Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T09:12:28.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Romanization and Isomorphic Change in Phrygia: the Case of Private Associations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Benedikt Eckhardt*
Affiliation:
Universität Bremen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Romanization in the province of Asia did not manifest itself in linguistic or cultural changes, but is very visible in a trend towards corporate organization. In the cities of western and southern Phrygia, professional associations developed that were able to gain a prominent position alongside the civic institutions. It is possible to relate this process to incentives provided by Roman law. In the villages surrounding these cities, and especially in the rural areas of northern and eastern Phrygia, the conditions were different, but there are several indications that a new preference for formal organization and its epigraphic representation developed here as well.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2016. Published by The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 

I INTRODUCTION

‘Romanization’ is a debated concept.Footnote 1 In the past few decades, the whole idea of what ‘becoming Roman’ meant to indigenous populations, and the efforts local élites (rather than Roman administrators) put into the process, has been reformulated from a ‘post-colonial’ perspective in different disciplines.Footnote 2 It seems impossible nowadays to conceive of Romanization as a centrally organized process towards political, social, legal or religious unification. The spread of Roman culture, of institutions, artefacts, language, forms of medial representation and more, nevertheless calls for explanation, and ‘Romanization’ remains the most plausible term to encompass the questions that arise. For the Western provinces, its use seems to be well established. But for Asia Minor, the absence of Latin and the continuity of Greek social structures have been adduced to counter the claim that the region underwent a process of ‘Romanization’ comparable to the Western provinces; according to this view, the influence of Roman culture in the cities of Asia can be reduced to matters of taste and style.Footnote 3 As it should be admitted that Romanization is a meaningful concept only if it covers cultural transfers that go beyond the partial adaptation of architectural models or clothing styles, this line of argument raises legitimate questions about the use of the term with respect to the Eastern provinces.

Cultural transfers of a more influential sort can be argued to be found in the organizational structure of a society, or more precisely, the forms of social aggregation that are chosen by its inhabitants. Among these, private associations are a promising test case. From the beginning of the epigraphic record for regions such as Gaul or Spain, collegia are attested, and there is little doubt that they were regarded by all actors involved as an element of the Roman civic order. The Lex Irnitana anticipates that in a Roman municipium, people might want to gather in collegia, and specifies the conditions applicable.Footnote 4 In the imperial era, specialized professional collegia were regarded as an age-old Roman institution — Plutarch and other authors attribute their introduction at Rome to Numa.Footnote 5 Verboven, in a study of collegia in the Western provinces, has aptly stated that in the second century, ‘les collèges tenaient une place centrale au sein du modèle de la cité authentiquement romaine’.Footnote 6 And since associations tended to replicate the Roman civic order on a smaller scale, every single one of these privately-founded groups could act as an agent of ‘Romanization’.Footnote 7

However, what seems evident for the Western provinces — that every form of collegiate organization is a result of Roman influence and follows Roman models — seems a priori false for the Greek East. After all, private associations are widely attested in Greece from the fourth century b.c.e. onwards, Egyptian associations seem to have existed even earlier, and the body of evidence from Hellenistic Asia Minor is constantly growing.Footnote 8 When Gaius discusses the regulations on sodalitates in the Twelve Tables, he cites a Solonian precedent.Footnote 9 While everyone would still agree that the epigraphic record of associations in the Roman era is different from earlier periods, the claim that the Roman provincial administration triggered the evolution of private associations in cities like Ephesos or Smyrna has little to recommend itself. In what may be the most thoughtful treatment of the problem, Cracco Ruggini has in fact reached the opposite conclusion: given the Roman anxiety about the dangers of collegiate organization, and the long-standing tradition of Greek and Anatolian private associations, apparent similarities of Greek and Roman collegia and synodoi in the imperial era cannot be due to Roman influence. Rather, the successful co-operation of civic bodies and associations in Greek cities, based on their ‘compenetrazione di interessi’, served as a model for the Roman state. The latter slowly came to accept the advantages of this sort of associational organization, and adapted it in Italy and the Western provinces; however, due to the different economic and mental framework provided by the Roman social order, this transplantation resulted in the creation of ever less private, more state-controlled organizations, until collegia became hereditary tax units.Footnote 10 The direction of cultural transfer would thus be from East to West, from Asia Minor to Spain, with Rome as a mediator.

This view, if correct, would provide further arguments in favour of a sceptical approach towards ‘Romanization’ in Asia Minor. It cannot, however, stand unchallenged. Some of Cracco Ruggini's arguments are based on traditional assumptions no longer held by the majority of scholars, e.g. the view that Greek cities in Asia Minor preserved a pre-Hellenic, Anatolian social structure with civic subdivisions based on professions.Footnote 11 In addition, recent research has done much to undermine the sharp distinction between state-controlled Western collegia and the ‘contractual’ associations of the East. Like their Eastern counterparts, professional collegia in Gaul or Spain actively sought integration into the public sphere, and employed terminology that served to bolster their claim to represent more than just their individual members’ interests in business opportunities and sociability.Footnote 12 Finally, more attention should be given to both the chronology of the epigraphic evidence and to regional differences. The aim of this paper is to study the connection between associations and Romanization in one particular region, Roman Phrygia, in order to address the relevant issues in more detail than can be done in a general treatment of ‘Asia Minor’.

The choice of Phrygia may at first sight seem unfortunate. While all regional classifications are constructs to some degree, ‘Phrygia’ is a case where this becomes especially relevant. A glance at the geographical situation is sufficient to suggest that the cities of southern Phrygia, like Hierapolis, Laodikeia, or Apameia, had much more in common with cities like Miletus, Magnesia and Priene than they had with the villages and small cities in the highlands of northern and eastern Phrygia.Footnote 13 Observations on the impact of Greek culture in the Hellenistic period (visible early on in the Lycus valley, almost absent in central and northern Phrygia) bolster this impression.Footnote 14 But these differences within the region, and especially the differences with regard to the degree of Hellenization before the Roman conquest, make Phrygia especially interesting for an analysis of the connection between Romanization and associations — after all, the continuity of Greek culture is an important part of the debate. And although practically all epigraphic evidence comes from the imperial era, the possibility of tracing traditions that are neither Greek nor Roman in origin is more realistic in Phrygia than almost anywhere else, given the Phrygian origin of terms such as bennos or doumos. This means in turn that the findings presented here are often specific to this particular region. But as comparative data will be adduced, they can also serve as the basis for some more general insights.

II THE SPEARHEADS: RESIDENT ALIENS AND OLD MEN

When looking for privately organized multipliers of Roman values, the obvious starting point is the groups of resident Romans, known in Asia Minor as ‘the Romans doing business’ (hoi pragmateuomenoi Rhōmaioi), ‘the Romans living here’ (hoi katoikountes Rhōmaioi) or the like.Footnote 15 The influx of Italians reached Phrygia with a considerable delay compared to the coastal regions of Asia Minor.Footnote 16 But the impact was profound. In first-century c.e. Apameia, the katoikountes Rhōmaioi were a very influential group that regularly appeared alongside the dēmos and boulē in civic decrees. In this city, resident Romans seem to have had privileged access to the most important magistracies; an inscription from 45/46 c.e. stresses the fact that all five archons were now Roman citizens; four of them came from Italy.Footnote 17 Due to its geographical position, Apameia was the most important transfer site for long-distance trade in Phrygia. This naturally attracted businessmen from abroad; they were responsible for the wealth of a city that otherwise had very little to offer, at least according to the literary sources.Footnote 18 Grouped together in one organization, these Romans could easily play an important rôle in civic politics. By doing so, they perhaps responded at least in part to the needs of the local population, who offered political posts as investment incentives.

The case of Apameia may be special in some respects, but resident Romans are found all over western Phrygia, and we may assume that their political influence in the respective cities depended on similar considerations. The formal traits of this arrangement certainly varied from city to city. In Hierapolis, Romans are not normally mentioned as a decision-making body in civic decrees. But an inscription from the third century does record a joint decision by the council, the people, the gerousia, the synedrion tōn Rhōmaiōn, the neoi and the synodoi (probably referring to the associations of Dionysiac artists).Footnote 19 They honour a person who has served, inter alia, as konbentarchēs of the Romans, a Latinism unattested outside Hierapolis. While the resident Romans did not have the same institutional standing as in Apameia, their affairs were treated as civic affairs in Hierapolis as well. In another inscription for a konbentarchēs, the honours are conveyed by the boulē and patris; the boulē honours him as its boularchos, while the patris refers to his general benevolence, which apparently includes taking over the leadership of the Romans.Footnote 20 This is all the more interesting because the term synedrion could easily be taken to refer to a private association, and the general situation — foreign merchants joining forces — was a constitutive element for many associations in the Hellenistic period. The decrees clearly show that the resident Romans regularly gained political influence beyond what could be expected of a mere private network. But they show us the result rather than the origin of a development that presumably had its roots in the spread of private networks — networks which were explicitly labelled ‘Roman’ by all parties involved.

