. However, Sospes' tenure of the post of
praifectus frumenti dandi has led H. Pflaum6 to suggest that his career
must be later than has generally been supposed. Pflaum thinks that
Sospes entered the public service under Domitian and won his
military decorations in a German .campaign of I 17-18, becoming
governor of Galatia immediately afterwards. The office of praifectus
frumenti dandi ex S.C. has often been thought to have been abolished
by Claudius and re-established by Nerva;7 this view has been
attacked by G. E. F. Chilver,s who, however, bases his argument in
part on the inscription under discussion. Sherk9 would see Sospes
as 'praetorian legate of Galatia e. 72 A.D. immediately before the
formation of the Complex [of Galatia Cappadocia]'. Sherk explains
the Suebic and Sarmatian expedition as 'some unknown clash or
border incident'; but in 69 the Suebi had long been at peace with
'lLS 1041; cf. ILS III. ii. p. cIxxiii and PlR2 C 55B.
2 Acephalous from Pisidian Antioch, lLS 1039.
3 ILS 103B. 4 ILS 1017.
5 Rhein. Mus., N.S. XLVIII (IB93), 247.
6 Histaria II (1953-4), 431 fr.
7 See the references given by Pflaum, op. cit. 433.
B AJP LXX (1949),7 IT. 9 Legates afGalatia 87 IT.
APPENDIX VIII
Rome, I and an expeditio is not a mere border incident. According
to a military diploma from Thrace,2 L. Caesennius Sospes was
consul in 114, and it looks as if he was legatus under the consular
governor of Galatia-Cappadocia in about 95. In that case, Cap-
padocia has been accidentally omitted from the list of provinces in
ILS 10 17, and the insertion of pro pro after leg. is another error; there
are several minor mistakes on the stone. If So spes is not wrongly
described as leg. Aug. pro pr., he can be supposed to have succeeded
a consular legate who died in office. We have such a legate in
Antistius Rusticus,J and this is the most attractive explanation of the
anomalies of ILS 1017. Alternatively, it is possible that the province
was split for a short while after Rusticus' death into its two main
component parts .• The view that Sospes held office in the reign of
Domitian is supported by the absence of any mention of the emperor
who bestowed the dona militaria on him.s Pflaum acknowledges this
as a weakness in his theory,6 but considers that it is outweighed by
the difficulties involved in holding to a Domitianic date. 7
I Tacitus, Histories Ill. 5: 'vetus obsequium erga Romanos'.
• See Syme, Hermes LXXXV (1957), 493, note 2.
3 Martial, Epigr. lX. 30 .
• The province was certainly united under the governorship of T. Pomponius
Bassus in A.D. 96 (Magie, Roman Rule II. 1453); Sherk's arguments for placing Ti.
Iulius Candidus Marius Celsus in 93-95 (op. cit. 52 f.) do not seem conclusive.
5 Cf. ILS 1016, with Dessau's comment.
6 Op. cit. 439 f.
7 For further references and discussion, see Magie, Roman Rule II. 1436 If., and
1459 If.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Standard collections of inscriptions and catalogues of coins, such
as the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and the Catalogue of Greek Coins
in the British Museum, are not included; see the List of Abbreviations.
COLONIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP
BROUGHTON, T. R. S. 'Some Non-Colonial Coloni of Augustus', TAPA LXVI
(1935), 18 ff.
BRUNT, P. A. 'The Army and the Land in the Roman Revolution', JRS LII
(1962),69 ff.
GABBA, E. 'Ricerche sull'esercito professionale romano da Mario ad
Augusto', Athenaeum, N.S. XXIX (1951), 171 ff.
- - 'Sulle colonie triumvirali di Antonio in Italia', La Parola del Passato
GRANT, M. From Imperium to Auctoritas (Cambridge, 1946).
HAMPL, F. 'Zur romischen Kolonisation in der Zeit der ausgehenden Re-
publik und des fn1hen Prinzipates', Rhein. Mus., N.F. xcv (1952), 52 ff.
VIII (1953), 101 ff.
KORNEMANN, E. 'Coloniae', RE IV (19°1),51 I ff.
KROMAYER,]. 'Die Militarcolonien Octavians und Caesars in Gallia Nar-
bonensis', Hermes XXXI (1896), Iff.
MACKENDRICK, P. 'Cicero, Livy, and Roman Colonization', Athenaeum,
N.S. XXXII (1954), 201 ff.
MOMMSEN, Th. 'Die italischen Biirgercolonien von Sulla bis Vespasian',
Hermes XVIII (1883), 161 ff. (=GesammelteSchriften v (Berlin, 1908),203 fr.).
PAIS, E. Storia della colonizzazione di Roma antiea (Roma, 1923).
SALMON, E. T. 'Roman Colonization from the Second Punic War to the
Gracchi', JRS XXVI (1936),47 ff.
- - 'Roman Expansion and Roman Colonization in Italy', Phoenix IX
(1955),63 ff.
SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N. The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 1939).
STEVENSON, G. H. Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Antonines
(Oxford, 1939).
SYME, R. Colonial Elites: Rome, Spain, The Americas (Oxford, 1958).
TIBrLETTI, G. 'Ricerchedi storia agraria romana', Athenaeum, N.S. XXVIII
(1950), 183 ff.
VITTINGHOFF, F. 'Romische Stadtrechtsformen der Kaiserzeit', ;:'SS, Rom.
Abt. LXVIII (1951),435 ff.
- - Romische Kolonisation und Biirgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus
(Akad. der. Wiss. und der Lit. in Mainz, Abh. der geistes- und sozialwissensehqft-
liehen Klasse, 1951, Nr. xrv).
TRAVEL AND TOPOGRAPHY
ANDERSON, ]. G. C. 'The Road System of Eastern Asia Minor with the
Evidence of Byzantine Campaigns', JHS XVII (1897), 22 ff.
- - (ed.) Asia Minor (Murray's Handy Classical Maps, London, Ig03).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARUNDELL, F. V. J. Discoveries in Asia Minor, including a Description of the
Ruins of Several Ancient Cities and Especially Antioch of Pisidia (2 vols.,
London, 1834).
BALLANCE, M. H. 'The Site of Derbe: a New Inscription', Anat. Stud. VII
(1957), 147 ff.
- - 'Roman Roads in Lycaonia', Anat. Stud. VIII ([958), 223 ff.
- - 'Derbe and Faustinopolis', Anat. Stud. XIV (1964), 139 ff.
BEAN, G. E. 'Notes and Inscriptions from Pisidia', Part I, Anat. Stud. IX
(1959),67 ff.; Part II, Anat. Stud. X (1960),43 ff.
CALDER, W. M. 'The Royal Road in Herodotus', CR XXXIX (1925), 7 ff.
- - 'Lake Trogitis', Klio XXIII (1929-30),88 ff.
CALDER, W. M., and BEAN, G. E. A Classical Map of Asia Minor, being a
Partial Revision . .• of J. G. C. Anderson's Map of Asia Minor (Supplement
to Anal. Stud. VII (1957».
DUCHESNE, L., and COLLIGNON, M. 'Rapport sur un voyage archeologique
en Asie Mineure', BCH 1(1877),361 ff.
HAMILTON, W.J. Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus and Armenia (2 vols., London,
18 42 ).
HIRSCHFELD, G. Vorliir¢iger Bericht iiber eine Reise im siidwestlichen Kleinasien
(Auszug aus dem Monatsbericht der Konigl. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, 3 vols.,
18 74-9).
- - 'Bericht liber eine Reise im siidwestlichen Kleinasien,' Zeitschrift der
Gesellsch.fiJr Erdkunde XIV (1879), 279 ff.
MASON, K. Geographical Handbook Series: Turkey (Naval Intelligence Division,
2 vols., 1942-3).
MILLER, K. (ed.) Die Peutingersche Tafel (Stuttgart, 1962).
RADET, G. 'Les villes de la Pisidie', RA, Ser. Ill, VO!. XXII (1893), 185 ff.
RAMSAY, W. M. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (Royal Geographical
Society, Supp!. Papers, vol. IV, London, 1890).
- - 'Colonia Niniva ou Ninica', RN, Ser. III, vol. XII (1894), 164 ff.
- - The Cities and Bishoprics rif Phrygia, being an Essay of the Local History of
Phrygiafrom the Earliest Times to the Turkish Conquest (2 vols., Oxford, 1895-7).
- - Pisidia and the Lycaonian Frontier', ABSA IX (1902-3), 243 ff.
- - 'Lycaonia', JOAIvii (1904), Beiblatt 57 ff.
- - 'Military Operations on the North Front of Mount Taurus', JHS XL
(1920),89 ff.
- - 'Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. VII. Pisidia. VIII. Map of
YalJowadj', JRS XVI (1926), 102 ff.
- - 'Res Anatolicae. I. The Elimination of Lake Trogitis (Seidi-Sheher).
II. Oroanda: Ager Oroandicus: Tractus Oroandicus', Klio XXII (1928-9),
369 ff.; 'III. Ecce Iterum Pisidia', XXIII (1929-30), 239 ff.
- - 'Trogitis or Soghla-Gol (Marsh-Lake), also called Seidi-Sheher-Gol,
Kara-Viran-Gol', Klio XXIII (1929-30), 98 f.
- - 'Anatolica Quaedam. VIII. The site of Isaura Nova,' JHS L (1930),
269 ff.
RITTER, C. Die Erdkunde im Verhiiltnis zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Men-
schen, oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie, XVIII, XIX; drittes Buch: West-
Asien: Kleinasien I, II (ed. 2, Berlin, 1858-9).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ROBERT, L. 'Parlais', Etudes epigraphiques et philologiques (Paris, 1938),265 ff.
ROBERT, J. and L. 'Notes sur Ie voyage archeologique de M. et Mme. L.
Robert en Pisidie, etc.', CRAI 1948, 401 ff.
STARR, S. F. 'In the Tracks of Conquerors, Rulers, Pilgrims, and Merchants:
First Findings of an Expedition to Map the Ancient Roads of Anatolia',
Illustrated London News, vol. CCXLIII, no. 6486 (23 Nov. 1963), 859 ff.
INSCRIPTIONS, ART, AND ARCHITECTURE

ANDERSON, J. G. C. 'Festivals of Men Askaenos in the Roman Colonia at
Antioch of Pisidia', JRS III (1913), 267 ff.
BERARD, V. 'Inscriptions d'Asie Mineure', BCHxvI (1892), 417ff.
BUCKLER, W. H., et al. 'Asia Minor, 1924. I. Monuments from Iconium
Lycaonia and Isauria', JRS XIV (1924), 24 ff.
CAGNAT, R. 'L. Antistius Rusticus, legat de Cappadoce,' CRAI 1925, 227 ff.
CALDER, W. M. 'Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia', JRS II (1912), 79 ff.
- - 'Inscriptions of Southern Galatia', AJA, Ser. II, vol. XXXVI (1932),452 ff.
COLLIGNON, M. 'Inscriptions d'Ormele, en Phrygie', BCH Il (1878), 53 ff.,
243 ff.
CRONIN, H. S. 'First Report of a Journey in Pisidia, Lycaonia, and Pam-
phyIia', JHS XXII (1902),94 ff., 339 ff., XXIV (1904), 113 If.
DESSAU, H. 'Ein Amtsgenosse des Dichters Horatius in Antiochia Pisidiae',
Ramsay 135 ff.
DUCHESNE, L. 'La colonie romaine d'Olbasa en Pisidie', BCHI (1877),332 ff.
EHRENBERG, V. 'Monumentum Antiochenum', Klio XIX (1925), 189 ff.
HARDIE, M. M. 'The Shrine of Men Askaenos at Pisidian Antioch', JHS
XXXI! (1912), II I ff.
HARRER, G. A. 'The Latin Inscription from Antioch', AJA, Ser. II, vol. XXIX
(1925),429 ff.
iNAN, J., and ROSENBAUM, E. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture
in Asia Minor (London, 1966).
JUTHNER, J., 'Die Augusteia in OJbasa', Wiener Studien XXIV (1902); 285 ff.
JUTHNER, J., et al. Vorliilffiger Bericht uber eine archiiologische Expedition nach
Kleinasien, unternommen im Auftrage deT Gesellschaft zur Fdrderung deutscher
Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Bdhmen (Prag, 1903).
LANCKORONSKI, K. Graf, et al. Stiidte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens (2 vols., Wien,
etc., 1890-2).
KASTEN, H. 'Fortschritte der griechischen Inschriftenforschung seit 1895',
Bllrsians Jahresbericht uber die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertllmswissenschaft
CCXLlV (1934), 136 ff.; CCLIII (1936),58 ff.
LEVICK, B. M. 'Two Inscriptions from Pisidian Antioch', Anat. Stud. xv
(1965),53 ff.
PACE, B. 'Barla, etc.', Annllario III (1921),45 ff.
RAMSAY, W. M. 'Notes and Inscriptions from Asia Minor', Ath. Mitt. VIII
(1883),71 ff.
- - 'The Graeco-Roman CiviJizationin Pisidia', JHS IV (1883),23 ff.
- - 'Notes and Inscriptions from Asia Minor. IV. The Good Fortune of
Antioch', AJA 1(1885), 143 If.; 'X. Fines SagaJassensium', 11(1886),128 ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
RAMSAY, W. M. 'Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and the Border' Lands',
AJA III (1887),344 ff.; IV (1888), 6 ff., 263 ff.
- - (ed.) Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces qf the Roman
Empire (Aberdeen, 1906).
- - 'Sketches in the Religious Antiquities of Asia Minor', ABSA XVIII
(1911-12),37 ff.
- - 'The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends', JHS XXXII (1912), 151 ff.
- - 'Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age', JRS VI
(1916),83 ff.
- - 'Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. II. Dedications at the
Sanctuary of Colonia Caesarea', JRS VIII (1918), I07ff.
- - 'The Utilization of Old Epigraphic Copies', JHSXXXVIII (1918),124 ff,
- - 'Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. VI. Some Inscriptions of
Colonia Caesarea Antiochea', JRS XIV (1924), 172 ff. 'IX. Inscriptions
ofAntioch ofPhrygia-towards-Pisidia (Colonia Caesarea)', XVI (1926), I 10 ff.
- - 'Anatolica Quaedam. IV. Head of Augustus Mourning (Pisidian
Antioch),; 'VIII. Street Signs in Anatolian Cities', JHS L (1930), 263 ff.
- - The Social Basis qf Roman Power in Asia Minor, prepared ... by J. G. C.
Anderson (Aberdeen, 1941).
RAMSAY, W. M., and PREMERSTEIN, A. von (edd.) 'Monumentum Anti-
ochenum, die neugefundene Aufzeichnung der Res Gestae Divi Augusti
im pisidischen Antiochia', Klio, Beiheft XIX (Leipzig, 1927).
ROBINSON, D. M. 'A new Latin Economic Edict from Pisidian Antioch',
TAPA LV (1924),5 ff.
- - 'A Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Pisidian Antioch and
at Sizma', AJA, Ser. II, vol. XXVIII (1924), 435 ff.
- - 'Notes on Inscriptions from Antioch in Pisidia', JRSxv (1925), 253 ff.
- - 'Roman Sculptures from Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch)', The
Art Bulletin IX, i (1926),5 ff.
- - 'Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Asia Minor', TAPA LVII (1926),
195 ff.
- - 'A Magical Inscription from Pisidian Antioch', Hesperia XXII (1953),
172 ff.
SMITH, A. H. 'Notes on a Tour in Asia Minor', JHSVIII (1887),216 ff.
SWOBODA, H., et al. Denkmiiler aus Lykaonien, Pamphylien und lsaurien (Brunn,
etc. 1935).
WARD' PERKINS, J. B., and BALLANCE, M. 'The Caesareum at Cyrene and
the Basilica at Cremna', etc., PBSR, N.S. XIII (1958), 137 ff.
COINS
BABELON, E. 'Sur la numismatique des villes d'Asie Mineure qui ont porte
Ie nom de Comana', RN, Ser. Ill, vol. IV (1886),439 ff.
BOSCH, C. 'Archaologische Gesellschaft zu Berlin, Sitzung am 2. J uni, 1931',
Arch. Am::. XLVI (1931), 422 ff.
BURGON, T. 'On Two Newly Discovered Silver Tetradrachms of Amyntas,
King of Galatia: with some Remarks on the Diminution in Weight of
the Attic Drachma', NC VIII (1846), 69 ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
DIEUDONNE, A. 'Monnaies grecques recemment acquises par Ie Cabinet de
Medailles', RN, Ser. VI (1902), 69 ff., 343 ff.
HILL, G. F. 'Greek Coins Acquired by the British Museum, 1905-1910',
NC, Ser. IV, vol. XII (1912), 134 ff.
- - 'The Coinage of Pisid ian Antioch', NC, Ser. IV, vol. XIV (1914),299 ff.
- - 'Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor', Ramsay 207 ff.
IMHOOF-BLUMER, F. 'Griechische Munzen aus dem Museum in Klagenfurt
und anderer Sammlungen', NZ XVI (1884), 227 ff.
- - 'Beitrage zur Erklarung griechischer Munztypen', Nomisma VIII (19 I 3),
I ff.
- - 'Antike griechische Munzen', RS XIX (1913),5 ff.
KUBITSCHEK, W. 'Marsyas und Maron in Kremne (Pisidien)', Festschrift
fur Otto Benndorf (Wien, 1898), 198 ff.
- - 'Ninica Claudiopolis', NZ XXXIV (1903, Jahrg. 1902), Iff.
MARKL, A. 'Das Provinzialcourant unter Kaiser Claudius II. Gothicus',
NZXXXI (1900,Jahrg. 1899),319 ff.
MILNE, J. G. 'The Coinage of Antioch in Pisidia after A.D. 250" NC, Ser.
IV, vol. VII (1947),97 ff.
NOE, S. P. A Bibliography rif Greek Coin Hoards (Numismatic Notes and Mono-
graphs LXXVIII, ed. 2, New York, 1937).
~SCHE, J. C. Lexicon universae rei numariae veterum et praecipue Graecorum ac
Romanorum (13 vols., Lipsiae, 1785-18°5).
RITTERLING, E. 'Munze aus Antiochia Pisidiae', Zfur N XXXVIII (1928),56 ff.
ROBINSON, E. S. G. 'Greek Coins from the Dardanelles', NC, Ser. V, vol. I
(1921), I ff.
SABATIER, J. 'Monnaies imperiales grecques, en bronze et inedites', RNB,
Ser. III, vol. IV (1860), Iff.
SALLET,A. VON. 'Beitrage zur antiken Munzkunde', Zfur NXII (1885),358 ff.
WADDINGTON, W. H. 'Un voyage en Asie-Mineure au point de vue numis-
matique. Cinquieme article. Pamphylie et Pisidie', RN XVIII (1853), 20 ff.
- - 'Numismatique de l'Isaurie et de la Lycaonie', RN, Ser. III, vol. I
(1883),24 ff.
WROTH, W. 'Greek Coins acquired by the British Museum in 1901', NC,
Ser. IV, vol. II (1902), 313 ff.
ASIA MINOR: POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND

ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION
BOWERSOCK, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965).
BROUGHTON, T. R. S. 'Roman Landholding in Asia Minor', TAPA LXV
(1934),207 ff.
- - 'Roman Asia', An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV (Baltimore,
1938),499 ff.
- - 'New Evidence on Temple-Estates in Asia Minor', Studies in Roman
Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson, ed. by P. R.
Coleman-Norton et al. (Princeton, 1951),236 ff.
CHAPOT, V. La frontiere de l'Euphrate de Pompee Ii la conquete arabe (Biblio-
theque des Ec.franyaises d'Athenes et de Rome XCIX, Paris, 1907).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DESSAU, H. 'A Roman Senator under Domitian and Trajan',JRSm (1913),
301 ff.
ERiNg, S., and TUNgDiLEK, N. 'The Agricultural Regions of Turkey',
Geographical Review XLII (1952), 179 ff.
FRANK, T. '''Dominium in Solo Provinciali", and "Ager Publicus"', JRS
XVIII (1927), 141 ff.
FUCHS, H. Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom in der antiken Welt (ed. 2,
Berlin, 1964).
GORDON, A. E. OJiintus Veranius, Consul A.D. 49 (Univ. of California Publ.
in Class. Arch., vol. II, no. 5, Berkeley, etc., 1952).
GREN, E. Kleinasi81l und der Ostbalkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der
riJmischen Kaiserzeit (Uppsala Universitets A rsskrift IX, 1941).
GWATKIN, W. E. Cappadocia as a Roman Procuratorial Province (Univ. if Mis-
souri Stud., vol. V, no. 4, Columbia, 1930).
HAHN, L. Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-ro'mischen Osten . •• , his auf die
Zeit Hadrians (Leipzig, 1906).
JAMESON, S. A. Lycia and Pamphylia under the Roman Empire from Augustus to
Diocletian (thesis submitted for the degree of D.Phil. in the University of
Oxford, 1965; unpublished).
JONES, A. H. M. The Cities if the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937).
- - The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian (Oxford, 1940).
MAGIE, D. M. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after
Christ (2 vols., Princeton, 1950).
MOMMSEN, Th. The Provinces if the Roman Empirefrom Caesar to Diocletian, tr.
by W. P. Dickson (2 vols., London, 1909).
ORMEROD, H. A. 'The Campaigns of Servilius Isauricus against the Pirates',
JRS XII (1922), 35 ff.
- - 'Rome and the East', CAH IX (1932), 350 ff.
PERROT, G. De Galatia provincia Romana (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1867).
PFLAUM H.-G. 'La chronologie de la carriere de L. Caesennius Sospes',
Historia II (1953-4), 431 ff.
PLANHOL, X. DE. De la plaine pamphylienne aux lacs pisidiens, nomadisme et vie
paysanne (BibliothCque arch. et hist. de I'Institut franfais d'arch. d'Istanbulm,
Paris, 1958).
RAMSAY, W. M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians
(ed. 2, London, 1900).
- - 'Lycaonian and Phrygian notes', CR XIX (1905), 367 ff., 413 ff.
- - The Cities of St. Paul, their Influence on his Life and Thought (London, 1907).
- - Pauline and Other Studies in Early Christian History (ed. 2, London, 1908).
- - Pictures of the Apostolic Church, its Life and Teaching (London, 1910).
- - St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (ed. 14, London, 1920).
- - 'Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. III. Imperial Government
of the Province Galatia', JRS XII (1922), 147 ff.; 'X. The Romans in
Galatia', XVI (1926), 201 ff.
- - 'Geography and History in a Phrygo-Pisidian Glen', Geographical
Journal LXI (1923), 279 ff.
- - 'Anatolica Quaedam. I. The Campaigns of Servilius Isauricus in
Asia Minor', JHS XLVlIl (1928),46 ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
- - 'Early History of Province Galatia', Buckler 201 ff.
ROBERT, L. Noms indigenes dans l'Asie~Mineure greco-romaine, premiere partie
(Bibliothtque arch. ethist. de I'Institutfranyais d 'arch. d'IstanbulxlII, Paris, 1963).
RosTovTzEFF, M. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (ed. 2,
rev. by P. M. Fraser, 2 vols., Oxford, 1957).
SHERK, R. K. The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian (The Johns
Hopkins Univ. Stud. in Hist. and Pol. Science, Ser. LXIX, no. 2, 1951).
STRATIL-SAUER, G. 'Cereal Production in Turkey', Economic Geography IX
(1933),325 ff.
SYME, R. 'Galatia and Pamphylia under Augustus: the Governorships of
Piso, Quirinius and Silvanus', Klio XXVII (1934), 122 ff.
- - 'Pamphylia from Augustus to Vespasian', Klio xxx, (1937),227 ff.
- - 'Observations on the Province of Cilicia', Buckler 299 ff.
WOODWARD, A. M. 'Sparta and Asia Minor under the Roman Empire',
Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson, ed. by G. Mylonas and D. Raymond
(St. Louis, 1951-3), II. 868 ff.
ZGUSTA, L. Kleinasiatische Personennamen(Mon. Orient. ust. CSAVXIX, Prag, 1964).
ZWINTSCHER, A. De Galatarum Tetrarchis et Amynta Rege Quaestiones (Lipsiae,
1892).
BRAUNERT, H. 'Der romische Provinzialzensus und der Schatzungsbericht
des Lukas-Evangeliums', Historia VI (1957), 192 ff.
BROUGHTON, T. R. S. 'Some Notes on the War with the Homonadeis',
AJP LIV (1933), 134 ff.
CORBlSHLEY, T. 'Quirinius and the Census: a Re"Study of the Evidence',
Klio XXIX (1936),81 ff.
DESSAU, H. 'Zu den neuen Inschriften des Sulpicius Quirinius', Klio XVII
(1921),252 ff.
GROAG, E. 'M. Plautius Silvanus', in the Prosopographische Beitriige, JOAI
XXI-XXII (1922-4), Beiblatt 445 ff.
INSTINSKY, H. U. Das Jahr der Geburt Christi, eine geschichtswissenschaftliche
Studie (Munchen, 1957).
RAMSAY, W. M. The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament (London, etc., 1915).
- - 'Studies in the Roman Province Galatia. I. The Homanadeis and the
Homanadensian War', JRS VII (1917), 229 ff.
Roos, A. G. 'Die Quirinius-Inschrift', Mnemosyne, Ser. III, vol. IX (1941),306 ff.
SHAFER, R. ' "Pisidian" ',AJP LXXI (1950), 239 ff.
TAYLOR, L. R. 'Quirinius and the Census ofJudaea', AJP LlV (1933),120 ff.
- - 'M. Titius and the Syrian Command', JRS XXVI (1936), 161 ff.

CUNTZ, O. 'Legionare des Antonius and Augustus aus dem Orient', JOAI
xxv (1929), 70 ff.
HATZFELD, J. 'Les Italiens residant a Delos mentionnes dans les inscriptions
de l'ile', BCHxxxVI (1912), 5 ff.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HATZFELD, J. Les Trafiquants italiens dans [,Orient helUnique (Bibliotheque des
Ecolesfranyaises d'Athenes et de Rome cxv, Paris, 1919).
HOLDER, A. Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz (2 vols. Leipzig, 1896-1904).
KUBITSCHEK, W. De Romanorum tribuum origine et propagatione (Abh. des arch.-
epigr. Seminares der Univ. Wien Ill, Wien, 1882).
- - Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum (Vindobonae, etc., 1889).
PARKER, H. M. D. The Roman Legions (Oxford, 1928).
P ARVAN, V. Die Nationalitiit der Kaufleute im romischenKaiserreiche (Breslau, 1909).
RITTERLING, E. 'Legio', RE XII (1925), 121 I fr.
SCHMITTHENNER, W. C. G. The Armies qf the Triumviral Period: a Study of the
Origins qf the Roman Imperial Legions (thesis submitted for the degree of
D.Phil. in the University of Oxford, 1958; unpublished).
SCHULTEN, A. 'Italische Namen und Stiimme', Klio II (1902), 167 ff.,
440 fr., III (19°3),235 fr.
SCHULZE, W. Zur Geschichte lateiniscker Eigennamen (Abh. der konigl. Gesellschaft
der Wiss. zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl., N.F. v, Nr. 5, Berlin, 1933).
SYME, R. 'Some Notes on the Legions under Augustus', ]RSxxllI (1933),14ff.
TARN, W. W. 'Antony's Legions', CQXXVI (1932), 75 fr.
COLONIAL KNIGHTS AND SENATORS

BARBIERI, G. L'Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285) (Studi
pubbl. dall'Ist. ital. per la storia antica VI, Roma, 1952).
CHEESMAN, L. 'The Family of the Caristanii at Antioch in Pisidia', ]RS III
(1913),253 fr.
HABICHT, C. 'Zwei neue Inschriften aus Pergamon', Istanbuler Mitteilungen
IX-X (1960), 109 fr.
KEYES, C. 'Publius Flavonius Paulinus', CP XXIII (1928), 179 fr.
DE LAET, S. J. De Samenstelling van den romeinschen Senaat gedurende de eerste
Eeuw van het Principaat (28 voor Chr.-68 na Chr.) (Rijksuniv. te Gent, Werken
uitgegeven door de Fac. van de Wijsbegeerte en Lett., 92e Aft., Antwerpen, etc.,
1941).
LAMBRECHTS,P. 'Trajan etla recrutementdu senat', Ant. Class. V (1936), 105ff.
- - La Composition-du senat romain de l'accession • .• d'Hadrien a. .. Commode
(II7-192) (Rijksuniv. te Gent, Werken uitgegeven door de Fac. van de Wijsbegeerte
en Lett., 7ge Aft., Antwerpen, etc., 1936).
- - La Composition du Senal romain de Septime Severe a Diocletien (193-284)
(Dissertationes Pann. Musei Nationalis Hungarici, Ser. r, Fasc. 8, Budapest
[1937])·
LEVICK, B. M. 'An Honorific Inscription from Pisidian Antioch', Anat.
Stud. VIII (1958), 2 19 fr.
- - 'Two Pisidian Colonial Families', ]RS XLVIII (1958), 74 fr.
LEVICK, B. M., and JAMESON, S. A. 'C. Crepereius Gallus and his Gens',]RS
LIV (1964),98 fr.
MILLAR, F. A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964).
PFLAUM, H.-G. Les Carrieres procuratoriennes equestres sous Ie haut-empire romain
(4 vols., Inst.fral1fais d'arch. de Beyrouth, Bibliotheque arch. et hist. LVII, Paris,
1960- 1).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
STECH, B. Sena/ores romani qui fuerint inde a Vespasiano usque ad Traiani exitum
(Klio, Beitriige zur Alten Geschichte, Beiheft x, Leipzig, 1912).
STEIN, A. Der romische Ritterstand (Miinchener Beitriige zur Papyrusforschung und
antiken Rechtsgeschichte x, Miinchen, 1927).
WALTON, C. S. 'Oriental Senators in the Service of Rome: a Study of
Imperial Policy down to the Death of Marcus Aurelius', JRS XIX
(1929),38 ff.
SYME, R. Tacitus (2 vols., Oxford, 1958).
TOD, M. N. 'The Corrector Maximus', Buckler 333 ff.
BYZANTIUM AND CHRISTIANITY