A similar argument can perhaps be made for a rather different form of corporate organization that had its roots in the late Hellenistic period, but spread rapidly and with a new political focus only in the imperial era, namely the assemblies of old men (gerousiai). In many cities of Asia Minor, the gerousia is mentioned alongside the dēmos and boulē (and at times the resident Romans) in civic decrees. It was tied to the gymnasium, and although its character as an élite club sharply distinguishes it from the traditional Greek conception of age classes,Footnote 21 the gerontes were still treated as one in official parlance (e.g. the gymnasiarch pasēs hēlikias, ‘of all age classes’). The gerousia also appeared, albeit not too frequently, as a personified civic institution both in the form of statues and on coins, as did the dēmos and boulē.Footnote 22 Phrygia could be said to lead the way here: the earliest epigraphic evidence for a statue group comes from a Phrygian city, as does the earliest coin showing gerousia personified.Footnote 23

But besides these seemingly unambiguous signs of the public nature of the gerousia (which would still let it appear as a Romanized institution, but not one that would be of interest in our context), other evidence justifies the conclusion that it was in fact an institution at the border between public and private. Unlike civic boulai, the foundations of gerousiai could be the result of private initiative, as in the case of Lycian Patara, where C. Iulius Demosthenes of Oinoanda, one of the most prominent Lycian benefactors, established the gerousia as a part of his own regional network.Footnote 24 Also in Lycia, the city of Sidyma decided in the time of Commodus to establish a systēma gerontikon, and to choose a prominent citizen to present this idea to the proconsul (who replied that it deserved praise, not permission).Footnote 25 The same situation could perhaps be reconstructed for Phrygian Apameia.Footnote 26 This seems to imply that new gerousiai could be officially recognized as legal associations, presumably on the basis of the Lex Iulia de collegiis.Footnote 27 As regards conditions of membership, entering a gerousia could involve similar procedures to entering an association, such as payment of an entrance fee and preliminary screening of candidates.Footnote 28 An inscription from Akmoneia (64 c.e.) is remarkable precisely because it records an unusual process: a certain Demades is entrusted ‘with the introduction of a name without a fee’; after he has chosen the freedman Karpos, the other members vote that Karpos should ‘partake in the gerousia on completely equal terms’.Footnote 29 Apparently, Demades is rewarded for some benefaction with the right to inscribe one of his friends (or dependants) into the gerousia; the closest parallels in procedure come from the regulations of associations from Delos and Athens.Footnote 30 In Phrygian Sebaste, an inscription records the admission of seventy-one persons into the (newly-founded?) gerousia in 99 c.e. — among them is a whole family of Iulii, including women and children.Footnote 31 Women were not normally represented in politics or the gymnasium,Footnote 32 but they could apparently find their place in the exclusive ‘clubs of elders’ that proliferated under Roman rule.

All this hardly fits a categorization of gerousiai as civic bodies equivalent to the boulai. But in conjunction with the political importance accorded to the gerousiai by many cities, it does fit the model developed above for the ‘resident Romans’ rather well: a closed circle of Romanized (or simply Roman) people within a given city assumed a corporate identity, thus accumulating influence and network effects. As such groups could hardly be bypassed by civic government, and could in fact use their accumulated prestige to the good of the city, they were incorporated into the decision-making process. Under Roman influence, new forms of corporate organization were created that quickly found their place in the institutional order of Phrygian cities. Romans and ‘old men’ were the most successful groups, but there were certainly others, especially in the early phase of Roman rule, some of them of a rather curious nature. Thus, in 6/7 c.e., the ‘Greek and Roman women’ of Akmoneia decided to honour the high priestess Tatia.Footnote 33 We should not press Thonemann's assumption that the Romanized élite of Akmoneia consciously followed the model of the Augustan ordo matronarum in giving its women the authority to issue their own decrees. But it is clear enough that the presence of a new Italian élite in the more important Phrygian cities (and the influence of Roman institutions such as merchant co-ordination or the senate itself) had a profound impact on the development of new patterns of social organization. Some of the results remained exceptional and did not persist, such as the association of Greek and Roman women. Others, like the associations of resident Romans and the exclusive clubs of elders, profoundly shaped the political and cultural landscape of Phrygian cities. These cases set the stage for our enquiry. They show that what we are looking for was a very real phenomenon in Roman Phrygia.

III CLAIMING A PLACE: PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ISOMORPHISM

Professional associations have a key rôle in the studies by Verboven and Cracco Ruggini noted above, and they certainly deserve it. The phenomenon as such is not entirely Roman. In Egypt, there is earlier evidence for professional associations, and a new inscription from (probably) Lycian Tlos that records a funerary foundation involving a koinon tōn chalkeōn proves that they were already known in Asia Minor in the second century b.c.e.Footnote 34 Still, in the Hellenistic period, associations that chose a common profession — and not a common cult — as their main identifying statement were extremely rare.Footnote 35 The exception from Tlos may actually be explained through Egyptian influence, as Lycia was under Ptolemaic control in the third century b.c.e.Footnote 36 In the imperial era, professional associations are known from almost all areas; they are often the only form of the associative phenomenon attested in a given city.Footnote 37 The change seems severe and needs to be explained.

In Phrygia, Hierapolis stands out with roughly twenty professional associations attested in published or unpublished inscriptions.Footnote 38 This unusual situation is certainly explained by both the epigraphic habit and the state of excavation, as comparison with the two other textile centres of the Lycus valley shows. In Laodikeia, a city that was no less important for textile production and whose social milieux show clear signs of Romanization,Footnote 39 the evidence is meagre indeed. Two professional associations are known from one insecurely reconstructed inscription.Footnote 40 One or two other synergasiai with unknown specification are attested in fragmentary seat inscriptions from the theatre, and a new inscription reads topos bapheōn, ‘place of the dyers’.Footnote 41 But from Hierapolis, more than 600 inscriptions are known, while the number for Laodikeia is clearly below 100; in addition, most Hierapolitan associations are known from funerary endowments recorded on sarcophagi from the northern necropolis, while in Laodikeia, this genre of texts is absent. For Kolossai, not a single association is securely attested.Footnote 42

Honorific decrees give us an insight into the activities and the status of professional associations within Phrygian cities. It is noteworthy that not a single inscription is concerned simply with honouring a benefactor of the association; instead, all honoured persons represent the Roman order in one way or another. A good example is Lucius Egnatius Quartus, a Roman military commander who was honoured by the synergasia of fullers in Akmoneia as founder of the city and a true patriot; his benefactions towards the association are mentioned last and not specified any further.Footnote 43 The same person was honoured by the official civic institutions of Akmoneia.Footnote 44 The fullers also honoured Titus Flavius Montanus, a friend of the procurator Vibius Lentulus, as praefectus fabrorum, archiereus Asias, sebastophantēs and agōnothetēs.Footnote 45 That he had also done something for the association seems to be little more than a pretext. Perhaps the benefactor did not wish this rather irrelevant dimension of his public life to divert attention from his main achievements. The result, in any case, was that the association inscribed itself into the Roman order by establishing (and publicly demonstrating) contact with one of its more prominent representatives. In Hierapolis, both the purple-dyers and the wool-washers erected almost identical inscriptions in honour of Claudius Zotikos Boas, first stratēgos, archiereus etc.; the associations are not said to have received any benefactions themselves.Footnote 46 Professional associations could, of course, profit from building projects carried out in the city. In Laodikeia, the fullers and the wool workers were involved in an honorific decree for someone who erected a market hall.Footnote 47 But what seems to have mattered most to professional associations was their self-presentation as quasi-official institutions.Footnote 48 In Apameia, they even served as civic agents. A number of honorific decrees from the first and second century, all issued by the dēmos, the boulē and the katoikountes Rhōmaioi for prominent Romans, were to be set up by professional associations, namely, the shopkeepers, businessmen and artisans of two commercial streets.Footnote 49

Professional associations thus took part in the representation of their respective cities vis-à-vis Roman officials and benefactors. They profited from networks established by official institutions, because they acted in ways that deliberately obscured the boundaries between public and private. A further indication is the appropriation of public space. The seat inscriptions of synergasiai from the theatre in Laodikeia have already been mentioned. Another example comes from the small theatre of Aizanoi, where seats were reserved for the phylai, but also for the association of stone-cutters.Footnote 50 That professional associations could be put on display in this way as part of the institutional inventory of a city is known from other locales in both the Eastern and Western provinces.Footnote 51 For Aizanoi, it has been suggested that the seats were periodically sold by the city;Footnote 52 this would mean that the association of stone-cutters had to actively invest in its integration into the civic order. Additional evidence comes, again, from Hierapolis. The theatre was the place where the association of dyers set up a statue of Boulē personified.Footnote 53 And the most prominent association of Hierapolis, the purple-dyers, added a postscript to a dedicatory inscription on the architrave that recorded their contribution to the adornment and enlargement of the theatre.Footnote 54 The funerary inscriptions also point in the same direction. Professional associations received endowments just like the gerousia; they could also be named as the recipients of fines to be paid for the violation of graves, alongside (or instead of) the Roman fiscus.Footnote 55 It is not quite clear how such rules were put into practice, but we see that founders of funerary endowments treated professional associations on a par with official institutions.