BECK, H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Byz. Hand-
buch im Rahmen des Handb. der Altertumswiss., Miinchen, 1959).
BROOKS, E. W. 'The Emperor Zeno and the Isaurians', English Historical
Review VIII (1893), 209 ff.
- - 'The Arabs in Asia Minor (641-750), from Arabic Sources', JHS
XVIII (1898), 182 ff.
- - 'Arabic Lists of the Byzantine Themes', JHSxxI (1901),67 If.
CAHEN, C. 'La premiere penetration turque en Asie-Mineure (seconde
moitie du Xle s.)', Byzantion XVIII (1948),5 If.
CALDER, W. M. 'Deux inscriptions byzantines d'Antioche de Pisidie',
Revue de Philologie XLVI (1922), 132 ff.
EDRISI. Geographie, traduite en fran<;ais par P. A. J aubert (Recueil de voyages et
de memoires publ. par la Soc. de Glogr., Tomes V-VI, Paris, 1836-40).
GELZER, H. Ungedruckte und ungeniigend veriiffentlichte Texte der Notitiae Episco-
patium, ein Beitrag zur byzant. Kirchen- und Verwaltungsgeschichte (Abh. der
philos.-philol. Klasse der konigl. Bayer. Akad. der Wiss., xX!. iii (1901),529 ff.).
GREGOIRE, H. Recueil des inscriptions grecques chretiennes d' Asie Mineure I (Paris,
1922 ).
HENNECKE, E. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher ()bersetzung (ed. 3,
by W. Schneemelcher, 2 vols., Tiibingen, 1959-64).
HENSCHEN, G. (ed.). Acta Sanetorum qWJtquot -toto orbe coluntur vel a catholicis
scriptoribus celebrantur. •• (66 (68) vols., Antverpiae, etc., 1643-1940).
HEYD, W. Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen age (2 vols., Leipzig, 1923).
HONIGMANN, E. 'Pour l'atlas byzantin', Byzantion X! (1936), 54! If.
- - Eveques et Ivtches monophysites d' Asie antlrieure au VIe siecte (Corpus Script.
Christ. Orient., vol. CXXVII, subsidia tome 2, Louvain, 1951).
IBN BATTuTA. Travels, A.D. 1325-1354, translated by H. A. R. Gibb from the
Arabic text ed. by C. Defremery and B. R. Sanguinetti (Hakluyt Soc.,
Ser. II, vols. CX, CXVII, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1958-62).
JAMES, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924).
JONES, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, a Social, Economic, and
Administrative Survey (4 vols., Oxford, 1964).
LAURENT, J. Byzance et ies Turcs seldjoucides dans I' Asie occidentale jusqu' en
lO81 (Nancy, 1913).
MANSI, J. D., et at. (edd.). Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio
(53 (54) vols., Florentiae, etc., 1759-1927).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MICHEL LE SYRIEN. Chronique, ed. et tr. par J.-B. Chabot (3 vols., Paris,
1899- 19 10).
MIKLOSICH, F., and MULLER, J. (edd.). Acta et diplornata Graeca medii aevi
sacra et profana collecta (6 vols., Vindobonae, 1860-90), vols. I-II, Acta
patriarchatus Constantinopolitani.
OSTROGORSKY, G. History if the Byzantine State, tr. J. Hussey (Oxford, 1956).
PACE, B. 'Ricerche nella regione di Conia, Adalia e Scalanova', Annuario
VI-VII (1926), 343 ff.
PARTHEY, G. (ed.). Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiae Graecae Episcopatuum etc.
(Berolini, 1866).
LE QUIEN, M. Oriens Christianus inIV Patriarchatlls Digestus(3 vols., Parisiis, 1740).
RAMSAY, W. M. 'Notes and Inscriptions from Asia Minor. IX. Manuel's
Campaign against the Turks, A.D. 1176', AJA II (1886), 123 ff.
- - The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. I70 (ed. 9, London, 1907).
--- 'AnobleAnatolianFamilyoftheFourthCentury',CRxxxlIl (1919), 1 ff.
- - 'Anatolica Quaedam. III. Neon, Nicon, and Heliodorus', JHS XLVIII
(1928),51 ff.
Recueil des historiens des Croisades, pub!, par les soins de l'Acad. roy. des inscr.
et belles-lettres: Hist. oCC. (5 vols. in 6, Paris, 1844-95); Hist. grecs (2 vols.,
1875-81) ; Hist. orient. (5 vols. in 6, Paris, 1872-1906); Documents armen. (2
vols., Paris, 1869-1906).
RIEFSTAHL, R. M. Turkish Architecture in Southwestern Anatolia (Cambridge,
Mass., 1931).
ROTT, H., et al. Kleinasiatisehe Denkmiiler aus Pisidien, Pamphylien, Kappadokien
und Lykien (Studien aber christl. Denkmiiler, v and VI, Leipzig, 1908).
RUINART, T. Acta primorum martyrum sincera et seleeta (Parisiis, 1689).
SCHUBART, W., und SCHMIDT, C. (edd.). IIpag€t~ IIav>.ov (Acta Pauli) (Gluck-
stadt, etc., 1936).
SCHULTZE, V. Altchristliche Stiidte und Landschaften, II. Kleinasien (2 vols.,
Gutersloh, 1922-6).
SCHWARTZ, E. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum. 1. Conc. universale Ephesinum
(5 vols. in 6, Berolini, etc., 1922-30); II. Conc. univ. Chalcedonense (6 vols.,
1932-8); III. Collectio Sabbaitica (1940); IV. 2. Conc. univ. Constantinopoli-
tanum sub Justiniano habitum (1914).
STEIN, E. Histoire du Bas-Empire, ed. fro par J-R. Palanque (2 vols., Paris etc.,
1949-59)·
TOMASCHEK, W. 'Zur historischen Topographie von Kleinasien im Mittel-
alter' (Sitzungsb. der kaiserl. Akad. der Wiss., phil.-hist. Cl. CXXIV. viii, 1891).
VASILlEV, A. A. Histoire de l'empire byzantin, tr. du russe par P. Brodin et
A. Bourguina (2 vols., Paris, 1932).
VASILlEV, A. A. et al. Byzance et les Arabes (Corpus Bruxellense hist. Byzantinae,
3 vols., Bruxelles, 1935-50).
WACHTER, A. Der Veifall des Griechentllms in Kleinasien im XIV. Jahrhundert
(Leipzig, 1903).
WITTEK, P. 'Von cler byzantinischen zur turkischen Toponymie', Byzantion
X (1935), II ff.
- - The Rise if the Ottoman Empire, Royal Asiatic Society Monographs, vo!.
XXIII (London, 1938).
INDEX
M 0 S T of the classical and Turkish sites listed below will be found on
the two maps; natural features are listed under their classical names.
Celebrated Romans (e.g. emperors and literary men) will be found
under the names most familiar to English readers; others are indexed
by nomina and cognomina. Most deities appear in Roman guise. Letters
modified in the Turkish alphabet are treated as if unmodified, Greek
words as if transliterated. I have used the following abbreviations:
(A.) = of Antioch towards Pisidia; (Co.) = of Comama; (Cr.) = of
Cremna; (L.) = of Lystra; (0.) = of Olbasa; (P.) = of Parlais;
1. = lake; m. = mountain; r. = river.
Aarassus, see Ariassus. Akke<;:ili, 55.
Abascanti (A.), 98. Akkise, milestone at, 40 n. I.
Abaz (Abbas) Dag, 53. Ak~ehir, 122, 179. See also Philomelium.
Abellinum, Livineii at, 66 n. 8. Akviran, 49.
Achaea, 3, 1I0, 167 n. I, 169. ai-Abbas, 177.
Achaeus, 17 f. Ala Bosporanorum, 1I9 n. 2.
Acmoneia, 10; commerce of, 99 n. 9; Alani, 166 n. 2.
senators from, 105, 107 f., 123. Alba Fucentia, Caesidii at, 66.
Acroenon, battle of, 177. Albucii (A.), 62 n. 6.
actor, 191; (A.), 125. C. Albucius Firmus (A.), 83.
actores, see pragmateutae. Aleria, 3.
Adada, 15, 20. Alexander the Great, 16, 185,216 n. 2.
Adiobogiona, 124. See also routes.
Aeclanum, Staii at, 63. Alexander (brother ofIamblichus), 220
aediles, colonial, 82 n. 3; (A.), 82, 85; n·5·
at Lepcis Magna, 90. Alexander (rex et consularis), 105, 107 f.
Aelii (Cr.), 102 n. I. Alexander (bishop), 204-
Aerarium, 220 f. Alexandria (Egypt), museum of, 127
L. Aemilius Iuncus (cos. 127), 1I0. n.6.
Aezani, 224. Alexandria Troas, colony, 5 f.; vici in,
Africa, settlements in, 3 f., 56; Pliny's 77 n. 3; ius Italicum, 84 n. 7; senators,
list of communities in, 37 n. 6 ; Flavonii 105, 107 n. 4; coinage, 139 n. 3.
in, 64; double politeumata in, 69 n. 7; Alexius I Comnenus, 177.
trade with Asia Minor, 100; wars in, Amanus (m.), 24.
21 4. Amblada, 19,204.
Afyon Karahisar, 98 n. 3, 122. Amisus, 121 n. I.
Aga Bey K6y, 224- Amorium, 176, 179.
ager publicus, 2 I 5, 2 I 8, 22 I f. Amyntas of Galatia, 18; rise of, 25 ff.;
agones, (A.), 83, 87, 156; (Co. ?), 156; extent of his kingdom, 27, 3 I n. 3;
(Cr.), 152; (0.), 84, 156, 170; (P.), his wars, 205; his death and its con-
15 6, 159· sequences, 28, 38, 122; his heirs, 29,
agonothetae (A.), 83 f., 86 f., 127. 32; his 'inheritance', 219 ff.
Agrae,8. Anabura, 15,20.
agrarian bill of Rullus, 4, 95. Anatolikon theme, 176 f.
agriculture, 101; (A.), 96 f., 179 n. 8; Ancharena Quintilla (L.), 66 n. 8.
(Cr., 0.), 48 f. Ancharena Secunda (L.), 66 n. 8.
M. Agrippa, property of, 22 I n. 3, 224. Anchareni, 66 n. 8.
Agrippina the Younger, 57,81 n. 6, 120. Ancyra, 10, 122; Council of, 178 n. 6.
Ak<;aviran, 49. See also Ankara.
814259 R
242 INDEX
Andeda,51. n. 3, 133 ff.; coins, 55 n. I, 97 n. 4,
Anemurium, 9. 98n. 3, 99 f., 102, 131 ff., 137 ff., 152,
Anicia (?) Zoe (A.), 117 n. I. 163, 171 f., 189, 199 n. 4.
Anicii (A.), 98, 117. Antiochus I, 18.
C. Anicius Caesianus (A.), I I 7. Antiochus III, 19.
Anicius Maximus (A., senator), I 17. Antiochus (brother of Mithridates II
P. Anicius Maximus (A.), 117, 120. of Commagene), 220 n. 5.
Ankara, 105, 122. See also Ancyra. Antipater of Derbe, 24, 28.
Annia Faustina (great-niece of M. Antiphellus, 8.
Aurelius), 226. L. Antistius Rusticus (senator), 84,
Antalya, 13, 15, 46, 178. See also 96 n. 10, 123, 230.
Attaleia. C. Antistius Vetus (cos. 30 B.C.), 25.
Anthimius (P., bishop), 181 n.4. aVTLTaJ.das (A.), see proquaestor.
Anthios (r.), 43 f.; on coins, 14I. Anti-Taurus, 7.
Antigonus I, 16. Antium, I, 69.
Antinum, Novii at, 116. C. Antius A. lulius Quadratus (cos. I,
Antioch on the Maeander, 128 n. I. 94), 105, 107 ff.
Antioch on the Orontes, 155. Antoninus Pius (emperor), 148 n. 10.
Antioch towards Pisidia (near Yalva~), M. Antonii, 226.
23,4.0, 122, 173,21 I; correct name, 1\1. Antonius (cos. 99 B.C.), 2 I n. I,
18,33 n. 2; position, 12, 14, 42 f.; on 22.
Via Sebaste, 39f.; Seleucid foundation M. Antonius Flamma (senator), 110,
18; declared free, 19; precolonial: 113 n. I.
constitution, 72, 78; - coinage, M. Antonius Polemo (king of Cilicia),
100; date of colony, 34 f.; colonial 220 n. 4.
title: 34;-oncoins, 137 ff., 196; tribe, Antony, Mark, 25 f., 28, 58 ff., 92
78; ius Italicum, 84 n. 7; constitution, n. 3, 161, 196, 200 ff., 215, 226.
77 ff., and see boule, ordo, populus, Apameia (Bithynia), colony, 5; ius
aediles, curatores, duoviri, grammateis, Italicum of, 84 n. 7; cult of Apollo
gymnasiarchs, proquaestors, quaes- at, 149 n. 5.
tors, scribae, tribes; size, 43; build- Apameia, Celaenae (Dinar), 12, 14 ff.,
ings, 43, 83, 97, 178; vici, 76 ff., 23·
123 n. 4; plateae, 76, 82; fate of Aphrodisias, 83, 124.
natives on colonization, 72 ff., 93, Aphrodite, see Venus.
1 15 f., 189 ff. ; settlers: origin, 59 ff. ; Apollo, Clarius, 149 n. 5; Propylaeus,
- numbers, 94; territorium, 44; its (Cr.), 149, 151 n. 5.
source, 226; size of allotments, 95, Apollonia, Mordiaeum, Sozopolis (Ulu-
farming, see agriculture; use of borIu) , 14 f., 188; Seleucid origin,
slave labour, 98; commercial im- 17; in Amyntas' kingdom, 27 ; on Via
portance, 58, 94, 99 f.; functions Sebaste, 39; territory, 45 n. 1,216;
and character, 78, 189; culture, links with Antioch, 124, 128; metro-
124f., 130ff., 190f.; Italian influence, politan at, 180.
90f.; gladiatorial games, 79,83 ; Greek L. Appuleius Saturninus, 3, 95.
games, see agones, epistates, xystarches; Arabs, 176 f.
Jewish community, 58, 99, 189; Archelais Colonia, 14.
cults, 136, 189, and see under augurs, Archelaus I of Cappadocia, 29 n. 5, 34,
fiamines, pontifices, sacerdotes, Augustus, 164, 219 n. 5, 220, n. I.
Livia, Vespasian, Asclepius, Demeter, archiatri, see physicians.
Dionysus, Jupiter, Men, Mercury; Arelate, 103, I I 7.
ties with imperial family: 81 n. 6, Arellii, 58 n. 2.
134, I72;-oncoins, 141 n. 1, 142; Ariassus (Aarassus), 15, 20.
ties with governors of Galatia, 123; Ariminum, 43 n. 2, 45 n. 5,65, 66 n. 7,
ties with other Anatolian towns, 42 f., 77 nn. 2, 3, 7, 92 n. I.
55, 121 ff., 196f.; Homanadensian Armenia (Major), 164 ff.; (Minor), 26,
war and, 212 f.; senators from, 103, 164.
I I I ff.; equites, I 14, 117 ff. ; as Armeniakon theme, 176.
metropolis, 73, 134, 136, 173 n. 5, C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus
175, 178; captured by Arabs, 176 f., Honoratus (senator), 76 n. 4, 123
ultimate fate, 179 ff.; richness of n·4, 134·
evidence, 68, 133; inscriptions, 104 M. Arruntius, 123.
INDEX 243
Cornutus Arruntius Aquila (senator), Babis (Aur.) CA.), 135.
38,40, 123, 21 3. Bacchus CA.), 88; (A., Cr., 0., P.), 97
Arsacids, 165 ff. n. 8; (0.), 157. See also Liber Pater.
Artemidorus (geographer), 20. Bacchus (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6.
Artemis, 157; Ephesian, 127, (Cr.), 151 Bademli, imperial estates at, 226.
n. 5. See also Diana. T. Baebius Asiaticus (A.), 82.
artists (A.), 125 f. Baeterrae, 66 n. 6.
Arycanda, 14. Balacrus (satrap of Cilicia), 17.
Ascania 1. (Burdur Gol) , 14, 226; Balkans, legions in, 60, 200; and Asia
routes round, 39 n. 4, 47 n. I. Minor, 169 n. 3.
Asclepius (A.),88n. 10, 125; (0.), 158; Barbarossa, Frederick, 180.
(P.), 159 n. 7; Pergamum, 125· Baris, (isparta), 9, 15; plain of, 14,54.
Asia Minor, geography of, 7 ff. ; popula- Barla, 53 f., 181. See also Parlais.
tion, 95 n. I; road system, 10 ff., Basilius (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6.'
169 f., 179; land tenure, 2 I 5 ff. ; pro- Basilius (L., bishop), 183 n. 2.
vincial boundaries, 12 I, 168 f. ; Bayafpr, milestones at and near, 40 n. I.
inter-city links, 121 ff.; Roman Bayat, inscription at, 53.
settlement, 5 f., 56 ff.; coinage, 101, Bedre, boundary stones at, 53 n. 7, 55.
170; economics, 102; trade: 100; Berytus, 6, 60 n. 3, 78 n. 9, 200.
- with Balkans, 169 n. 3; senators, Bessi, 209.
104 ff. ; decline in third century, 143; Bey*ehir, 15, 22. See also Misthia.
Byzantine organization, 176 f. ; Arab Bithynia-Pontus, province of, gover-
invasions, 176 f.; and Turks, 177 f. nors of, 108, I I 0, I 17; its increasing
Asia, province of, 23 f., 31, 105, 171, importance and transfer to emperor,
207,209,212,224; diocese of, 176. 169.
Asiarch (A.), 127. Bogad1 9 Dag, 47.
Asisium, Autronii at, 62 n. 6; Servenii Bogomils, 178 n. 6.
at, 106 n. 3. boule, bouleutae (A.), 72 f., 78, 79 n. 1,89,
Aspendus, 43 no' 2. 126; (Co., Cr., 0.), 79 n. I.
Astures, see Cantabri. Boyah, milestone at, 40 n. I.
Atella, Aufustii at, 63 n. 5. Bozkir, 205. See also Silistat.
Athens, I, 100. brabeutae, 224-
Atina, Plancii at, 108 n. 4. brigandage, 102, 173 ff., 181. See also
Atlandl, 225. Homanadenses, Isauria, Lycaonia,
Attaleia (Antalya), 8, 13, 1.5, 22, 50, Pisidia.
118 n. I, 188; in Galatian province, Bri tain, I I 2, I I 7, II 9 f.; civitates of,
32; size, 43 n. 2; negotiatores at, 57, 99, 45 n. 5; population of towns in,
101, 107, 12 7;ogerpublicusat,222;in 94; roads in, 2 I I ; romanization of,
the Byzantine period, 179. 18 7.
Attalids, 216 n. 2, 217 f.; and Pisidia, Brixia, inscription at, 79 n. 10.
19 f. Brundisium, Treaty of, 59, 201.
Attalus II, 19. Brutus, legions of, 59.
Attalus III, 20, 106 f.(?), 124 n. 4. Bubon, 8.
Aufustii, 63 n. 5. Bucak, 46, 47 n. I, 50.
augurs (A.), 86 f. Bulumya, 39 n. 7.
Augusta Praetoria (Aosta), 5, 43, 45 Burdur, 15.
n. 5, 75 n. 3, 93 fr. Buthrotum, 5.
Augusta Taurinorum, 5. Buyuk Homa, milestone at, 40 n. I.
Augustodunum, 186. Buyuk Kabaca, milestones at, 39 n. 2.
Augustus (emperor), 58 f., 191 n. 4, Byllis, 5.
196, 201 f., 215, 224; and client Byzantium, 169. See also Constantinople.
kings, 27 f.; financial arrangements,
22 I, 226; colonial policy, I, 5 f., 72, Q. Caecilius Bassus (Pompeian), 25.
92 n. 2; founder of Philippi, 161; Caere, Uisonii at, 62 n. 6.
cult of (A.), 88; (L.), 154- Caesarea, significance of name, 34.