We hardly know anything about the internal structure of Phrygian professional associations. No laws have survived, and no officials are mentioned.Footnote 56 The one exception to this rule is revealing for our purposes. Professional associations in Hierapolis could have a management board that represented the association on certain occasions. Some inscriptions from the late second and the third century do not mention the ergasia, but the proedria of purple-dyers. This ‘management board’ can be named as the recipient of funerary endowments just like the association itself. Like the ergasia, the proedria can carry the epithet semnotatē; in one case, we find the designation synedrion tēs proedrias tōn porphyrabaphōn.Footnote 57 Management boards are also attested for the ergasia of linen-weavers, where the progegrammenoi of the association shall receive and distribute the sum of an endowment, and for the association of metal-workers, where the designation in an as yet unpublished inscription is proestōtes.Footnote 58 While individual leading positions are, of course, known from Greek associations from the Hellenistic period onwards, these officials did not form a management board that could act separately from the other members. But we know the phenomenon from Italian inscriptions of the second and third century. Associations could be divided into ordines, following the civic model: there could be an internal ordo decurionum, distinguished from the populus and with the authority to make its own decisions, and magistri were often taken as one class inside the association.Footnote 59 Liebenam's assumption that in the West, such management boards were called praesidium, is incorrect,Footnote 60 although the analogy to the Hierapolitan proedria would be tempting. But the separate designation and activities of a management board in at least some professional associations from Hierapolis is an important sign of Roman influence.Footnote 61 It shows that collegia were indeed among the private organizations which, through their mimicry of accepted norms and institutions, ‘naturalised and legitimated the basic postulates of a Roman social order’.Footnote 62

The religious practice of professional associations could also be influenced by Roman models, but only in an indirect way. The well-known funerary endowment of Publius Aelius Glaukon and Aurelia Amia illustrates the problem well: Glaukon left 200 denarii to the management board of the purple-dyers for them to celebrate ‘the feast of unleavened bread’ from the interest; he also left 150 denarii to the association of carpet-weavers, who were supposed to spend one half on the feast of the Kalends and the other on the ‘feast of the fiftieth day’.Footnote 63 The religious calendar of these two associations was determined by the conditions of the endowment. The donor decided which feasts mattered most — Glaukon gives 200 denarii for Passover, but only 75 for the other two feasts, to be celebrated by a less prestigious association.Footnote 64 Collegia in the West celebrated the New Year's feast,Footnote 65 but this is not clear evidence of Romanization of associations (rather than of the donors themselves). Funerary endowments often refer to the typical dates of collegia festivals in the West, like the feast of the Kalends or the Rosalia, but they also often mention the specific desires of the donor.Footnote 66

Professional associations in Phrygian cities were not official institutions like the resident Romans of Apameia. But they did approach this status as closely as they could, and were treated by donors and others as part of the Roman civic order. The process was not limited to Phrygia; examples from Lydia lead to similar conclusions.Footnote 67 In the terms of neo-institutional economics, all this can be described as a process of institutional isomorphism. As defined by DiMaggio and Powell, ‘isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’.Footnote 68 The environmental conditions in our case were determined by the Romanization of Phrygian cities. DiMaggio and Powell distinguish between three mechanisms of isomorphic change: coercive, mimetic or normative. For Roman Phrygia, the mimetic aspect was perhaps the most important one; it is normally a result of insecurity with regard to new environmental conditions. Organizations model themselves after other organizations that are observed as successfully coping with the common environment.Footnote 69

One factor contributing to insecurity is a lack of clear legal regulations. Roman laws on collegia certainly fit this criterion. The recent trend to see them as rather irrelevant for Asia Minor needs to be reassessed.Footnote 70 There is sufficient evidence for knowledge and application of Roman law at least in the larger cities of Asia Minor, and a recent find from Miletus has provided unambiguous proof that the ratification of associations by the emperor described in the Digest was practised in Asia Minor at least in the time of Hadrian.Footnote 71 The well-known case of Bithynian Nikomedeia, where Pliny wanted to create an association of fabri but was forbidden to do so by Trajan, can no longer be dismissed as an exception; together with the official ratification of the neoi of Kyzikos and the gerousia of Sidyma, the relevance of this aspect of Roman law for Asia Minor seems to be established for the second century at least.Footnote 72 We should therefore assume that the Digest is correct in stating that the general ban on collegia, a result of their activities during the late Republican civil war, was applicable to the provinces as well, and that certain collegia, those designated licita, could undergo a process of ratification and receive official recognition of their utilitas publica.Footnote 73

However, the precise criteria are unclear, and a number of other rules (especially the exemption for tenuiores and assemblies religionis causa) add to the general confusion.Footnote 74 In addition, the sheer number of associations known from Roman Asia Minor casts doubt on the idea that they all had to apply for official sanction. But were they really the collegia discussed in the Digest? From the epigraphic evidence, it seems that the ratification process was an option for official groups such as the gerousia, the neoi, or certain professional associations with high relevance for a city; in each known case, the process was officially initiated not by the association itself, but by civic or Roman magistrates.Footnote 75 These groups, with fixed numbers, names and purposes, became the ‘legitimate collegia’, to be treated henceforward ad exemplum rei publicae.Footnote 76 As there is no indication that, for example, all the professional associations of Hierapolis underwent a similar process, the question remains how the continued existence of associations without such official legitimacy fits into this picture.

It seems best to categorize them as a class of associations not directly addressed in Roman law — associations that wanted to show their usefulness to the Roman order and profited from it in certain ways, but were not fully integrated into the system of concessions and privileges that characterized the collegia licita. If the endowments of Hierapolis, often directed towards more than one professional association, could be taken to indicate the deceased's membership in several collegia (forbidden for the collegia licita since the days of Antoninus Pius), they would fit this picture well, but it is not clear whether or not this inference can legitimately be drawn.Footnote 77 Such professional associations would have actively sought integration into the civic and the Roman order, but could never be absolutely certain that their usefulness was duly acknowledged, and there even remained the (albeit remote) possibility that unfavourable circumstances might lead a Roman governor to dissolve them. The predictable reaction of such groups to these uncertainties would be mimetic isomorphism: in observing successful models of corporate organization within a Roman civic order, models that were themselves based on the exemplum rei publicae, they became multipliers of that order, duplicating the state, its organizational ambitions and its values.

Insisting on the rôle of Roman law is not to deny that local middle classes had their own reasons to act as they did. While Roman law offered incentives to participate in an imperial world order, its effect on local societies was not — and could not be — planned on a grand scale; it was one factor among others that motivated decisions.Footnote 78 The craving of the middle classes for status and recognition (what has been called ‘ordo-making’) has to be taken into account; the same is true for the increased possibilities of drawing prestige from craft and workmanship in the second and third centuries, visible in epigraphic data from all over the Empire.Footnote 79 But the rapid spread of an institution that is virtually unattested before the Roman period has to be related both to Roman models of civic organization and to Roman law, and institutional isomorphism is a useful concept for taking into account the perspectives of both actors and organizations.

So does Romanization imply the professionalization of the associative order? It may be expected that isomorphic change was much more difficult to manage for cult associations than it was for professional workers. The Roman civic order offered incentives to develop corporate forms of organization, but clearly favoured groups of common public interest. In searching for cult associations, we often have to go beyond south-western Phrygia, into less accessible regions.

IV CULT ASSOCIATIONS AND VILLAGE COMMUNITIES

In contrast to the professional associations discussed above, associations whose members primarily defined themselves as adherents of a certain cult are difficult to find in the cities of western and southern Phrygia. Even the rich finds of Hierapolis hardly include anything of relevance. The significance of one hieros thiasos is in fact unclear; it may have been an association, or a civic institution established for emperor worship.Footnote 80 Other interpretations appear outdated: the sēmiaphoroi of Apollon Archegetes are probably a priestly college, not an association with secret symbols,Footnote 81 and the ergasia thremmatikē was a professional association of shepherds rather than a cult association caring for metaphorical ‘sheep’, Christian or otherwise.Footnote 82 It should be emphasized that speaking of cult associations as a type does not mean going back to a division of associations according to their ‘purposes’, as was common in very early research on Greek associations.Footnote 83 Professional associations were also cult communities. But there are differences in the ways a group described itself in public monuments. In the cities discussed so far, no association is known that explicitly described itself as a cult association.Footnote 84

One possible exception from Laodikeia paves the way for a more thorough investigation. A relief showing Zeus and Hermes was dedicated as a votive offering by the secretary — written γαματεύων — of the psapharoi.Footnote 85 Iconographic and onomastic indications suggest that the monument actually comes from Thiunta, a village north of Hierapolis.Footnote 86 The ‘dry ones’ could be argued to be a cult association for Zeus and Hermes, but the designation remains incomprehensible. It might therefore be the name of one of the many Phrygian village communities. This touches upon an old question: how do we distinguish villages from private associations, and is that distinction always justified? Poland was willing to cautiously accept the idea that villages could ‘wholly adapt the form of cult associations’.Footnote 87 As has often been noted, Phrygia as a whole is characterized by village communities and rural sanctuaries rather than by the great centres of textile production in the south.Footnote 88 Needless to say, no professional associations are to be expected outside the larger cities — economic specialization does not characterize the social history of rural Anatolia. But the epigraphic representation of villages and their religion took over modes and formulae from the cities,Footnote 89 and it is worth asking whether or not some reflection of the desire to ‘get organized’ (and hence isomorphism) can be deduced. The existence of little-understood village gerousiai seems to be a case in point;Footnote 90 cult associations might be another. In order to avoid unnecessary speculation in a field that already abounds with insecurities, the analysis will be limited to associational terminology found in villages.