Aurelian (emperor), benefaction to Caesarea (Samaria), 198.
Cremna, 35 f., 152, 172; date of his Caesarea Mazaca (Cappadocia), I I,
death, 36 n. 3. 34, 179·
Autronius Marcellus (A.), 62 n. 6. C. Caesennius Proculus Staianus CA.),
Avian Gol, 9. 86.
INDEX
L. Cacsennius Paetus (cos. 61),164 n. 2. C. Caristanius Frorito (A., cos. 90),
L. Caesennius Sospes (COS. 114), 229 f. 112 f., 119.
Caesidii, 65 f. C. Caristanius Fronto (A.), 113.
Caetranii, 57. C. Caristanius Fronto Caesianus Iulius
Qalam (Tchalam) Bel, inscription at, 53. (A.), 62, III, 117, 134,212 f.
Calatia, recruiting from, 201 n. 6. C. Caristanius Iulianus (A., senator),
Calpurnii (A.), 76 n. 1, 118 n. I. 113 n. 4.
Calpurnii Proculi (A.?, senators), 107 Caristanius Iustianus (A. ?), 113.
n·4· C. Caristanius Paulinus (A.), 113 n. 4.
Calpurnii Reginiani, (A., senators), 107 C. Caristanius Sabinus (A.), 113 n. 4.
n·4,117 f. Qaqamba (r.), 10, 52 f.
C. Calpurnius Collega Macedo (A.), Carseoli, tribus Aniensis at, 66 n. 7.
126. Carteia,2.
L. Calpurnius Longus (A.), 83. Carthage, colonies at, 3, 69 £, 73 n. 4,
M. Calpurnius Longus, 225. 92 n. 2.
L. Calpurnius Piso Pontifex (cos. Casilinum, recruitment from, 201 n.6.
15 B.C.), 31 f., 38, 209 f., 211 n. 7,212 Casinum, Staii at, 63.
n. I. Cassandrea, 5.
L. Calpurnius Proculus (A.?, senator), Cassius, legions of, 59.
118, 122 f. Castor, king of Galatia, 26.
P. Calpurnius Proculus (A.?, senator), Castulo, 41.
106. Catenna, see Cotenna.
L. Calpurnius Reginianus (A., senator), L. Catilius Severus Iulianus Claudius
109 n. 2, 135 n. 3. Reginus (cos. I 11 0), 229.
M. Calpurnius Rufus (senator), 107, Caucasus (m.), 7.
Il8 n. I, 167 n. 2. Cayster (r.), 7.
P. Calvisius Ruso Iulius Frontinus (cos. Celaenae, see Apameia.
79), 12 3. centenary issues of coins, 35 fr., 199.
Calycadnus (r.), 10, 13. Ceraitae, 47 n. 4.
Campania, 58, 60, 63, 66, 20 I . Ceres (A.), 87, 97: (L.), 154, 156 n. 3.
Campusii (A.), 61, 136. Cestrus (r.), 13 f., 46 fr.
T. Campusius (A.), 61. Chalcedon, Council of, 181 n. 4, 183
Camulodunum, 43 n. 2, 71, 187 n. 4. n.2.
Candidianus (A., metropolitan), 178 Chelidonian Isles, 24.
n.6. ChersoneSus, 224.
Cantabri and Astures, 21 1,214. Christ, date of birth of, 201, 210.
Canuleii, 57. Christianity: and Asclepius, 125; at
Capena, Autronii at, 62 n. 6; Caris- Rome, 190; (A.), 142 n. 7,179; (P.),
tanii at, 63. 181.
Capitulum, tribus Aniensis at, 66 n. 7. Christians, view of Nero, 166 n. 4; of
Cappadocia, as kingdom, 20, 24; pro- Rome, 167.
vince, 109, 120, 164, 169; severed from Cibyra, 8, 13 f., 107 n. 4-
Galatia, 229 f.; revenues, 2 I 9 n. 5. Cibyrraeot theme, 177.
Capua, proposed colony at, 92 n. 2, 95; Cicero, 23 f.
Aufustii at, 63 n. 5; Caristanii at, Cilicia, Cilicians, 7; Royal Road
63; Livineii at, 66 n. 8. through, 10; assigned to Cappadocia,
Carabisiani theme, 176 f. 20; piracy and brigandage, 20 fr. ;
Caracalla (emperor), 102, 118,145 n. 2, first province of, 20 fr.; second, 25,
148,193. 108; financial administration, 120;
Caralis 1. (Bey~ehir Gol), 9f., 12, 15, Roman settlement in, 4; dynast of,
22, '26, 39 f., 52, 204· 126; in Triple Eparchy, 168; Arab
Caralitis 1. (SogUt Gol) , 225. invasions of, 176; Pedias (Cam-
Caria, 176. pestris), administration, 23, 25;
Qank Saray, inscription at, 86. Tracheia (Aspera): 8, 205, 212;
Caristania Frontina Iulia (?, A.), 112 - character, 25; as kingdom, 27,
n·7· 29 n. 5, 199, 205 f., 212; - piracy
Caristanii, 62 f., 81 n. 6, 96 n. 2, 98, and brigandage, 40, 173; - Homana-
I I I fr., 189. See also Fronto. denses and, 205.
T. Caristanius Calpurniahus Rufus Cilician Gates, I I f.
(A.), 118 n. I. Cillanian Plain, 45, 86.
INDEX
T. Ciltius, 66 n. 8. Italy, I f., 4 f., 92 n. 3, 184; out-
Circeii, 69. side Italy, 2 ff.; in the east, 3, 188;
Cisalpine Gaul, colonies of, 5; size of in Pisidia, see Pisidia; Roman
territoria in, 45 n. 5; source of colonies: size of, 1 f., 92 f. - constitu-
colonists, 66; Autronii and Albucii tion of, 2 ; - status of, 131 ; difference
in, 62 n. 6. between Roman and Latin, I, 184 f.;
Cissonia Crispina (A.), 44. (A). Latin, I f., 3 n. 6.
Cissonii (A.), 44, 202. Colophon, cult of Apollo at, 149 n. 5.
T. Cissonius Q. f. (A.), 61. Comama (near Garip<;e), 9, 188;
T. Cissonius Sel'. f. (A.), 61. variants of name, 182 n. 2; Pisidian,
citizenship, Roman, 2; grants of, 68 If., 33; position, 48 n. 2, 50; on Via
104, 186. Sebaste, 39, 41 ; and other roads, 50;
class distinction (A.), 120, 136 f. precolonial coinage, 20, 100, 222;
class warfare, 167. colonial titles: 145 n. 2; - on coins,
Claudii (A.), 75 f. 147 f.; tribe, 78 n. 9; constitution,
Claudiopolis (Bithynia), 124. see boule, duoviri, irenarchs; terri-
Claudiopolis (Mut), 10, 198 n. 2. See torium, 5 I ; size of population, 94, 96;
also Ninica Claudiopolis. size of colonial allotments, 95 f.;
Claudius (emperor), activity of, in Asia farming, 96 n. 7; character and site,
Minor, 31, 40, 163, 165; ties with 51; Greek games, see agones; visit
'Pisidian' colonies, 81 n. 6,156 n. 4; of Caracalla, 102 n. I, 145 n. 2; links
and citizenship, 70, 104, 130, 186; with Olbasa, 50, 157 n. 10; cults, see
hasty temper of, 104 n. 2 ; inaugurates Genius, imperial cult, Juno, Jupiter,
cult of Livia, II2 n. 7. veiled goddess; in province of Lycia-
M. Claudius Cleitomachus (A.), 135 Pamphylia, 164; in third century,
n·5· 174 n. I; ultimate fate, 182; inscrip-
Ti. Claudius Epinicus (A.), 88,96 n. 2, tions, 145 f.; coins, 102, 146 ff.,
III. 170 f.
Claudius II Gothicus (emperor), 174. comitivae 176.
Ti. Claudius Paullinus (A., philo- Commagene, client kingdom of, 24-
sopher), 82 n. I, 125 f. commerce, 121; Byzantine, 179; (A.),
C. Claudius Severus (cos. II2), 107. 58, 94, 99 f. See also koine hodos, east-
Clazomenae, 106. west highway, negotiatores.
Cleopatra (queen of Egypt) , 27, 29 n. 5. Commodus (emperor), 169 f.
Cleopatra (friend of Poppaea), 106. Comum, 72.
cleruchies, Athenian, I. Concord, 121, 128.
client kings, value of, 25; status of conductores (p.",8wTal) , 225.
215 If. congiarium of 29 B.C., 92 f. n. 3.
Clusium, Ve(i)sin(n)ii at, 64;. 'Ancaria- Constantine the Great (emperor), I02.
lisa' at, 66 n. 8. Constantinople, 77 n. 2, 175 ff., 180;
Qocuk (r.), 48. Councils of, 178 n.. 6, 181 n. 4, 183
L. Coelius, 66 n. 7, 98. n. 2, 204. Sec also Istanbul.
Cogamis, valley, 224, 226. consuls, equality of, 80 f.
cognomina, 61 ;praenomina used as, 65 n. 3. Corduba, 41,77 n. 9,1'7.
coins, use of as evidence, 68, 13 I f. ; Corinth, colony, 4 f.; tribes at, 78; in-
(A.), 131 If., 137 ff., 171 f.; (Co.), scriptions, 139 n. 3; hellenized, 162
146 If., 170 f.; (Cr.), 149 If., 171 ff.; n. I.
(L.), 154 If.; (0.) 157 If.; (P.), 159f.; Cormasa, 49 f.
of Iconium, 172; of Ninica, 171 f.; of C. Cornelius Gallus (prefect of Egypt),
Philippi, 161; of Philomelium, 171 f. 221 n.4-
Colbasa, 5 I. P. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 44 B.C.),
Colehis, 26. 195·
Colonia Agrippinensium, 70. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (sena-
colonies and colonization, purposes of, tor), 24 n. 2, 195.
Iff., 186 ff.; unofficial, 4, 17 n. 6, L. Cornelius Marcellus (A.), 44, 74,
127; Senate and; 3; populares and, 70; 201 n. 9.
as source of recruits, 144; titular, L. Cornelius Marcellus (senator), 201
165, 190; types of, 189 f.; size of n·9·
allotments in, I f., 95; relations of L. Cornelius Sulla Felix (cos. 33),
colonists with natives, 68 ff.; within 81 n. 6.
246 INDEX
Q. Cornifieius (senator), 25. Delos, 63, 66 If., 191.
Coryeus, 22. Demeter, see Ceres.
Cotenna, 204 If. demos (A.), 72, 78; (Co. and Cr.), 79n. I.
Cotiaeum, battle of, 175. Denizli,13·
Cremna (Girme), 205; Pisidian, 33; Derbe, 24, 28; as Claudioderbe, 165
position, 15; communications, 39, n. 2, 198 n. 6; site of, 28 n. I.
46 f.; impregnability, 18, 37, 46; Deus Cissonius, 62 n. 3.
precolonial coinage, 20, 100, 222; Diana (Cr.), 149. See also Artemis.
taken by Amyntas, 28, 37; date of Diocletian (emperor), 102.
colony, 35 If., 37 n. 5; purpose of dispensatores (SwL1cT)Trll), 224.
colony, 37, 47; titles: 198 i-on coins, Dium,5·
153; ius Italicum, 84 n. 7; constitution, Domitia Regina (wife of L. Calpurnius
see dwviri; site, 46; buildings, 102 Proculus), 118.
n. I , 148; territorium, 47 f.; size of Domitian (emperor), 84, 109, 112, 198 f.
population, 94; size of colonial Cn. Domitius Afer (cos. 39), 186 n. 6.
allotments, 95; farming, 48; famine, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 32),81.
96 n. 10,152; character, 148 f.; cults, Cn. Domitius Corbulo (senator), 110,
see sacerdotes, Apollo, Bacchus, Cybele, 164, 166 n. 2.
Diana, Genius, Liber Pater, Luna, Donatio (Cr.), 151 f.
Marsyas, Mater Deorum, Mercury, Do~eme Bogaz, 15.
Mida Dea, Minerva, Nemesis, Sil- (Dottius?) Marullinus (A.), 96, 225.
vanus; relations with imperial family, Cn. Dottius Plancianus (A.), 76 n. 4,
148, 150 n. I, 151; visit of Hadrian, 81 n. 2, 83, 127, 134.
102 n. I; of Valerian?, 36 f.; sup- Druids, 167 n. 4.
ported by Aurelian, 36, 152, 172; in Drusus Caesar, 141 n. I.
province of Lycia-Pamphylia, 164; Drusus (Germanicus), 63, 81, 214.
in the third century, 172 If.; ulti- Dumanh Dag (Lycia), 8.
mate fate, 181 f.; inscriptions, 148; duoviri (A.), 74, 79,81,88, III, 114, 117,
coins, 35 If., 94, 97 n. 8, 99, 102, 145, II8 n. I, 120, 126,212; (Co.), 51,
149 If., 163,171 If. 79 f.; (Cr.), 79 f., 81 n. 2; (L.), 79;
Cremona, tribus Aniensis at, 66 n. 7. (0·),79; (P.), 53 n. 7, 79, 159; quin-
Crepereii, 57 f., 101 n. 8, 127. quennales, (A.), 79, 81, 88 n. 9, 118
C. Crepereius Gallus (A., procurator), n. 5, 127 ;CCo.), 79 £; (Cr.), 79 f., 81
81 n. 6,120. n.2 ;(0.), 79, 84 ; repeated duovirates,
Cretopolis (tncirlihan ?), 47. 81; honorary, 81 ; duoviri primi (Co.),
Croesus, see routes. 80; Iconium and Herculaneum, 80
Crusaders, 177, 179 f. n·5·
Qubuk Bogaz, 15. Dura Europus, 100, 172.
curator annonae (A.), 84. Driver, milestones at, 39 n. 4.
curator arcae sanctuarii (A.), 85, 101. Dyme,5·
curator civitatis, (A., P.), 89. Dyrrachium, 5.
Cures, Servenii at, 106 n. 2.
Cybele (Cr.), 149 n. 6, 150 n. I. 'eagle and standards' reverse, 48 n. 2,
Cybistra, 12. 102, 141, 146, 157.
Cyprus, 24, 112. Ece (Edja), inscriptions at, 50 n. 2.
Cyrenaica, I 10. Eflatun Pillar, 12.
Cyrillus (bishop), 204- Egridir, 178 f.
Cyrus the Great, see routes. Egridir Gol, 9, 12, 14,43, 54 f., 181.
Cyrus the Younger, 16, 18. See also Egypt, 120, 179, 221.
routes. elections, 78 f.
Elek (r.), 45.
Dabenae (Gelendost), 45. Elmaclk (r.), 50.
Dacia, 169, 229; wars of Trajan in, Emerita, 190, 200.
109 f. Emir Dag, 7.
Dalisandus, 204, 206 n. I. Emporiae, 70.
Dalmatia, 188, 202 n. 4, 214. Ephesius (Co., bishop), 182 n. I.
Davras Dag, 15. Ephesus, communications, 10, 13 ;
Deborah (A. ?), 128. negotiatores at, 57; senators, 105, 107
Deiotarus (king of Galatia), 24 f., 124, n. 4; character, 126 f.; Council and
220. Synod of, 178 n. 6.
INDEX 247
Epinicus Amyntianus (slave), 219. Fronto Paulini f., 113 n. 4.
epistates (A.), 87 n. 5. Fulvia (wife of Antony), 25.
l'J1trp07TOt, see procurators.
T. Clodius Eprius Marcellus (senator), Gades, 41, II9 n. 3.
227· Gagras, inscriptions at, 204.
equites (A.), 114, 1I7 f., 1I9 f. Gaius (emperor), 108.
Eratosthenes (scientist), 19I. Gaius Caesar (adopted son of Augustus),
Eriza, 8, 13. in the east, 81 n. 6, 207, 209.
Eski~ehir (Dorylaeum), 122. Galatia, client kingdom, 24 If.; pro-
Esquiline Hill, 77 n. 9. vince, 13, 29 If., 60 n. 3, 175; foun-
Etenna, 204. dation date, 29, 193 f.; component
Etruria, 185; as recruiting ground, parts, 29 If., 227 f.; boundaries, 121,
61 If. 163 If., 168 f.; date of severance from
Eumenes II, of Pergamum, 19. Cappadocia, 229 f.; character, 122;
Euphrates (r.), II, 162. koinon, I 13 n. 4; governors, 81 n. 6,
Eurymedon (L), 205. 1I6, 209, 212; their relations with
Eusebius (P., bishop), 181 .n. 4. Antioch, 123, 229 f.
Eutychides (sculptor), 155. Galba (emperor), 164,221, 227f.
Evii,65· l'aA€apWS (0.), 101 n. I.
C. Evius Evianus, (A. ?), 65 n. 3. Gallic names, 61.
T. Evius Marcus, Marcellus (A.), 65 Gallienus (emperor), 172.
n·3· Gallos (r.), 141 f.
Maximus Evius Domitius Valerianus Gallus Vecilius Crispinus, etc. (senator),
Gaius (A.), 65 n. 3. 229·
M. Evius Valerianus (A. ?), 65 n. 3. Garipge, inscription at, 156 n. 8.
Garsyeris, 18.
famine (A.), 96 f., (Cr.), 96 n. 10, 152. Gaul, civitates of, 45 n. 5; negotiatores in,
Fanum Fortunae, Cissonii at, 62; 201; legions, 58, 201; Albucii in,
Vaternii at, 6+ 62 n. 6; education, 186; orators,
Fassillar, 12. lIOn. 10, 186 n. 6; officials from,
Faustus (A., slave), 98. 110; senators from, 191; soldiers
A. Feridius (L. ?), 195. from, 186, 200. Sec also Cisalpine
finance, imperial, 221 f.; (A.), 85 f. Gaul.
fiscus, 220 f. G,wur Oren, shown to be Hadrian;,
fishing, in Egridir Gol, 54. 183 n. I.
jlamines (AJ., 74, 88; (P.), 88 n. 3. Gelendost, 45, 179·
flautist (A.), 125. L. Gellius Maximus (A., archiatros) ,
Flavii (A.), 76. 1I8, 125, 127 n. 6, 128.
L. Flavius Longus (A.), 85. Gellius Maximus (A., senator), 118.
L. Flavius Paulus (A.), 85. Gen9ali, 45 n. I ; milestones at, 39 n. 2,
Flavonia Menodora (A.), 115 f. 17 0 n. 3.
Flavonii, 64, 98, 113 If. Genius, Fortuna reverses (A.), 141 n. I,
C. Flavonius Anicianus Sanctus, 100 f., 142 n. 4, 150 f., 172; (Co.), 147;
114, 1I7, 127. (Cr.), 150 f.; (0.), 157; (P.), 159.
Flavonius Lollianus (A., senator), 114. George (bishop), 178 n. 6.
Q. Flavonius T. Munatius Scamander Germanicus Caesar, 213.
(?, A.), 98, 117 n. I. Germany, 214.
Sex. Flavonius Naevius (A.), 114 f. Germe Colonia (Karaca Pa~a Oren),
Flavonius Paullinus (A., procurator 100; date of colony, 34, 198 f.;
Augustorum), 11+ coinage, 199.
L. Flavonius Paullinus (A., senator), 114. Gessius Florus (procurator of Judaea),
P. Flavonius Paullinus (A., senator), 106.
114 f., 135 n. 3. Geta (emperor), 148, 150 n. I.
Florentia, Volturnii at, 62 n. 6. Getae, 214.
Fortuna, 150 f. See also Genius. Girme, 48, 18r.
Forum Iulii, 92 n. 3, 96 n.. I, 103, 1I7. gladiatorial shows, 192; (A.), 79, 83, 97.
'founder ploughing' reverse (A.), 141 Gordian III (emperor), 172.
n. I ; (Co.), 147 n. 2; (Cr.), 151 n. 4; Gordium, 10.
(L.), 156, 195 If.; at Germe, 199; at Gorgiiler, inscription at, 44, 6r.
Ninica, 198; at Philippi, 161. Gotarzes (king of Parthia) , 166 n. I,
INDEX
Goths, I02, I40, I42, 163. L. lavoIenus Priscus, see C. Octavius
Gracchus, C., colonial policy of, 2 fr., Tidius Tossianus L. lavolenus Priscus.
70 • Ibn Bat!ula, 179.
grammateis (A.), 72, 74, 86, 8g. lconium (Konya), 14, 39, 52,154, 188;
Greece, trade of with Anatolia, 100. as Claudiconium, 165 n. 2; 198 n.
Greek, use of (A.), 82, go, 133 fr., 156; 6; as colony, 165, 183; tribes, 78;
(Co.), 146, 156; (Cr.), I48; (L.), 154; duovir primus, 80 n. 5; titles, 160 n. 3;
(0. and P.), 156; at Philippi, 161. irenarch, 89 n. 3 ;Jewish community,
Greeks and orientals, prejudice against gg; coinage, 151 n. 2, 172; as metro-
at Rome, 104, 109 fr.; admission polis, 183; Arabs and, 177; Turks
to Senate, 103 If. and, 177, 179, 183.
Gruthungi, 175. I1is tra, 155.
gymnasiarchs (A.), 74, 83, 8g. Illyricum, 214.
IIyas, milestones at, 39 n. 4.
Hades, see Pluto. Iman (A.), 135.
Hadrian (emperor), 102, 106, 109 imperial cult, 187; (A.), 88; (Co.), 88