Phratra, Hetaireia, Synbiōsis

Two stēlai from Thiunta, a village north of Hierapolis, show the twenty-four members of a ‘brotherhood’, phratra.Footnote 91 In both cases, the dēmos of Thiunta has honoured the ‘brotherhood around (peri)’ two chief officials, whose names have changed in the second inscription. The brotherhood has repeatedly distributed oil for eight days and, according to the second inscription, organized a nocturnal ceremony for Zeus. One of the leaders in the first inscription is an agōnothetēs, one of the members is a paraphylax; in the first inscription, one member is recorded not only with his name, but with the additional information that he has bought the place for the stēlē. The term phratra seems to imply more than a mere festive gathering or an organizing committee. In addition, at least two persons in the second inscription can be identified as sons of members in the first inscription, and further links are plausible.Footnote 92 The presence of a paraphylax in a phratra from Thiunta raises interesting questions, as this official should have been operating from Hierapolis; he may have been a local who came to prominence in the nearby city.Footnote 93 In any case, a close connection between the village and the cult group is evident, leading to mutual expectations: the phratra hosts the pannychis, and is honoured by the dēmos.

Also in the area of Hierapolis, the hetaireia of the Arzimneis, again headed by two persons introduced by peri, made a dedication to the gods of the Motaleis.Footnote 94 The monument contains representations of seventeen persons, one of whom (the third in the list) is called a priest. The dēmos Motaleōn is known from other epigraphic evidence; Arzimneis should be regarded as a regional designation as well.Footnote 95 Does this mean that the hetaireia was an association based in a village that honoured the local gods of another village? The process would be easier to envisage if the hetaireia was a subdivision of the Arzimneis, who for diplomatic reasons honoured the gods of a neighbouring village. Something political also seems to be at stake in another monument of this sort, from the area of Dionysopolis: the ‘brotherhood of the Saloudeis and the Melokometai’ unites men from two villages who seem to have joined forces in honouring someone.Footnote 96 In this case, the phratra has been named after the villages, not after its leaders. Two similar monuments have been preserved only partially; they contain a few names, but the designation of the groups has not survived.Footnote 97

The political context casts doubt on the assumption that phratra or hetaireia were used in such monuments to designate private cult associations.Footnote 98 One should also ask how large the population of such villages was. For the Byzantine period, Thonemann has calculated an average population of twenty-five to twenty-seven inhabitants for villages with corporate institutions and a functioning communal life in the Maeander valley.Footnote 99 Numbers in the imperial era were certainly higher, but a group of seventeen to twenty-four men could still represent a significant part of the male population. As there seem to be no brothers or father-son pairs in the group at the same time, twenty-four men may well represent twenty-four families. Similar calculations may lead to a reassessment of an inscription from Kayılı, a village close to Akmoneia, where ‘the synbiōsis’, consisting of nineteen men, ‘splendid and noble Achaeans’, dedicated an altar to Zeus Alsenos so that he might be kind towards the village.Footnote 100

The number of members seems too high for mere private associations, at least within a rural context. We should entertain the possibility that these groups represented the villages as cult communities before their gods. To be sure, in some cases, a verbal distinction is drawn between the group and the village.Footnote 101 While the qualifying genitive (the hetaireia of the Arzimneis) is not decisive (we would also expect ‘the dēmos of’ …), other formulae distinguish either the dedicant from the beneficiary (the synbiōsis vs. the katoikia) or the honorand from the body that conveys the honours (the dēmos of Thiunta vs. the phratra). But this does not run counter to the idea that such groups united male inhabitants — perhaps a select group in larger villages like Thiunta, almost all of them in smaller ones — who acted on behalf of the whole village population, represented their communities before the local gods, and thus legitimately claimed to be ‘the’ cult association of a given village. The peculiar visual representation of the members in several inscriptions, with its blending of individual elements (names, beards, priestly status) with stereotypical ones, unparalleled in other regions, may have had a double function in this regard: it honoured the men thus represented, but at the same time it named the persons responsible. The creation of corporate identities using established terminology would also have facilitated the representation of villages in the context of trans-local rural cults, well attested in Phrygia and neighbouring regions.Footnote 102

Ramsay, who took the Phrygian phratrai as private associations, argued that they were an age-old Anatolian institution.Footnote 103 More recent findings provide us with some comparative data. Cult groups that called themselves phratrai are known from other regions in both Asia Minor and the Near East, and although it is not always clear whether or not they were civic subdivisions, at least in some cases the private nature of the group is probable. In Phrygia, the term phratores is used in a not very informative inscription from (possibly) Dorylaion, and in a difficult text from Orkistos, where it refers to a group of unclear status involved in a dedication.Footnote 104 Another inscription, presumably from the area of Hierapolis, records a memorial for a certain Diodoros set up by ‘his own phratra’, which allows for several interpretations.Footnote 105 Two inscriptions use designations close to the one employed by the dēmos of Thiunta in order to define organizations of unclear status.Footnote 106 But the group of monuments discussed here differs from these in style and content.

It is evidently possible that communal action vis-à-vis the gods took place in pre-Roman institutions. But the choice of terminology as well as the epigraphic commemoration that starts in the second century c.e. seems to betray the influence of Roman models. If villages observed the epigraphic trends of the cities, as we know they did, but could not follow the trend towards ordo-making due to lack of social diversification, terms like hetaireia or phratra were useful not least for their ambiguity: they could refer to private associations,Footnote 107 but did not have to, and they signalled close ties among the members more clearly than a term like koinon. Villages searching for prestigious ways to epigraphically represent (a significant part of) their male population as a cult group could have made far less convincing choices.

Mystai

The search for cult associations has thus uncovered an inherent — and perhaps consciously created — ambiguity in the epigraphic evidence. We may hope to reach safer ground when discussing another phenomenon that is important in Phrygia, but also known from other regions of Asia Minor, namely, the spread of ‘initiates’ (mystai) in the imperial era.Footnote 108 In Phrygia, the first peculiarity to note is that there are hardly any mystai in the larger cities where one would expect to find them. One hierophantēs of Dionysos Kathegemon is now known from Hierapolis, but there is no indication that he belonged to an association.Footnote 109 Inscriptions from other regions are more likely to have been set up by associations. In a village next to Akmoneia, the ‘mystai of the first, holy thiasos’ dedicated their meeting place to Dionysos Kathegemon, and a group of mystai from Apollonia honoured an otherwise unknown person.Footnote 110 In a village 10 km north-east of Sebaste, ‘the initiates’ set up a bust for Dionysos Kathegemon and published a list of members (second/third century c.e.); only the names of the two priests and their respective sons have survived, but they indicate leadership by local élites.Footnote 111 Further evidence comes from rather remote places in the Upper Tembris valley, between Nakoleia and Dorylaion. A number of quite similar, four-sided altars from the second and third century were erected for Zeus Dionysos by groups of initiates, but also by individuals.Footnote 112 It has been argued that these monuments attest ‘an old local cult, which was taken up, and perhaps enlarged, in Roman times’.Footnote 113 While the old age of a cult for Zeus Dionysos in this region cannot be proven, the organization of worship is decidedly Roman, if the use of associational terminology characteristic of Romanized regions is regarded as an indication. Altars are set up by a group of mystai that had a priest, a hierophantēs and a speirarchēs, by neoi mystai who underline either the recent creation of the group or the age of the members, and, in one case, by a family that honoured its deceased father, assisted by a hiera speirē.Footnote 114

It is in this context that we again encounter designations with a strong local flair. The mystai Koroseanoi neobakchoi dedicated an altar to Zeus Dionysos ‘for themselves and the village’; other dedications were made by Ptolemēnoi mystai and Krēouerēnoi mystai.Footnote 115 The attributes clearly refer to villages otherwise unknown. Given the frequency of references to ‘initiates’ in Asia Minor and the inflation of cultic language with vocabulary derived from the mysteries,Footnote 116 there is little reason to believe that all these μύσται had undergone formal procedures of initiation.Footnote 117 The spread of μύσται-terminology in Asia Minor was probably influenced by the privileged rôle accorded to the mysteries in the representation of ‘imperial religion’.Footnote 118 These groups could be the only associations of their — otherwise epigraphically unattested — villages. But in light of the evidence discussed above, it is tempting to assume that this is another case of villages describing themselves (or rather a representative part of the male population) as a cult community by applying corporate terminology that was known to be acceptable in Roman contexts.