n. 2, I48 n. 10, 168, 183. See also n.8.
routes. imperial estates, 45, 49 n. 2, 86, 183
Hadriani (G!lvur bren), 49, 183 n. 1. n. I; origins, 215 fr. See also Or-
Halys (r.), 12. meIian estates.
Hamaxia, 29 n. 5. lncidi (Hyia), 47.
Hamid ogullari, Emirate of, 178. tncirlihan (Cretopolis?), 47.
Hamii, cohort of, I 13. incolae, meaning of word, 72 nn. 4 f.;
hans, 17g. (A.), 74 f.
Hatun Saray, 183. Indus r. (Dalaman), 8.
Haydar Dag, 204 f. inscriptions, use of as evidence, 68, 131,
Heracleia Pontica, 5, 71, 222 n. 5. 133; (A.), 104 n. 3, 133 If.; (Co.), 145
Herculaneum, duovi,.i of, 80 n. 5. f.; (Cr.), 148f.; (L.), 153 f.; (0.),
Hercules (0.), 158. 156f.; (P.), 159.
Herennius Etruscus (Caesar), 151. Interamna, Autronii at, 62 n. 6.
Hermus, valley, 226. Ionia, under Persians, I I.
Hermes, see Mercury. Ipsus, Julia(?), 8, 13, 101.
Herod the Great, lOS, 210, 220 n. 6. irenarchs (Co.), 89; at Iconium, 89 n. 3.
Herodotus, account of the Royal Road, Isaura Nova (Nea), 22, 23 n. 3, 204-
10 fr.; of Xerxes' route, I I f.; his Isaura Vetus (Palaea), 14, 17, 22, 23
view of the Halys, 12. n. 3, 28, 40, 53, 204 fr.
Hierapolis, Cydrara, 128. Isauria, Isaurians, 12, 17,20, 22 f., 40,
Hieropolis (Phrygia), 128. I68, 173, I74 n. I, 175,204 ff., 213;
Hieropolis, Castabala, I28. Byzantine province of, 204 f. See also
highway, east-west, 13, 17, 21, 23, 99, Seleuceia.
101, I69, 196; southern branch, 14, Isinda, 13.
Ig f., 27 n. 8, 41 f., 58, 73, 101, 128, Isis (L.), 155; at Philippi, 155 n. 4.
170, I 73, 180. istanbul, 105. See also Constantinople.
Hispalis, 41. Iulia Agrippina (A. ?), 112 n. 2.
Homanadenses (Homonadeis), I7, 20, Iulia Severa (wife of L. Servenius
26, 28, 52; home, 203 fr. Capito), 106 f.
Homanadensian war, 23, 30, 203 fr., Iulii (A.), 75.
226 n. 4; date, 206 fr.; course, Iulii Aspri (coss. 212), I 18 n. 5.
40, 213 f.; importance, 33, 38, lulius Mricanus (orator), 186 n. 6.
213 f.; part played in by Antioch, 81, Cn. lulius Agricola (cos. 77), 110, 187.
2 1 3. I ulius Alexander (cos. I I 6 or I 17),
Hostilian (Caesar), 151. 1°9·
Hoyran (I.), 9, 14 f., 44. Ti. Iulius Aquila Polemaeanus (cos.
Hoyran Ova, 45. 110), 107.
H yia (1ncirli), 47. C. lulius Asper Pansinianus (A.), 118
Hygieia (0.), 158; (P.), 159 n. 7. n·5·
hymnodus (A.), 125. Ti. Iulius Candidus Marius CeIsus (cos.
I 86), 230 n. 4.
lader, 196. Ti. I ulius CeIsus Polemaeanus (cos. g2),
iatri, see physicians. 105, 108, 119 n. 2.
INDEX 249
Q.lulius Cordinus C. Rutilius Gallicus Klyakdedekoy, milestone at, 39 n. 6.
(senator),227· Klzilca, milestone near, 40 n. I.
C. lulius EuryclesHerculanus (senator), KlzIlviran, 39.
10 5. Koine Hodos, I I, 13,41,52, 154-
C. lulius Cornutus Tertullus (cos. 100), Kolkorum, milestone at, 40 n. I.
110. Konya, 53, 122, 139 n. 4, 178. See also
lulius Paullus (A.?, senator), 107 n. 4, Iconium.
112 n. 2. K01rT07Td.JA'1S (A.), 101 n. 2.
C. lulius Quadratus Bassus (cos. 105), Korkuteli, 13, 47 n. I, 50.
109, 112 n. 4. KU9Uk Alifahrettin Yayla, 176.
lulius Secundus (orator), 186 n. 6. Kumdanh, milestone at, 39 n. 2.
C. lulius Severus (cos. c. 139), 106 f., KUkUrt Dag, 8.
110. KUmse, inscriptions at, 53.
C. lulius Vindex (senator), 110. Kuyucak, inscription at, 44.
D. Iunius (A.), 81 n. 2.
D. lunius Novius Priscus (A.?, cos. 78), Lampsacus, 5.
116. land tenure, in Asia Minor, 215 ff.; in
ius Italicum, in eastern colonies, 84 n. 7, Anglo-Saxon England, 216 n. 2, 217
160. n.2.
Lanii,57·
Jews, view of Rome, 167; (A.), 58, 99, Lanuvium, curiae at, 78 n. 7.
128 n. I, 189f.; Jewish religion, Laodiceia (Phrygia), 13,23 f.
189 f. Laodiceia Catacecaumene (Combusta),
Johannes (Co.?, bishop), 182 n. I. 12, 14, 18, 52; as Claudiolaodiceia,
John II Comnenus, 177. 165 n. 2.
julia, see Ipsus. Lapis Tiburtinus, 208 f., 213 f.
Julia (daughter of Titus), 198. Laranda, 13, 17,66 n. 8, 154.
Julia Domna (empress), 150 n. I. Larinum, Staii at, 63.
julius Caesar, 4 f., 24, 31, 70, 186, Latin, 167, 185 f.; used by Greeks, 104,
200 n. 4- 132, 187, 19 1 f.; (A.), 130 ff., 143;
Juno Pronuba (Co.), 147 nn. 1,2. (Co.), 146 f.; (Cr.), 152; (L.l, 154;
junonia, see Carthage. (0.), 156 ff.; at Philippi, 161.
jupiter (A.), 88; (Co.), 147; (0.), 158. Latium, Verrii in, 64.
jurist (A.), 125. legions, composition in triumviral
justinian (emperor), 176, 181. period, 58 f.; recruiting areas, 59,
66 n. 7, 200 ff. ; periods of service in,
Karaaga9, 44 f., 65 n. 3. See also Nea- 59 f.; economic importance in Ana-
polis. tolia, 99; II Traiana, 112; III
Kara Gol, 9. Cyrenaica, 108 n. 5; III Gallica,
Kara Kuyu, 44, 85 ff., 117 n. 6, 142. 112; IV Flavia, 108n. I; IV Scythica,
Karaman, Emirate of, 178. 112, I 18; V Alaudae, 200; V Gallica,
Karamanb, inscriptions at, 50. later Macedonica, 58, 60, 200 ff.; V
Karpos (A.), 97 n. 4. Urbana, 200 n. 4; VII of Octavian,
Karpuz (r.), 22. later Macedonica, 44, 58, 60, 63
Kavak (near 1. Caralis), milestone at, n. 5., 66 nn. 6 f., 98, 201 f.; VII of
40 n. I. Antony, called GalIica, 202 n. 4; IX
. - (near Lystra) , inscription at, 53. Hispana, 112, 119; XIII Gemina,
Kavakhkoz Dag, 39 n. 7. 229·
Kaynar Kale, site at, 51. Leo I, 176, 178 n. 6, 181 f.
Ke9iborlu, milestone at, 39 n. 2, Leo III, 177.
170 n. 3. Lepcis, Magna, 90 f.
Kerner, inscription at, 49. Lepidus (triumvir), 92 n. 3.
Kesik Bel, 22. Lex Appuleia, 4, 70.
Kestel (1.), 9, 15,47, 51. Lex coloniae Genetiuae Iuliae (Ursonelisis),
Kilistra, 155. 2, 78 n. 8, 88 n. I.
Klmyos Ova, 204. Lex Iulia, 81 n. I.
Kireli Kasaba, milestone at, 40 n. I; Lex municipii Malacitani, 79.
estates at, 45, 224, 226; military at, Libanius (P., bishop), 181 nn. 4 f.
173· Liber Pater (Cr.), 149.
Kirk Ba~, 180. liberti (A.), 98 f., I I I .
INDEX
M. Licinius Cra.~sus (cos. 30 B.C.), 60, Macedonia, 3 f., 169,202 n. 4, 209.
200. Maeander (r.), 179.
C. Licinius Mucianus (COS. II 70), 227. Magnesia on Maeander, 18.
L. Licinius Murena (senator), 22. Makron Pedion, 48 if.
Ligures Baebiani, Livineii among, Mallus (Pisidia), 15,48.
66 n. 8. Manes (A.), 135.
Lilybaeum, tribes at, 78 n. 7. Cn. Manlius Vulso (cos. 189 B.C.), 19.
'Limnae', see Egridir (1.), Hoyran (1.). Manuel I Comnenus, 177.
Limyra, 14. Manzikert, battle of, 177.
Lindum, size of, 43 n. 2. Marcellus (A.), 127.
Livia (Iulia Augusta), cult of (A.), 88, Q. (Marcius) Philippus (senator), 24.
112 n. 7. Marcus Aurelius (emperor); 114 n. 5,
Livineii, 66 n. 8. 157, 169. See also routes.
M. Livius Anteros Amyntianus, 219. Mare Pamphylium (Antalya Korfez), 8.
M. Livius Drusus (cos. I 12 B.C.), 92 n. 2. Mariana, 3.
Logbasis, of Selge, 18. Marius, 3, 70.
logistae, see curatores. Marsyas (Maro), at Rome, 149; (Cr.),
Lollii (Cr.), 75. 149; (0.), 158; (P.), 160.
M. Lollius (cos. 21 B.C.), 29, 32, 38, Massilia, agonothetae at, 83 n. 5.
193; clades LoUiana, 200. Mater Deorum (Cr.),. 150. See also
Longus (A.), 81 n. 2. Cybele.
Luceria, Staii at, 63. Mauretania, colonies in, 34 n. 4.
Lucilia Isaurica (L.), 191 n. I. Maximianus (A.), 79.
Lucilius Capito (procurator), 224. Maximinus (emperor), 172.
Lucus, Caesidii at, 66. Mazaca, see Caesarea.
Lugdunum, size of, 43 n. 2. J.L~XP" in Strabo's usage, 27 n. 8.
Luna (deity) (A)., 83; (Cr.), 150. medicus(Cr.), I24n. 6. See also physicians.
Luna (colony), 2; name Autronius at, Mediolanum, Volturnii near, 62 n. 6.
62 n. 6. Melas (r.), 26.
Lycaonia, Lycaonians, 10, 16 f., 26 f., Melitene, I I.
30, 168, 220 ; province of, 183, 204 if. ; Melli, 47.
comitiva of, 176; under a dux, 176; Men Askaenos, temple on Kara Kuyu,
Lycaonian spoken at Lystra, 153 n. 6. 44, 85,' 98; territory near Antioch,
Lycia,8, 16,31,4°,' 163, 173 f., 176; 18,44,73,86,216 n. 4, 219 f., 222;
Lycia-Pamphylia, province of, 31 f., second temple near Antioch ?, 86 f.;
108, 112, 114, 163 if., 169,227 f. cult at Antioch, 55 n. I, 85 if., 88
Lydia, under Persians, I I. n. I; offerings, 64, 85 f., II 4, 1I7,
Lydius (brigand), 174. 124 n. 4, 134 ff., 144; on coinage
Lysias (town), 101. (A.), 129 n. I, 140, 141 n. I, 142,
Lysinia, 19,39 n. 4· 143 n. I, 151, 159 n. 5; (0.), 157;
Lysis r. (Boz Qay, Eren Qay), 49 f., 225. (P.), 55 n. I., 159·
Lystra (Zoldera, near Hatun Saray), Menodora, significance of name, 115.
name, 155; position, 51 f.; communi- Menodotus, of Pergamum, 124.
cations, 14,52,154; on Via Sebaste, Menophilus Imenos (A.), 115 n. 4.
39; date of colony, 34, 37, 195 if.; Mercury, 62; (A., Cr., L.), 99; (A.),
titles: 94, 196;-on coins, 155f.; its 14.3 n. I.
function, 52 ; constitution, 79, and see Messalina (wife of Claudius), 141 n. I.
ordo, populus, duoviri, quaestors; tribes, metathesis, 183 n. 5.
53,78, 154; site, 51 f.; buildings, 183 Mida Dea (Cr.), 149.
n. 4; vici, 76, 77 n. 3, 154; territorium, Miletus, 124; size of, 43 n. 2.
52 f.; its source, 222 n. 3; size ofpopu- Milyas, 18, 47.
lation, 94; size of colonial allotments, Minerva (Cr.), 150; (L.), 154, 156 n.
95; nomenclature, 66 n. 8; character, 3; (P.), 159 n. 7·
153 f., 197; cults, see pontifices, sacer- Minturnae, 69.
dotes, Augustus, Ceres, Mercury, Misthia (Bey~ehir), 15, 22, 40.
Minerva, Tyche; links: with emper- t-ttuOWTul, see conductores.
ors, 154; - with Antioch, 128, 134, Mithridates the Great, 124; massacres
196f.; ultimate fate, 183; inscriptions, of, 168.
153 f.; coins, 97 n. 4; 154 if., 159, Modestus (A.), 82.
197· Moesia, see Getae.
INDEX
Moguntiacum, v;ean; Sail/tares at, 77 Flavonii, IuIii, Lollii, Mordii, Nerutii,
n·7· Netrii, Novii, Pap ii, Pepii, Pescennii,
Mongols, 178. Staii, Tiberii, Ulpii, Ultonii, Vacar-
Mordii, 66 n. 6. nii~ Vaternii, VehiIii, Visennii;
L. Mordius Threptianus (A)., 88. Lystran, discussed, see Anchareni,
Mu'awiya, 176. Livineii.
muhazim, 90. L. Nonius Calpurnius Asprenas (sena-
Mummia (A.), 88 n. 9. tor), 227.
Munatii (A.), 201 n. 2. Novaria, Volturnii at, 62 n. 6.
Q.MunatiusEutyches(A.,pragmateutes), Novii, 98, 107 n. 4, 115 f.
96. Novius Priscus (senator), 116.
Munatius Plancus (A.), 81 n. 2. C. Novius Priscus (cos. 152), 115.
L. Munatius Plancus, (cos. 42 B.C.), C. Novius Rusticus Venuleius Apro-
201, 209. nianus (A., senator), 76 n. 4, 107
munera, liturgies, 79 f., 83. n·4, 115, 134·
Museum (Alexandria, Ephesus, Nursia, Verrii and Veseni at, 64,
Smyrna?), 127 n. 6. Caesidii at, 66.
Mutina, 2; battle of, 201.
Mygdonia, 173 n. 6. Ocriculum, Autronii at, 62 n. 6.
Myriocephalon, batrle of, 177. Octavia (wife of Antony), 59.
Mytilene, 57, 105, 107. Octavia (daughter of Claudius), 57.
Octavian, see Augustus.
C. Octavius Tidius Tossianus L. Iavo-
Narbo Martius, 3,187 n. 4; Autronii at, lenus Priscus (cos. 86), 108 n. I.
62 n. 6. oeconomi, 225; (A.), 96, 225; (Co., 0.),
Narnia, Autronii at, 62 n. 6. 96 n. 7.
Neapolis (Italy), curator at, 85 n. 3. Oenoanda, 14.
Neapolis (Phrygia), 15,39,45,226. Olba, dynasts of, 27.
negotiatores, 56 f., 63, 108 n. 4; in Gaul, Olbasa, (near BelenIi), Pisidian, 33;
201; in Anatolia 218; (A.), 58, 75; at position, 48; communications, 39,
Attaleia and Pcrge, 57, 99, 107. See 48; colonial constitution, see boule,
also commerce. duoviri; ius Italieum, 84 n. 7; titulature
Nemausus, size of, 43 n. 2; built on on coins, 158 f.; site, 48 f., buildings,
seven hills, 77 n. 2. 182; territorium, 49; its source, 223,
Nemesis (Cr.), 150. 226; population, 94; size of colonial
neo-Punic at Lepcis, 90. allotments, 95; farming, 96 n. 7;
Nepet, Voltinii at, 62 n. 6. Greek games, see agones; cults, see
Nero (emperor), 57, 104,110, 120, 164, Artemis, Asclepius, Bacchus, Genius,
221,223 f., 228; Parthia and, 165 f.; Hades-Serapis, Hercules, Hygieia,
false Neros, 109, 167. Jupiter, Marsyas, Men, Mercury,
L. Nerutius (A.), 65. veiled goddess; links: with emperors,
Nerva (emperor), 109 n. 2, 148 n. 10, 156 n. 4, 157 f.; -with Comama, 50,
154 n. I; 229. 157 n. 10; in province of Lycia-
Netrii (A.), 66 n. 6. Pamphylia, 164; in third century, 174
Nicaea (Bithynia), 107 n. 4, 121 n. I; n. I ; ultimate fate, 182 f. ; inscriptions,
Councils of, 178 n. 6, 181, 183 n. 2. 156; coins, 97 n. 8, 102, 157 ff.
Nicaea (Alpel> Maritimae), agono- Olympus (Lycia), 22.
thetae at, 83 n. 5. 'OCP€Ws K.cpaA~, 45 n. I.
Nicephorus (A., oeeonomus), 96. opium, 98.
Nicomedeia, 169. Opsikion theme, 176.
Ninica (Sivastl), as Claudiopolis, 165 Optimus, Optimius (A., metropolitan),
n.2, 198; date of colony, 34, 198 f.; 178.
coinage, 171 f., 198 f. oratory, 110.
Nisa,8. ordo decur;onum (A.), 44, 76 n. 4, 78, 79
Nola, Aufustii at, 63 n. 5. n. 1,84 f., 88; (Co.), 146, 171; (L.),
nomads, 15; Turkish, 47 n. I. 79, 155 n. 6; of Lepcis Magna, 90.
nomina,Antiochian, discussed,see Albucii, Ormelian estates, 50, 223, 225 f.
Anchareni, Arellii, Aufustii, Autronii, omamenta triumphalia, grants of, under
Calpurnii, Campusii, Caristanii, Cis- Augustus, 209, 213 f.
sonii, Claudii, Crepereii, Evii, Flavii, Oroandians, 19.
25 2 INDEX
Orondeis, 22. patroni coloniae (A.), 84, 86, lIS r., 123;
Oscan names, 63. (P·),54·
Ostia, Arellii at, 58 n. 2. Paullina (A.), 88 n. 9.
Ostrogoths, 175. Paullinus (A.), 81 n. 2.
Otho (emperor), 22l. Paulus (L., bishop), 183 n. l.
Oupa.f1P,a(?) xwpa, 45 n. I. Pella, 5.
ova, 95 n. 15. Pepii, 66 n. 6.
Perdiccas (Macedonian noble), 17.
L. Paccia Valeria Saturnina (Co.), 146, Pergamius (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6.
148, 17 0 • Pergamum, communications, 13; char-
L. Paccius (Co.), 146. acter, 124 ff. ; senators, 107 n. 4.
paedagogus (A.), 98. Perge, 19; communications, 15; size,
Palma,2 n. 8; 92 n. 2. 43 n. 2; negotiatores at, 57, 99;
Pamphylia, 15 ff., 20, 22, 174, 176; senators from, 108, 110.
plain of, 9, 13, 26; Gulf of (Antalya Persians, II, 16, 102, 140, 142, 167, 172,
Korfez), 9 ; relation to Pisidia, 19, 32 ; 176, 2 I 6 f. See also Royal Road.
under Ptolemies, 17 ; under Seleucids, Perusia, Ancharii at, 66 n. 8.
19; under Attalids, 19; attached to Perusine War, 20l.
Asia, 31; under Arnyntas, 26, 31 St. Pescennius (A.), 63, 8l.
n. 3; after 25 B.C., 30 ff., 2 I 2 n. 6; Pescennius Niger (emperor), 170.
attached to Galatian province, 31 f., Pessinus, 10, 122 n. I, 124.
164, 227 f.; in Homanadensian war, Pharnaces II of Pontus, 222.
212 n. 8; united with Lycia, 163 ff., Phaselis, 22.
227 f.; comitiva of, 176; Byzantine Philadelpheia, 224.
.province, 181 f., 206 n. I; under Philippi, battle of, 26, 201; colony at,
Turks, 179 n. 6. 5; size, 43 n. 2; territorium, 45 n. 5;
Pamphylians, alleged origins of, 16. character, 161 f., 197; cult of Isis,
Pankarpos (A.), 97 n. 4. 155 n. 4.
Pannonia, 214, 227, 229. Philomelium (Ak~ehir), communica-
Papas (A.), 135. tions, 13; in Middle Ages 179 f.;
Paphlagonia, 7, 26. boundary with Antioch, 44; con-
Papii, 66 n. 6. nected with Antioch, 42 f., 141 f.;
Pappa Tiberiopolis, 14, 39, 128 f., coinage, 132 f., 141 f., 171 f.
165 n. 2. philosophers (A.), 124.
P. Paquius Scaeva (senator), 209. Phoenicia, under Persians, I I.
Parium, colony projected at, 5; Augus. Phrygia,7, 175,226; dioceses of, 23 f.;
tan colony at, 6; ius Italicum, 84 n. 7; border with Pisidia, 33 n. 2; Paro-
coinage, 139 n. 3, 140; colonial titles, reios, 10, 27, 42, 173, 180.
198 n. 7. phylae (A.), 78; (L.), 53, 78. See also
Parlais (Barla), 188; Pisidian, 33; com- tribes.
munications, 39, 54; precolonial physicians (A.), 1I8, 124, 126 n. 2, 127
coinage, 20, 100, 222; function of n.6.
colony, 53 f.; ius Italicum, 84 n. 7; piracy, 20. See also Cilicians, Pisidia,
titulature on coins; 160 nn. 2, 3; con- Side, P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus.
stitution, see duoviri, curalores; site, Pisae, proquaestors at, 82 n. I.
53 f.; territorium, 54 f. ; size of popula- Pisaurum, Vaternii at, 64.
tion, 94 f.; size of allotments, 95; Pisidia, Pisidians, boundaries of, 33;
Greek games" see agones; cults, see Pamphylia and, 19,32; geographical
jlamines, Asclepius, Dionysus Genius, features, 7 ff.; fertility, 97 n. 5;
Hygieia, Marsyas, Men, Minerva, population, 95 n. I ; Royal Road and,
Telesphorus; connexion with An- 10; routes in, 13 ff., 23, 39 f., 42,
tioch, 55; ultimate fate, 181 f.; 46 f., 48, 50; under Persians, .16;
paucity of evidence, 68; inscriptions, Seleucids, 17 f. ; Attalids, 19 f. ;
159; coins, 54 f., 97 n. 8, 159 f. shelters pirates, 20; cities and tribes
Parma, 2. in, 16 f., 20; under Amyntas, 27;
Parthia, 165 ff., 194; army, 165; effect of colonization on, 130; par"
Trajan's war with, 110, 168. tially included in Lycia-Pamphylia,
Patavium, 119 n. 3. 164; in third century, 163; province
Patrae, 5. of, 8, 33, 72 n. 3, 136, 175; comitiva
Patricius (P., bishop), 181 n.4. of, 176; under a dux, 176; revival'of
INDEX
brigandage, 172 ff., 181; attacked by Praeneste, Vatronii at, 64; Vehilii at, 65.
Ostrogoths, 175; under Turks, 178 praenomina, 61, 63; used as cognomina,
ff.; coinages, 163. 65 n. 3.
'Pisidian' colonies, defined, 33 ; founda- pragmateutae (actores), 225; (A.), 96, 225.
tion dates, 33 ff.; functions, 6, 32 f., Priene, size of, 43 n. 2.
38, 42, 130, 188; siting, 38, 42 ff., 56, primores Galliae, 105.
183; source of lerrilaria, 215 ff.; re- Probus (emperor), 174.
lation to Homanadensian war, 33, Proculus (A.), 120.
33; culture, 162; interrelationship, procuratores (J7Tlrpo1Tot) , 22 I, 224 f. ;
196f., coins and inscriptions, 145,170. (A.),120.
Piso (A.), 128. 'Propylaea' (A.), 97.
Pitinum Pisaurense, Caesidii at, 65. proquaestors (A.), 82 n. 1.
Pityassus, 20. Prostanna (near Egridir), 9, 14 f., 47
,Plancii, 57 n. 6. n. 2, 52 n. I, 54 f.
M. Plancius Varus (senator), r08, 113 provincia, meaning of, 21.
n. I. Prymnessus, 8.
plateae (A.), 76, 82. Pteria, 10.
Plato (bishop), 204- Ptolemies, in Asia Minor, 17.
M. Plautius Silvanus (cos. 2 B.C.), 31, Puteoli, Arellii at, 58 n. 2.
173, 208 n. 4, 209. Pylaemenes (son of Amyntas), 32.
Pliny the Elder, on Africa, 37 n. 6.
Pliny the Younger, 84 n. 7,85, IIO, 169. quaestors, colonial, 82 n. 3; (A.), 74, 32,
Plutarch, of Chaeronea, 166 n. 4. 85; (L.), 82 n. I, 191 n. I.
Plutarch (L., bishop), 133 n. 1. Sex. Quinctilius Valerius Maximus
Pluto (Cr.), 151 n. 5; (0.), 158. (senator), 105, 110.
Podalia, 9, 14·
Pogla, 51, 182 n. 4, 223, 226. Rapidum, 71 n. 5.
Polemo I of Pontus, 25 f. ; 220 nn. 2, 4. Ravenna, Caesidii at, 65.
Polemo II of Pontus, 220 n. 4. Rhandeia, disaster of, 164 n. 2,166 n. I.
politeumata, double, 69 n. 7, 70 f., 198 Rhine (r.), Evii on, 65.
n.2. rivalry between cities, 80, 128.
Pollentia, 2 n. 8, 92 n. 2. Rocca d' Arce, 64.
Polybotus, 179. 'Pwp.a.fot, usage of word, 56, 175 n. 2.
Polyetta, 49 f. romanization, 130 ff., 143 f., 148, 153,
Pompeii, Arellii at, 58 n. 2; Staii at, 63; 161, 184 ff.
density of population, 93. Rome, Isis at, 155; Marsyas at, 149;
Cn. Pompeius Collega (senator), 123. Antioch modelled on, 73, 190 ff. ; vici
Q.Pompeius Macer (senator), 105, 107, of, 77; Caristanii at, 63; Evii at, 65;
167 n. 2. . Verrii at, 64; on coins of Antioch,
M. Pompeius Macrinus Theophanes 142; feeling against, in east, 103 f.,
(cos. 100 or 101), 112 n. 4. 166 ff.
Pompey the Great, 21 ff., 25, 218. Romulus and Remus, 77; with wolf on
Pomponia Graecina (wife of A. coins (A.), 140 f.; (Cr.), 151.
Plautius), 190 n. 6. routes, through Pteria, 10, lin. 3;
T. Pomponius Bassus (cos. 94), 230 n. 4. of Croesus and Cyrus the Great,
.L. Pomponius Niger (A.), 74 n. 3. 12 f. ; of Xerxes, I I ff.; of Cyrus the
pontifices (A.), 87 f., 1I8 n. I; (L.), 191 Younger, 12 f.; of Alexander, 12, 15;
n. 1. of Hadrian, WI f.; of M. Aurelius,
Pontus, 7, 26. See also Bithynia. 101; of Caracalla, 102, 145 n. 2; of
,Poppaea (wife of Nero), 106. Gordian III, 172; of Valerian, 36 f.;
populares, and colonization, 3 ff., 70, of Crusaders, 179f.; Ancyra-Antioch,
186; dangers of, in Greek cities, 167 122; round Lake Ascania, 39 n. 4;
n·3· Smyrna-Dorylaeum, 99 n. 9; in
populations, difficulty of estimating Pisidia, 13 ff., 23, 39 f., 42, 46 f., 48,
ancient, 92; of Italy, 99 n. I; of 50; affected by Pisidia, 13, 15; in
Pisidian colonies, 92 ff. second century A.D., 169; from Byzan-
populus (A.), 76 n. 4, 78 f.; (L.), 79; of tine Attaleia, 179. See also Royal
Lepcis Magna, go. See also demos. Road, Koine Hodos, east-west high-
.Potentia, Campusii at, 61. way, Via Augusta, Via Egnatia, Via
praefecti frumenti dandi, 229. Sebaste.
INDEX
royal lands, 2 I 5 ff. ; two types of, province, 30; boundary of territory,
2 I 7; in Anglo-Saxon England, 2 I 7 204 f.; repels Ostrogoths, I 75; in
nn. 2, 3. Notitia VIII, 206 n. I.
Royal Road, Persian, 10 ff. Selinus, ius ltaUcum of, 84 n. 7.
Rusazu, 202 n. 4. Selki Saray, milestones at, 39 n. I.
RuselIae, Nerusii at, 65 n. 2. Selmea, 122 n. I.
Russia, south, 100. M. Sempronius Rutilus (senator), 154,
C. Rutilius Gallicus, see Q. Iulius Cor- 195 f.
dinus, etc. Senate, attitude towards colonization
M. Rutilus, see M. Sempronius Rutilus. overseas, 3; recruitment of, 104,
167 f., 191; qualifications for ad-
Sabina (wife of Hadrian), 102 n. I. mission, 103 ff.; attitude towards
sacerdates (A.), 88, 112 n. 7; (Cr.), provincial senators, 185 f.; expensive
88 n. 4; (L.), 88 n. 2. administration by, 169; devotion to,
Saepinum, Livineii at, 66 n. 8. in east, 171 f. ; referred to on coinage
Sagalassus, position, 8 f.; communica- of Antioch, 141 n. I ; 171 f.
tions, 15; alleged origins, 16; freed senators from the east, 224; from Asia
by Rome, 19; in Amyntas' kingdom, Minor, 99, 103 ff. ; careers of, 109 f.
27; in Galatian province, 30, 163 Sentinum, Visennii at, 64.
n. 2; boundary of territory, 49; im- C. Sentius Saturninus (cos. 19 B.C.),
portance, 47, 80 n. 7, 188; cult of 210.
Apollo Clarius, 149 n. 5; ties with Septimius Severus (emperor), [40, 148,
Antioch, 128. [7 0 •
Saglr, 44, 86, 180, 224 ff. Sergianus (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6.
St. Ambrose of Milan, 178 n. 5. L. Sergii Paulli (A.?, senators, father
St. Gregory (of Nyssa or Nazianzen), and son), 107 n. 4, 112.
17 8. Q. Sertorius (senator), [86 n. 6.
St.John, Oratory of, 176. Servenia Cornuta (relative of L. Ser-
.St. Paul, 99, I 12, 173 n. 3, 178. venius Cornutus), 106 .
Salassi, 73 n. 2, 93, 214. Servenii, 105 ff.
Saldae, 202 n. 4- L. Servenius Capito, 106 f.
Salernum, 2. L. Servenius Cornutus (senator), [05 If;,
saltuarii, 225. 118.
Salur, inscription at, 65 n. 3. M. Servilius (cos. 3), 81, II I.
Samnium, Statii in, 63. P. Servilius Rullus (senator), agrarian
Sangarius (r.), 7, 122 n. I. proposals of, 4, 95.
Sardes, 10, 105 n. 3. P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos.
Sarmati, 229. 79 B.C.), 22 ff.; 2[2 n. 8, 218.
Sarmizethusa, shape of, 43. Sestinum, Veseni at, 64.
Sarut Yayla, 205. P. Sestius Pollio (senator), 1[7 n. 5.
Sarvas (r.), 10. Severus Alexander (emperor), 170
Saturnia, 2. n. 2, [72 f.
Saturninus (A.), 79. seviri Augustales (A.), 88.
Saturninus Secundus (governor of Sia, 47.
Pisidia), 72 n. 3, 134. Sicily, settlements proposed in, 3;
Sazak (on Ormelian estates), 50 n. 2. mutiny in, 59 f., 20[; recruiting in,
scribae (A.), 74 n. 3. 201 n. 9.
sculpture, 132; (A.), 126 n. 2, 178. Side, 12, 22; position, 9; communica-
Seleuceia (Cilicia), 10, 13. tions, 15, 40; size, 43 n. 2; used by
Seleuceia, clisura of, 206 n. I. pirates, 20; in Amyntas' kingdom?,
Seleuceia (Mesopotamia), 109. 26.
Seleuceia Sidera (Pisidia), 15, 17; as Sierra Morena, mines of, 41.
Claudioseleuceia, 128, 165 n. 2. Silchester, size of, 94.
Seleucids, in Asia Minor, 17 ff., 216, Silistat, 22. See also Bozkir.
218. Silvanus (Cr.), 150.
Seleucus I Nicator, founder of Apol- Sinope, 5,10,72 n. 5, 84 n. 7, 195,222.
Ionia, 17 n. 6; and of Antioch?, 18. Sisam Bel, 22 n. 9, 205.
SeIge, position, 9; importance, 16, 188; slave labour, use of (A.), 98 f.
. strength, 18; freed by Rome, 19; in Smyrna, senators, 107 n. 4; museum,
Aroyntas' kingdom, 27; in Galatian 127 n. 6.
INDEX
Sogiit Gol, see Caralitis I. Tetranii,57·
solecisms, in Greek coin legends, at theatre (A.), 76 n. 4, 79; use of, to de-
Philomelium 132 f.; in Greek in- termine city population, 92.
scriptions (A.), 137; in Latin coin themes, 176 f.
legends (A.), 138 ff.; (Co.), 148; Themisonium, 8.
(Cr.), 153; (0.), 158; (P.), 160; in Theodore (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6.
Latin inscriptions (Co.), 146; (0.), Theophanes, of Mytilene, 107 n. 5.
156 f. Thera, 124.
Soter (sophist), 127. Thrace, 175,214.
Spain, routes in, 41, 21 I; settlement in, Three Graces coin type (Cr.), 151 n. 2.
56, 70; romanization, 186 n. 6; Thuburbo, Maius, colonial titles of,
senators, 191; language, 191 n. 5. 198 n. 7.
Sparta, alleged connexion with Ana- Thymbrium, 15.
tolian cities, 16; senator from, 105. Tiberii, 62.
Staii,63· Tiberius (emperor), 41, 62, 107; on
Stephanus (A., metropolitan), 178 n. 6. Rhodes, 207; military achievements,
strategi, 80 n. 7; (A.), 72. 214; wealth, 221, 224; recognizes
Strato (dynast), 126. progress of Anatolian towns, 165;
Suasa, Caesidii at, 65. takes over Cappadocia, 219 n. 5;
Suebi, 229 f. possible connexion with Antioch,
sufetes, at Lepcis Magna, 90. 81 n. 6.
Sulla, and the pirates, 22. Tiberius (L., bishop), 183 n. I.
Sulmo, Staii at, 63. Tibur, L. Calpurnius Piso Pontifex
P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 B.C.), mentioned in an inscription from,
8 I, I I I ; career of, 206 ff.; conquest 209; and see Lapis Tiburtinus.
of Homanadenses, 40, 2 I I ff. Tifernum Tiberinum, Tifernii at, 62;
Sultan Dag, 7 f., 10, 12, 14 f., 42, 44, Caesidii at, 65.
122, 177, 180, 224- Tigranes I, of Armenia, 22.
Superaequum, Novii at, 116 n. 4. Tigranes V, of Armenia, 105.
Siitciiler, 15. Timbriada, 9, 20, 45 n. I.
Sutrium, Volturnii at, 62 n. 6; Vehilii Timgad, shape of, 43.
at, 65. Tiridates (brother of Vologaeses I of
Syedra, 29 n. 5. Parthia), 165.
Synnada, 23, 225. M. Titius (cos. 31 B.C.), 208 n. 4.
Syria, 25, 109; colonies in, 6; garrison, Titus (A.), 128.
40, 60 n. 3, 99, 118, 119 n. 2, 213; Titus (emperor), 108 n. I, 112.
governors, 164 n. 2, 206, 208 ff., 212. Togonius Gallus (senator), 62.
tombstones and soroi lA.), 134 ff., 144;
Tarbassus, 20. (Cr.), 148; (L.), 154; at Philippi, 161.
Tarraco, 83 n. 5, 85 n. 3. Tomisa, II.
Tarsus, 176. Traianopolis, ius Italicum of, 84 n. 7.
Tateis (A.), 135. Trajan (emperor), 109 f., 112, '.54
Tatta I. (Tuz Gol), 7, 10, 12. n. I, 168.
Taurus (m.), 7 f., 23 f., 33, 122, 173, Trajan Decius (emperor), 151.
20 5, 21 4. Tralles, 224.
Taurus (r.), 51. Tranquillinus (A., metropolitan), 178.
Tavium, 10, 128; era of, 193. Trebellianus (brigand), 173 n. 8, 174.
Tchalam Bel, see Qalam Bel. Trebula, Aufustii at, 63 n. 5.
Teate Marrucinorum, Caesidii at, 66. tribes, local (A.), 78; (L.), 154. See also
Tefenni, 50. phylae.
Tekke, Emirate of, 178. tribes, Roman, Aniensis, 66 n. 7;
Tekmoreian Xenoi, 44, 86, 102, 133 n. 2. Fabia, 78 n. 9; Sergia, 78, I I 6.
See also Men, Saglr. Triple Eparchy, 168.
TEKTWV (A.), 101 n. 2. Trogitis I. (Sugla Gol), 9 f., 12, 14,38,
Telesphorus (P.), 159 n. 7. 40,204 f.
Tembris valley, estates in, 224 f. Tuficum, Vesennii at, 64.
temple estates, 215 ff. See also Men. Tupusuctu, 202 n. 4-
Terentius Varro (senator), conquest of Turkomans, 178.
Salassi, 93, 2 I 4. Turks, 177 ff.; Seljuk, 177 ff., 183;
Termessus Major, 16, 19. Ottoman, 178.
256 INDEX
Turris Libisonis, curiae at, 78 n. 7. Verrii, 64. See also OJ<lp<LOS, OJtpla.
Tusculum, Verrii at, 64. M. Verrius Alexander (A.), 64n. 6.
Tyana, 176. L. Verus (emperor), 114 n. 5.
Tyche, 150 f., 155. See also Genius. Vesontio, cult of Mercury at, 62.
Tymandus, 8. Vespasian (emperor), 108, 112, 119,
Tymbrianassus, 49 n. 2, 50. 166 n. 2, 167, 221; reorganization
of the east, 35, 164 f., 199, 228; re-
Ubii,70. cruitment of senators, 104; cult of
Ulpii (A.), 76. (A.),88.
C. Ulpius Baebianus (A.), 87. veterans, 44, 61, 63, 98, 114, 174;
Ulpius Tatianus Marcellus (A.), 88, numbers settled in 'Pisidian' colonies,
117 n. 6. 93 ff. ; their antecedents, 58 ff., 200 ff.
C. UItonius Maximus (A.), 62 n. 6. Via Augusta (Spain), 41; (Italy), 41n. I.
Uluborlu, 170 n. 3, 178. See also Via Egnatia, 99 n. 9, 161, 162 n. I.
Apollonia. Via Sebaste, 38 ff., 45, 123, 211 ff.
Umbria, Caesidii in, 65. Vicetia, Vaternii at, 64.
C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus vici (A.), 76 ff., 123 n. 4; (L.), 76, 77 n.
(senator), 164 n. 2. 3, 154; at Alexandria Troas, 77 n. 3;
M. Ummidius Quadratus (cos. 167), Ariminum, 77 n. 3, 92 n. I; Rome,
226.
Drkiitlii, inscription at, 146.
n
Vienna (Vienne), senators from, 103,
Utica, petition for colonial status, 117·
16 5 n. 3. vilicus, see Oeconomus.
Dyiiklii, inscription at, 44. Ovlw, 65 n. 3.
Ovtpla .16,.<Va (A.), 64 n. 6.
Vacarnii, 66 n. 6. T. Visennius Maximus (A.), 64.
Valentinianus, ofSelge, 175. Vitellius (emperor), 221.
Valerian (emperor), journey through Q.Voconius Saxa Fidus (cos. 146), 146.
Anatolia, 36 f. L. Volcatius Tullus (cos. 33 B.C.), 25.
Valerius Diogenes (governor of Pisidia) , Vologaeses I, of Parthia, 166 nn. 1,2.
134· Volubilis, inscription at, 75 n. I.
Valerius Paulinus (senator), 96 n. I.
L. Varius Cotyla (senator), 201. Wales, 21 I.
Vasada, 204.
Vaternii, 64.
C. Vaternius Pollio (procurator of Xanthus (r.), 8, 14.
Xerxes, see routes.
Achaea?), 64 n. 19.
Q. Vaternius Pollio (senator), 64 n. 19. xystarches (A.), 83, 124.
Vehilii,65·
M. Vehilius (A.?, senator?), 65 n. 7. Yaka (near Gelendost), inscription at,
veiled goddess, cult of (Co., 0.), 50, 45 n. 2, 97 n. 6.
146 f., 157 n. 10. Yalva9, meaning of, 18 n. 3, lSI;
Mflp. OV.!P<LOS MapK<uv6s (A.), 64 n. 6, origin of town, 180 f.
122. Yasslviran, milestones at, 39 n. 2.
Velabrum, 77. YeIten, inscription from, 156 n. 8.
Venafrum, Aufustii at, 63 n. 5. Yenice Qiftlik, milestone at, 39 n. 4.
9i)f;vavlu, 66 n. 6. Yqilova, 13.
P. Ventidius Bassus (senator), 201. Y onuslar, milestone at, 39 n. I.
L. Venuleius Apronianus Octavius (cos. Yiiregil, inscription at, 51.
II 168), 116. Yusukba~l, 122 n. I.
'O<vovvaos (A.), 66 n. 6.
Venus (Co.), 147 nn. If.; (0.), 157 n. Zela, battle of, 3 I.
10. Zenobia, 163.
Q. V::ranius (cos. 49), 173. Zeus, see Jupiter.
Verbis, Verbe, 51, 156 n. 8. Zoldera (Lystra), 183.
Vercellae, tribus Aniensis at, 66 n. 7. Zotici (A.), 98.
ex libris
A.ORANSAY
Sfoop,'
~
----v''';)
.. _"'./'-"~ <..I'<.Y<
'-H..r.l<Jda f'I>IHi<;a
" ?
b 1 a g
O~;,'E~ ? ___
em".",;.
.... I
o·
u
<:::::J~\'lndrj'lJr",,,M J'
s .
.,.
\_. Pr";;i,;- -!(Ieper
_ .... t- ..Z;l,l /
.,1r
",\{,O "
"',J; ~\ ~ha.'(n.l
( ,
./ it __ \._ , .t::
~-~:? '\ (,(>;clHln~ ..... 9 ' : , \ ~
<' .'~O
C(j~'''','n I .. ';(n""0",
'.'"no
In,"n (01"0"
,/
r~
I,,,,,,,",
'\'. "
,,\.
~i:,
0.;"
"
'<
;:
rr
~ V<, o,~~,:""',~''''''''o,, ~rJl ~