This hypothesis may also shed some light on yet another enigmatic corporate designation, from Amorion in eastern Phrygia. A certain Antipater made endowments to ensure the commemoration of his deceased daughter Kyrilla.Footnote 119 The recipient is a group called phylēs Dios mystai, ‘initiates of the tribe of Zeus’. This could be an association for Zeus, but no cult of Zeus is provided for in the inscription, although it appears that the group came into being for the purpose of the endowment.Footnote 120 Might we be dealing with mystai from a civic phylē?Footnote 121 Since both public and private groups could be involved in private grave care, the case must remain open. But this might be another example of the overlap between kinship terminology, institutions of villages, and corporate designations taken over from the (Graeco-)Roman civic order.

Bennos, Doumos

The conclusions reached so far touch upon the question of how indigenous, pre-Roman traditions were transformed under Roman rule. As all available data stem from the Roman period, reconstructions of ancient Phrygian institutions are obviously liable to ungrounded speculation. The supposed origins of professional associations in ancient Anatolian societal subdivisions has been mentioned above; more specific arguments include the idea that the washers of Roman Hierapolis are to be connected to Hittite temple slaves, supposedly organized in associations more than a millennium earlier.Footnote 122 The use of Neo-Phrygian terms, albeit problematic in itself, may serve as a more trustworthy guide to indigenous concepts. In the case of associations, we are again led to the north and east of Phrygia.

Several inscriptions from Phrygia and a few from Bithynia mention to bennos and Zeus Bennios. Due to the work of Drew-Bear and Naour, it is now generally acknowledged that bennos was a cult association, to be derived from indo-european bendnos (‘covenant, union, association’).Footnote 123 This interpretation has led to a satisfactory understanding of almost all the relevant monuments. An altar from the area of Aizanoi may serve as an example: ‘Tryphon, son of Meniskos, (has set up the altar) for Zeus and the benneitai’.Footnote 124 The text is perfectly intelligible if bennos is an association; benneitai are its members. In a village near Nakoleia, two brothers dedicate a crown to the bennos of Zeus Bronton.Footnote 125 A text from Krateia in eastern Bithynia also shows that a bennos could be the source of benefactions, appropriately returned through the erection of an altar dedicated to Zeus Bennios.Footnote 126 And in a metrical text from Midas City, benneuein designates a positive state, possibly harmony and unity among citizens.Footnote 127 Problems nevertheless remain. The first is one that we have already encountered above. Again in the area of Nakoleia, a certain Markos, son of Markos, dedicated a crown to Zeus Bronton and the bennos Sereanon. The Sereanoi are a village west of Nakoleia, not an association, so the question of villages posing as associations is raised yet again.Footnote 128 A similar, but earlier case is a dedication made by a private person to the bennos Soēnōn for the victory of Trajan.Footnote 129 The second problem is raised by the endowment of a certain Skymnos from the very east of Phrygia, on the border with Pisidia. He left 100 denarii to the village, ‘in order that from the interest a bennos is made in honour of Zeus Kalakagathios, for the fruits’.Footnote 130 In this case, bennos seems to be a regular feast, to be financed ek tokou like the annual coronation of graves in Hierapolis — not an association.Footnote 131 It therefore seems that the meaning of the word was rather broad; it could designate a cult community, but also a feast or festive assembly.Footnote 132 The argument that a bennarchēs must always be the leader of an organization is not sufficient to rule out this possibility.Footnote 133

The evidence does not allow for a history of the bennos to be written, as all relevant inscriptions seem to be roughly contemporary (second/third century c.e.). But it is perhaps possible to develop a plausible historical scenario in which the meaning ‘festival’ or ‘festive gathering’ is the original, indigenous, pre-Roman one. In this sense, bennos was a Phrygian term to designate cult communities, without a clear distinction between the participants of the feast and the feast itself. When in the Roman period models of corporate organization that were based on membership became widespread, some inhabitants of northern Phrygia adapted their indigenous terminology to match new social structures; βεννεῖται could now designate formal organizations. The process could be described as a re-interpretation of Phrygian traditions under Roman influence. But the original meaning was not forgotten, and so the village of the Sereanoi could describe itself as a cult community by using the term bennos, and Skymnos could expect to be understood when he ordered that a regular bennos should be performed out of the interest on his endowment.

This hypothetical scenario may be strengthened by pointing to the parallel development of the Syrian marzeah/marzeha. In Ugaritic texts and the Old Testament, but also in inscriptions from the fourth and third century b.c.e., the term may mean both a group of people and a feast.Footnote 134 Under Hellenistic and Roman influence, it came to designate organizations with defined membership, as in Nabatean inscriptions of the first century b.c.e.Footnote 135 The evidence from Roman Palmyra suggests that both meanings could co-exist.Footnote 136 Romanization could lead to a certain formalization of indigenous religious life, but the results were often hybrids, as should perhaps be expected.

The persistence of local peculiarities in less Romanized areas such as northern Phrygia shows the limits of this process. Even here, Roman law was present in one way or another,Footnote 137 but the incentives it provided must have been less relevant for both sides than they were in the coastal cities of Asia Minor, or the assize centres of central and southern Phrygia. One last example may illustrate the difference: this concerns another indigenous term, doumos. That the word is Phrygian in origin is now generally accepted. It clearly designates ‘cult associations’, often related to the cult of Cybele in inscriptions from Lydia, Serdica and Thessalonike.Footnote 138 In Phrygia itself, the term is attested only twice.Footnote 139 In a very fragmentary dedication from a rural sanctuary at Phyteia, the meaning may be ‘household’;Footnote 140 more interesting for us is a bilingual inscription from Dorylaion:Footnote 141

ε---γ/τεντουμενος | νιοισιος ναδροτος | ειτου Μιτραϕατα | κε Μας Τεμρογε|ιος κε Πουντας | Βας κε ενσταρνα | [vac.] δουμθ κε οι ουθ|βαν αδδακετ ορου|αν. Παρεθέμην τὸ | μνημεῖον τοῖς προ|γεγραμμένοις θε|οῖς κὲ τῇ κώμῃ·| ταῦθ’ ὁ πατὴρ Ἀσκληπιός.

[Greek part]: I have set up this memorial before the above-mentioned gods and the village. The father Asklepios has done this.

It seems clear that δουμθ is a dative, which makes κώμη the Greek equivalent.Footnote 142 So even a Phrygian term that is used elsewhere to designate cult associations is used in Phrygia itself only to qualify a village as a religious corporate actor.Footnote 143 The evidence for both bennos and doumos thus strengthens the observations made above: instead of the social fragmentation that Romanization caused in the cities of western and southern Phrygia, the main parts of the region, while not unaffected by the trend towards corporate representation, stand out for their use of terms and concepts that indicate social cohesion. If villages employed terminology from the sphere of associations, their aim was not to establish a segregative social order. The spread of terminology and concepts of corporate organization was nevertheless related to Roman influence. It reflects the tendency to assume a corporate identity that could be displayed on stone. But it was not a cultural transfer that profoundly changed the realities of village life. The villages and their élites followed the urban attempts to ‘get organized’, but at their own pace, and according to their own priorities.

V CONCLUSION

Romanization was a process that affected the institutional inventory of cities. I have argued here that the field of ‘private’ corporate organization is an important indicator for the changes brought about by Roman rule. Apart from the ‘resident Romans’ and corporations of old men, evidence from the cities in western and southern Phrygia clearly shows the growing importance of groups modelled on the Roman collegia. Professional associations, almost unattested in Asia Minor before the Roman period, became an important part of civic life, often acting as junior partners of the official political bodies. The influence of Roman ideals of social organization seems to explain this process better than other models.

For rural Anatolia, different results are to be expected due to the different economic and social framework. The evidence does, however, show an awareness of current urban forms of Romanization both within and outside Phrygia, and a desire to adapt them to the very different conditions of rural life.Footnote 144 The view that a frustrated Phrygian population used local religious traditions to shut itself away, and to express rejection of the dominant Graeco-Roman culture,Footnote 145 does not adequately address the influences of that very culture that have been noted here. It is rather an example of a ‘celebration of the local’ triggered by the imposition of an imperial superstructure, visible in many different manifestations throughout the Empire.Footnote 146

Recent debates both on associations and Romanization have often focused on desires for status and representation, which leaves responsibility for the process solely to the local actors. These categories have successfully illuminated the data, and the model envisaged here takes these developments into account. It is nevertheless necessary to look for legal incentives as well, not least because recent findings have added to our knowledge about Roman laws on associations. We should certainly avoid the pitfall of taking the fragments of legal expertise preserved in the Digest as timeless and normative, but it is also not satisfactory to deny any influence of Roman law on the development of associations in the East. We should take into account the fact that Roman law provided not only guides for restrictive action, but also incentives that local groups could respond to on their own terms.