,<. .' (\ " \
,(.,,'"'' \,
,~""". ~__~' :'~;-~~I--~ """,o,~
.\1"""", ""'""'"
<;?JV'~ 'O"""''''''''~'/'''~~~/7
V v~th~"rn"H'"
",.. "L.t d '''~""","'"
a -
'-"~ ~;'ff"~):::~':) t-~.,~~:.~~~~~.UOl..J. _..-:<;')'Hn_~~_"'E
- '"
,-- ~\"~~"
",.Ip'"'
(,
( \,
'
a
'" ,.
p' p
""-""'"
':
a~d
"'o$~~.;:-;?:7-=~
"..,-0
0 c j'Y
To",,,.
~ I\!th"'-!~~ ... ~:::~,,-=-:~

'nl':"l"'\\~ 1\1 ,
(clJ"1l';:-~-\I'''II<l11IJ l"l(h~"M~ c·
'"
/ qi ; ; : :\
,- :'i.r<.h<\.l"Coloma I;:: '\\
l,,'nr.l,
lPlu-'U'~J:!:..~==-'i"l lhCrlp:,;I". ! Hlll''t J --..\,\ llO,« HII"~l), ~ tJ
~) ~~.,., "~~
"[Hln, ,'j
~7 j)~~C' -
G---"
""-6' c::? , ,/ v
\ntlo(hlLl (.1<ldl,"~_.o;;(("I'''H
\phr",j"."
FtlUIJIl !',nlT "'''01""'
\ 0 .
__ ;;runa I' ' ' "v p.
~
«'
~hknl~.;: ,~-' l,d.~1 1<"'1"1~ Ja~'!lhr.!~~rr"",-. BM~U? . ,.-
V 'I, "'I i .-\1 h I .",,]11"'1' \. ,.- , I \
~, .-:;::C\"hj~rr.,
) 'n'l. \ . \._;:.,.\/ 0
(?
;:)', k ~ Car
S;:
I a
'~D.'ITh<'
I.Fri;r,1 'l>t3: ..... n ·mnJ
!:!I'~!.:",nli,;.H""
\
ro?oli,.Chr~hala
a' ", V
~~:;,",~"s~'::;:;::S':~i~~I:~~,~~,~:~' ~I"'"".~ \. \'::~:'~:~~'!!:?;~