This finally raises the question of whether or not there was a masterplan. Were the developments discussed here the planned result of a centrally administered policy of Romanization? The answer to this simple form of the question will have to be an emphatic no. Still, the idea that Roman administrators were not uninterested in the effects of institutional isomorphism, namely isomorphic pressure that would lead to a certain structural unification, seems to me to have some explanatory value — not least because in less diverse regions than Phrygia, the model is likely to work even better. Thus, the professionalization of the associative order in the Ionian cities, especially Ephesos or Smyrna, is fairly evident. Creating adaptive pressures without having to exert them directly is a reasonable political strategy. While Roman governors certainly were unable (and probably did not try) to precisely predict the outcome of such a strategy, a case for centrally-managed impulses for Romanization can and should be made.

Footnotes

*

This article is based on a seminar paper given at a meeting of the Copenhagen Associations Project in February 2014. I thank Vincent Gabrielsen and his staff for creating a stimulating environment and an insightful discussion. The article has profited a lot from remarks by Andrew Lepke, and from the helpful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers. Special thanks are due to Kimberley Czajkowski for correcting my English.

1 cf., among others, the contributions by Woolf Reference Woolf1998; Le Roux Reference Le Roux2004; Alföldy Reference Alföldy and Visy2005.

2 On the perils involved in this paradigm shift, cf. Versluys Reference Versluys2014 (and the responses in the same volume).

3 Sartre Reference Sartre and Urso2007. But cf. the more differentiated treatments by Woolf Reference Woolf1994 and, from another angle, Price Reference Price1984: 53–77.

4 AE 1986, 333, § 74; cf. Mentxaka Reference Mentxaka1995/96; Liu Reference Liu and Aubert2005: 286–96.

5 On the traditions, cf. Gabba Reference Gabba1984.

6 Verboven Reference Verboven2012: 15.

7 cf. the insightful remarks by Ando Reference Ando and Whitmarsh2010: 20–1, 43–5 (who does not speak of Romanization).

8 On the spread of associations in Greece: Gabrielsen Reference Gabrielsen2007. On the earliest evidence from Egypt: Çenival Reference Çenival1988. Recent additions from Hellenistic Asia Minor include SEG 54, 1117 (Darronistai of Mylasa); 57, 1188 (Heroistai near Koloe in Lydia); 58, 1640 (association of smiths, probably from Tlos); 60, 1332 (Asklepiastai near Pergamon).

9 Dig. 47.22.4.

10 Cracco Ruggini Reference Cracco Ruggini and Pippidi1976 (quotation at p. 469).

11 e.g. Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: 105–6; against this idea, cf. Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997: 184–5; Harland Reference Harland2014: 185.

12 cf. for the East, Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997 (Sommer Reference Sommer2006 does not lead any further); for the West, Tran Reference Tran2012.

13 Extensive evidence for this is adduced by Thonemann Reference Thonemann2011.

14 cf. Thonemann Reference Thonemann and Thonemann2013a: 15–24.

15 See now Terpstra Reference Terpstra2013: 179–221.

16 cf. Kirbihler Reference Kirbihler and Meyer2007: 24, 30.

17 IGR IV 792. Cf. on the evidence, Terpstra Reference Terpstra2013: 203–7.

18 cf. the stimulating chapter in Thonemann Reference Thonemann2011: 99–129.

19 AvH 32. On the date (not before 214–17 c.e.), see Ritti Reference Ritti2003: 198, based on her restoration [ἡ νεωκόρος βουλή] in l. 1. The term σύνοδος is applied only to the Dionysiac artists in Hierapolis; it is therefore unlikely that αἱ σύνοδοι refers to the city's many professional associations (regularly called ἐργασίαι). The artists regularly appeared alongside civic institutions, especially when their own affairs were concerned: AvH 36 (SEG 35, 1380) contains honours for a poet decreed by the βουλή, δῆμος, γερουσία and ἡ εἱροτάτη σοίνοδος καὶ ὑ ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκουμένης ἱερονῖκαι; SEG 35, 1381 (honours for a comic actor) was originally set up by the βουλή, δῆμος and γερουσία (who honour their πολίτης), but later supplemented with a reference to the σύνοδος; cf. on this Jones Reference Jones1987.

20 Published by Ritti Reference Ritti2003: 194–6.

22 Thoroughly investigated by Martin Reference Martin2013.

23 Statue group: Varinlioğlu Reference Varinlioğlu2006: 363–8, no. 4 (SEG 56, 1490; Akmoneia, 68 c.e.); in a group of the δῆμος, πόλις and γερουσία, the latter seems to take the place that one would have expected the βουλή to take, as noted by Giannakopoulos Reference Giannakopoulos2013: 23–4. Coin: Martin Reference Martin2013: 143 (Tiberiopolis, time of Hadrian).

24 Engelmann Reference Engelmann2012: 191–2, no. 11, ll. 7–8: καὶ συστησαμένου τὴν γερουσίαν (in an inscription honouring his son).

25 TAM II 175, ll. 5–6. In l. 14, this σύστημα is simply called γερουσία. TAM II 176 is the first list of members (οἱ πρώτως καταταγέντες ἰς τὴν γερουσίαν, ll. 2–4). Cf. on the case, Giannakopoulos Reference Giannakopoulos2008: 30–6.

26 In IGR IV 783, οἱ γέροντες (l. 1) honour Lucius Atilius Proclus the younger, because he headed a delegation to the emperors concerning ‘the foundation (κτίσις)’; in ll. 11–12, he is called ‘advocate (συνήγορος) of the gerousia’; cf. the rules on agency and advocacy of corpora in Dig. 3.4. IGR IV 782 contains honours decreed by the [σ]εμνό[τ]α[τ]ο[ν συνέδριο]ν τῶν γερό[ντ]ων for its κτίστης Tiberius Aelius Saturninus Marinianus. It is possible that κτίσις refers not to the proper introduction, but to a change of organization of the gerousia in order to obtain privileges; cf. the discussion by Giannakopoulos Reference Giannakopoulos2008: 41–2.

27 For this explanation of the text from Sidyma, cf. Benndorf and Niemann Reference Benndorf and Niemann1884: 73; the legal basis is not elucidated by Giannakopoulos Reference Giannakopoulos2008: 33–4. For similar cases, see below.

28 Entrance fee: IK Ephesos 13, ii l. 8. 16 (if ἰς γερουσίαν really means taxation on entrance fees; cf. Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann, Mayer i Olivé, Baratta and Almagro2007: 1527). Preliminary screening: IG VII 2808 B, ll. 9–10 (Hyettos, after 212 c.e.); Ath. Mitt. 32 (1907), 293, no. 18 b/c, ll. 4–5 (Pergamon, imperial era; cf. Feyel Reference Feyel2009: 372–3).

29 Varinlioğlu Reference Varinlioğlu2006: 368–71, no. 5, ll. 1–5 (SEG 56, 1489): … καὶ νῦν δεδόχθ[αι] | ἐπιτραπῆναι τῷ Δημάδῃ εἰσαγωγὴν ὀνόμα|τος ἀσυμβόλου, οὗ καὶ εἰσαγαγόντος Καρ|πὸν ἀπελεύθερον, ἐψηϕίσθαι μετέχειν α[ὐ]|τὸν τῆς γερουσίας <ἐ>π’ ἴσῃ πάντων.

30 IG II² 1337 (Athens, 57/56 b.c.e.), ll. 15–18 (those who have contributed 30 drachmae may introduce a new member); I. Delos 1520 (153/52 b.c.e.), l. 36 (the benefactor may invite two people of his choice to a festival dedicated to himself). Evidence for benefactors designated ἀσύμβολος in associations (but without the extension to others) is adduced by Giannakopoulos Reference Giannakopoulos2013: 17–18.

31 Paris Reference Paris1883: 452–6, no. 2 (who argues that these women were exceptionally included because of their high status).

32 I do not find compelling the evidence adduced by Tsouvala Reference Tsouvala, Bodel and Dimitrova2015.

33 MAMA XI 99; cf. Thonemann Reference Thonemann2010.

34 SEG 58, 1640; cf. Parker Reference Parker2010: 111.

35 Stressed by Gabrielsen Reference Gabrielsen2007.

36 Parker Reference Parker2010: 111 is sceptical. But of the three other Hellenistic associations known from Lycia, two, both from Limyra, can easily be linked to Egypt, namely the θίασος of Sarapiastai (SEG 55, 1463bis) and the recently published βασιλισταί (Wörrle Reference Wörrle, Beck-Brandt, Ladstätter and Yener-Marksteiner2015), who consisted of Ptolemaic mercenaries and carried a name that is unattested outside Ptolemaic contexts. TAM II 604 (a θίασος from Tlos) is too fragmentary to draw conclusions.

37 On professional associations in the East, see especially Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997; Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann2002. Dittmann-Schöne Reference Dittmann-Schöne2001 and Royer Reference Royer2006 are useful for their (largely identical) collections of data.

38 cf. Ritti Reference Ritti and Giannattasio1995, who also mentions a number of inedita. The available evidence is conveniently presented by Dittmann-Schöne Reference Dittmann-Schöne2001: 219–31; Royer Reference Royer2006: 335–64. Add SEG 56, 1501 (Ritti Reference Ritti2006: 48–51).

39 cf. Kearsley Reference Kearsley2011. On the importance of textile production in the Lycus valley, cf. Erdemir Reference Erdemir2011.

40 Three according to CIG 3938, ll. 2–4: ἡ [ἐργασία] τῶν γναϕέ[ων καὶ βαϕέων καὶ] ἁπλουργῶν. The stone is lost; there is only a problematic drawing by E. Chishull. Corsten in IK Laodikeia 50 gives the following text (with an unnumbered additional line at the beginning): - - - | ΙϹ[- - -] | ἐνπορίου Ν[- - -] | τῶν γναϕέ[ων καὶ] | ἁπλουργῶ̣ν [ἀνέσ]|τησαν α[ἱ τῆς νε]|ωκόρου [μητροπό|λεως] τῆ[ς] Ἀσίας | Λαοδηκαίων | [πόλεως ϕυλαί]. Perhaps the text dealt with a ‘new factory of the fullers and the workers of raw wool’ ([τοῦ] ἐνπορίου ν[έου] in ll. 1–2). On the meaning of ἁπλουργοί, cf. Huttner Reference Huttner2008: 141–3.

41 Seat inscriptions: IK Laodikeia 32; 33. Τόπος βαϕέων: Şimşek Reference Şimşek2007: 123.

42 The existence of an ἀρχερμηνεύς (SEG 57, 1382) does not require the existence of ‘translator associations’ (Erdemir Reference Erdemir2011: 119); it is rather a civic office (cf. Cadwallader Reference Cadwallader2007: 115–16). MAMA VI 47 is a funerary relief for one Glykon set up by the ἑταῖροι; they may be a ‘legally formalized’ association (as argued by Trainor Reference Trainor2008: 17–18), but could also be an informal group of friends.

43 SEG 6, 167 (found at Themenotyrai, but cf. Thonemann Reference Thonemann2010: 174 n. 37). On his career, cf. Ott Reference Ott1995: 119–21.

44 IGR IV 642; Varinlioğlu Reference Varinlioğlu2006: 362–3, no. 3 (= SEG 56, 1492).

45 IGR IV 643+1696; cf. Dittmann-Schöne Reference Dittmann-Schöne2001: 224; Royer Reference Royer2006: 332–4.

46 AvH 40; 41.

47 See above, n. 40.

48 cf., along the same lines, Cracco Ruggini Reference Cracco Ruggini and Pippidi1976: 468; Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf, Cébeillac-Gervasoni and Lamoine2003: 314–17.

49 IGR IV 790; 791 (l. 26: κατὰ τῆς πόλεως ψήϕισμα); MAMA VI 180 (I and II).

50 Wörrle Reference Wörrle and Bilgen2011: 144 publishes a photo.

51 cf. Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997: 216–40. The relationship between ϕυλαί and professional associations is elucidated (and at the same time obscured) by the inscriptions from the Odeon of Gerasa, where an original order that incorporated only the ϕυλαί was (in the third century c.e.?) changed to incorporate at least one professional association, the λινουργοί; cf. Agusta-Boularot/Seigne Reference Agusta-Boularot and Seigne2004: 534–6, 547–51. For another ϕυλὴ λινουργῶν, cf. SEG 40, 1063 from Saittai.

52 Wörrle Reference Wörrle and Bilgen2011: 144–5 (on the use of ἀπολαμβάνειν in the seat inscriptions).

53 SEG 41, 1201.

54 Ritti Reference Ritti1985: 109–13 (= AE 1985, 804).

55 cf. for the same argument Cracco Ruggini Reference Cracco Ruggini and Pippidi1976: 469.

56 A possible exception is SEG 54, 1323 (purple-dyers), where οἱ κατὰ ἔτος ἐπιμεληταί (‘the annually appointed epimelētai’) appear alongside the management board (προεδρία, see below). But they may be identical to the members chosen by lot (οἱ κληρωθέντες ll. 9–10) in order to fulfil the conditions of this particular endowment (an annual banquet at the grave).

57 AvH 227b, ll. 1–3 (τὸ συνέδριον τῆς προεδρίας τῶν πορϕυραβάϕων); SEG 46, 1656 (AvH 342), l. 4 (ἡ σεμνοτάτη προεδρία τῶν πορϕυραβάϕων); SEG 54, 1323, l. 7 (ἡ προεδρία τῶν πορϕυραβάϕων). Cf. on the term, Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann2002: 38–9 (‘ein Kollegium von Vereinsvorständen’).

58 Weavers: SEG 56, 1501 (Ritti Reference Ritti2006: 48–51). No names are given before the text, so the literal meaning of προγεγραμ<μ>ένοι makes no sense; in addition, the group is supposed to distribute money to the other members. Metal-workers: mentioned by Ritti Reference Ritti1992/93: 54 n. 29.

59 cf. Liebenam Reference Liebenam1890: 182–3, 191–5.

60 Liebenam Reference Liebenam1890: 199. He refers to CIL XII 1877 (Vienna): ‘L(ucio) Aquilio | L(uci) fil(io) Volt(inia) | Severiano | aedili | IIvir(o) aerar(ii) | fabri tignuari(i) | Viennenses | pra[e]sid(i)o suo’. This only attests to an individual leading position; the same is true for CIL VI 1625 (Rome), an honorific decree by the ‘negotiatores olearii ex Baetica for M(arco) Petroni[o M(arci) f(ilio)] | Quir(ina) Honorat[o, | …] amico optimo et praesidio su[o]’.

61 The closest parallel is perhaps the ‘leadership of ten men (δεκανεύειν)’ in associations of Thracian Philippopolis: in a decree of the τέχνη καπήλων, two δεκανεύοντες are mentioned (IGBulg III 917), and the προμέτρης Chrestos was leader of the ten (δεκανεύσας) when he dedicated a statue of Heracles to the ἱερώτατον συνεργίον (IGBulg III 1401bis). Cf. Velkov Reference Velkov and Velkov1980: 135. Latin influence (decuria, decuriones) can be expected in this region. Another example from Herakleia Pontika has been published by Kolb Reference Kolb2003: the δεκάνιον Λεαδειτῶν honours its ἔκδικος; the type of group is unclear, but it may well be another case of a management board of a professional association (ibid., 118). Cracco Ruggini Reference Cracco Ruggini and Pippidi1976: 468 draws a sharp distinction between the ‘oligarchic’ Western collegia and the ‘contractual’ ones in the Greek East; I agree with the basic distinction, but the evidence from Philippopolis and Hierapolis points to the influence of Roman models. She does note the case of the Hierapolitan purple-dyers on p. 471 (and p. 491 n. 113), but dismisses it as isolated.

63 SEG 46, 1656 (Ritti Reference Ritti1992/93) supersedes the edition in AvH 342. Cf. also Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 414–22, no. 196.

64 Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 421 is certainly correct in refuting assumptions about the Jewishness of the purple-dyers and the carpet-weavers (contra Miranda Reference Miranda1999: 141–3). Harland Reference Harland2006: 235–9, arguing for the presence of a significant number of Jews in both associations, gives an overview of earlier assumptions. While there may obviously have been Jews in these associations, the inscription cannot prove it; celebrating the feast of unleavened bread and Pentecost were Glykon's conditions for receiving the endowment.

65 CIL VI 10234; 33885; cf. Ausbüttel Reference Ausbüttel1982: 53–4.

66 Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997: 64 regards the celebration of the Rosalia as ‘a deliberate statement of (assumed) Roman cultural identity’. This may be true, but it is not necessarily a statement made by the association. On Western collegia celebrating the Rosalia, cf. Ausbüttel Reference Ausbüttel1982: 69; on terminology and the rite's distribution in the Greek East, cf. Kokkinia Reference Kokkinia1999: 209–17. Another example for special wishes of a donor in Hierapolis may be the enigmatic ‘burning of the papoi (ἀποκαυσμὸς τῶν παπων)’, carried out by an association of shepherds in response to an endowment by M. Aurelius Diodoros Koreskos (AvH 227b).

67 These considerations may in fact explain the designation of professional associations as ϕυλαί in Saittai and especially Philadelphia, which has been taken to reflect age-old Anatolian social divisions (Cracco Ruggini Reference Cracco Ruggini and Pippidi1976: 471), but more likely represents a desire to incorporate professional groups into a Romanized civic order. On Lydian professional associations, cf. Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou2011; a survey of the use of ϕυλή for associations is given by Kunnert Reference Kunnert2012: 23–35.