"""'''''\0 .c";o,,,,, u,1 .. .Hi ..
r::P Q ~r" ("i)'f"'''''''''.''

. . ~.Ir..Hy 1 '~~'
,frh~"'!h .
J-~I~U~'(:~h~. c
~~'~'8'",<'l.~~lnilru~
i.:\
'''Ii,'o",p'';opoli,
01h.l. _
)I
p",~~~,j ,"'«<1 "i,' i' A
":;::::':':;;'-
ASIA MINOR ROUTES " ~:~.~.~~,,/
~~
\, ",,,1,,,~ ,,, ,',dol..,
:-':,.([11"," ',·r,i.""
~
........
1"(,n :I.,
~~
H .. ' I!O HI> 1(," "il"""·".,,

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
PLATE I
a. Antioch from the north, showing ruined aqueduct, foundations o'f

buildings, and path to Yalva" (right)
b. Antioch: the aqueduct from the north

PLATE II
a. Cremna from the east
h. Cremna: tomb in the south face (Lanckoronski, Stiidte ii, 172,

fig. 142)
PLATE III
a. Cremna: city gate, from the west ('Er' on

Lanckoronski's plan, Stddle ii, 160-1)
h. Olbasa: the acropolis from the south

PLATE IV
a. Olbasa from the north, showing apsidal building

and route into the mountains
b. Olbasa: the Makron Pedion from the western shoulder of the

acropolis; ravine on the left
PLATE V
a. Comama from the east
b. Comama: view to the north from the western side of the tepe
PLATE VI
a. Lystra from the south
b. Parlais from Egridir Go!

Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROMAN COLONIES IN

SOUTHERN ASIA MINOR

© Oxford University Press 1967

Ot o~ llLuLo'iTal oihOL Kat BapuaKLoES

T aspects have been repeatedly and minutely examined,

Bay Muzaffer Tuttincu, formerly Director of the Library and

List of Plates Xlll

I. The Roman Colony Abroad

II. Mountains and Routes in Southern Anatolia 7

III. The Military Problem: Two Early Solutions 21

IV. Provincia Galatia and the Foundation of the

v. Sites and Territoria 42

VI. The Origin of the Colonists 56

VII. Local Government 68

VIII. Population and Prosperity 92

x. Cities and Aristocracies in Anatolia 12I

XI. The Absorption of the Colonists and the Decline

XII. The Absorption of the Colonists and the Decline

XIII. Stagnation, Brigandage, and Invasion: The End

XIV. Conclusion: The Colonies in the Empire I84

1. The Foundation of the Galatian Province:

IV. The Identity of Legio V Gallica and Legio

v. The Homanadensian War 203

VI. Client Kings, Royal Domains, and Imperial

VIII. The Division of Galatia and Cappadocia 229

I. a. Antioch from the,north, showing ruined aqueduct, foundations of

I I. a. Cremna from the east

III. a. Cremna: city gate, from the west

V. a. Comama from the east

VI. a. Lystra from the south

THE ROMAN COLONY ABROAD

HE colonia civium Romanorum survived as an institution for

In the first quarter of the second century B.a., after the

3 For an important secondary function, see below, Ch. XIV.

MOUNTAINS AND ROUTES

HE shape and contours of Anatolia may be compared

T with those of a hat, with brim and indented crown. Only

I Roman Rule I. 259.

Roman period its claims were eventually met by the creation

A. M. Woodward, Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson, II (St. Louis, 1953),868 ff.

and Laodiceia Catacecaumene, and these were all, strictly

THE MILITARY PROBLEM:

T is rightly pointed out in discussions of the subject! that the

I word provincia, when it is used in connexion with Cilicia

dealt with the pirates. Once undertaken, it could and eventually

shadowed. Q. Cornificius, governor of Cilicia, was entrusted

His secretary Amyntas is first heard of at Philippi, where he

choosing the winning side, with the result that, according to

PROVINCIA GALATIA AND THE

HE Romans annexed Amyntas' kingdom and created a

T new province: Galatia. It is natural to suppose that these

preferred that of Dio. I Strabo, he says, is describing, and not very

2 LIlI. 26. iii: 'T~ [Slip })oJ.L~ a7T€o68TJo

it was under a consular governor, L. Calpurnius Piso, in

I Klio XXVII (1934), 122 ff.

civilization of its mountainous parts. These measures were taken

Lystra is regarded by Professor M. Grant as separate from the

This is exactly repeated on a coin of Marcus Aurelius. 4 On no

de Marc-Aurele a dr. [CEOLL.IVE]L