68 DiMaggio and Powell Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983: 149.

69 DiMaggio and Powell Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983: 151–2.

71 Knowledge of law: Kantor Reference Kantor and Haensch2009. New find from Miletus: Ehrhardt and Günther Reference Ehrhardt and Günther2013 (Hadrian's ratification of an οἶκος ναυκλήρων). The very brief reply seems to suggest standard practice. Cf. Dig. 3.4.1pr (Gaius), where navicularii are explicitly mentioned. That the process of ratification was modified under Hadrian seems to be suggested by a new inscription from Ostia (121 c.e.; Laubry and Zevi Reference Laubry and Zevi2012), which also gives a new legal context for the well-known introduction to CIL XIV 2112 (136 c.e., Lanuvium).

72 Plin., Ep. 10.34.1; CIL III 7060; TAM II 175.

73 On regulations during the civil war, cf. Ausbüttel Reference Ausbüttel1982: 85–92. For the general ban, cf. Dig. 47.22.1pr (Marcianus): ‘… ne patiantur esse collegia sodalicia neve milites collegia in castris habeant … quod non tantum in urbe, sed et in italia et in provinciis locum habere divus quoque severus rescripsit.’ On ratification, cf. Dig. 50.6.6.12 (Callistratus): ‘Quibusdam collegiis vel corporibus, quibus ius coeundi lege permissum est, immunitas tribuitur: scilicet eis collegiis vel corporibus, in quibus artificii sui causa unusquisque adsumitur, ut fabrorum corpus est et si qua eandem rationem originis habent, id est idcirco instituta sunt, ut necessariam operam publicis utilitatibus exhiberent’; cf. Dig. 3.4.1pr (Gaius); 47.22.3.1 (Marcianus).

74 Dig. 47.22.1pr (Marcianus): ‘sed permittitur tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen semel in mense coeant’; 47.22.1.1: ‘sed religionis causa coire non prohibentur, dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra senatus consultum, quo illicita collegia arcentur.’ For a traditional view on tenuiores, cf. Randazzo Reference Randazzo1998, who also argues (239) that religio refers to funerals. But the term is used in a less technical sense (cf. Bendlin Reference Bendlin, Kippenberg and Schuppert2005), and tenuiores are not a well-defined category of people. It is also not epigraphically attested, and attempts to restore a reference to the tenuiores in the SC that introduces CIL XIV 2112 (Lanuvium, 136 c.e.) are problematic; cf. Bendlin Reference Bendlin and Öhler2011: 231–4. Laubry and Zevi Reference Laubry and Zevi2012: 311–12 consider the possibility of inserting them into a gap in a fragmentary SC from Ostia (121 c.e.), but judge this reconstruction to be too insecure.

75 This may be regarded as an inversion of the argument made by De Ligt Reference De Ligt2001. He rightly notes that cases like the νέοι from Kyzikos, the γερουσία of Sidyma or, from the West, the Augustales of Brixia (CIL V 4428) point to a category of ‘semi-public collegia’, but argues that these had to ask for permission because they had at least some members who were not tenuiores; in contrast, the professional associations who asked for permission were not ‘semi-public’ and did consist of tenuiores, but simply wanted to meet more often than once a month. I hold that νέοι, γερουσίαι, Augustales, and professional associations all ‘required’ permission for the same reason, namely that they wanted to be treated as official collegia. They all were ‘semi-public’ or perhaps simply ‘public’, which also explains the involvement of third parties (Pliny proposing the establishment of the Nikomedeian fabri to Trajan — contra De Ligt Reference De Ligt2001: 347 n. 13, nothing is known about their own ‘eagerness to establish a collegium’; the cities of Miletus and Sidyma asking for permission for their respective corporations of ship-owners and old men).

76 Dig. 3.4.1.1 (Gaius): ‘Quibus autem permissum est corpus habere collegii societatis sive cuiusque alterius eorum nomine, proprium est ad exemplum rei publicae habere res communes, arcam communem et actorem sive syndicum, per quem tamquam in re publica, quod communiter agi fierique oporteat, agatur fiat.’

77 Dig. 47.22.1.1 (Marcianus): ‘Non licet autem amplius quam unum collegium licitum habere.’ The regulation concerns only collegia licita, cf. Ausbüttel Reference Ausbüttel1982: 103–4. Ritti Reference Ritti and Giannattasio1995: 71 rightly cautions against the assumption that the Hierapolitan endowments to associations were always made by members.

78 Liu Reference Liu and Aubert2005 points to local diversity and stresses the need to give up the focus on centralist government through repressive laws. This may be granted, especially as it fits recent trends in the study of Roman imperial law well, but it does not touch upon the issue of how Roman law may have worked as an incentive.

79 Ordo-making: Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997. Prestige drawn from labour: Tran Reference Tran2013 (focused on the West, but incorporating some evidence from the Eastern provinces as well).

80 SEG 33, 1135; cf. discussion by Ritti Reference Ritti1983: 180.

81 AvH 153, ll. 4–5. Secret symbols: Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: 114; against this idea, cf. Ziebarth Reference Ziebarth1896: 55, 67 (who opts for a military background); they are called a ‘priesthood’ by Cichorius (AvH, p. 42).

82 AvH 227b (Ritti Reference Ritti and Giannattasio1995: 70 mentions another attestation in an as yet unpublished inscription). Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: 118–19 thought that the group consisted of Christians (‘sheep’ as followers of Jesus). Other scholars have related the ἐργασία θρεμματική to θρέπτοι, arguing that the group consisted of adopted slaves or was a benevolent society taking care of foundlings (Waltzing Reference Waltzing1895: 184–5, 307; Van Nijf Reference Van Nijf1997: 61 n. 152). The term ἐργασία certainly points to a professional association. Cichorius (AvH, p. 48), followed by Poland Reference Poland1909: 119, argued that the group was ‘die Genossenschaft der Herdenbesitzer’; this view is also taken by Ritti Reference Ritti and Giannattasio1995: 73 and Dittmann-Schöne Reference Dittmann-Schöne2001: 241–2. Such revisions have not affected the Hierapolitan documents alone: an association of ‘angel-lovers’ (ϕιλανγέλων συνβίωσις), known from a votive offering to Hosios and Dikaios deposited in a highly frequented sanctuary between Kotiaion and Aizanoi, has recently turned into an association of vine-lovers (ϕιλανπέλων) — perhaps a professional association, or a drinking club. Cf. Malay Reference Malay2005 (SEG 31, 1130 + 55, 1418).

83 cf. on the problem of typologies, Kloppenborg Reference Kloppenborg, Kloppenborg and Wilson1996; Harland Reference Harland2003: 25–44. Recently, Steinhauer Reference Steinhauer2014 has returned to the older model of strict functional differentiation between professional and religious associations.

84 In light of the recent and justified trend towards integrating Jews and Christians into the history of voluntary associations (cf. especially Harland Reference Harland2003), this assessment needs to be qualified. Christians had their own cemeteries, but did not participate in the epigraphic trend towards corporate representation, perhaps not least due to special laws that did not allow such publicity to appear desirable; they are left out of consideration here. Jewish communities are epigraphically better attested; the evidence is conveniently assembled by Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 342–448. Only a small number of these inscriptions refer to communal organization. In some cases, Jews are shown to follow the regular patterns of behaviour towards professional associations; cf. the endowments of Publius Aelius Glaukon (above, n. 63) and Aurelius Aristeas (Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 357–62, no. 171, from Akmoneia). Only Hierapolis yields occasional evidence showing that the local Jewish community could act like associations at least with regard to grave care; cf. Miranda Reference Miranda1999; Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 398–440. But the terminology still differs from all other associations (especially Ameling Reference Ameling2004: 432, no. 205, ll. 4–5: δώσει τῆ κατοικίᾳ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει κατοικούντων Ἰουδαίων, with the copy deposited not in the civic archive, but ἐν τῷ ἀρχίῳ τῶν Ἰουδαίων; 436, no. 206, ll. 5–6: ἀποτείσει τῷ λαῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων; the term λαός is never used by non-Jewish associations). The Jewish community of Hierapolis seems to stress its separation from the city rather than its involvement in civic affairs; this may in fact have been the reason for an individual Jew like Glaukon entrusting the care of his grave to the purple-dyers and the carpet-weavers instead.

85 IK Laodikeia 63.

86 Suggested by Corsten in IK Laodikeia ad loc.; cf. also Ritti Reference Ritti2002: 51–2.

87 Poland Reference Poland1909: 84–5 (‘eine Erscheinung Kleinasiens […], über die das Urteil notwendig sehr vorsichtig ausfallen muß, die uns aber in merkwürdiger Weise die mächtige Einwirkung des genossenschaftlichen Treibens vor Augen stellt. Sehen wir doch kleinere politische Einheiten ganz die Formen des Kultvereins annehmen’).

88 cf. Ricl Reference Ricl2003.

90 Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 225 argues that they were ‘vereinsartig organisiert’. The phenomenon is restricted to larger and more ambitious villages (227–9).

91 Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: nos 30–1; for full discussion with drawings, see Ramsay Reference Ramsay1927: 196–211. No photo was made, and the stones are now lost. Cf. Ritti Reference Ritti2002: 48–51.

92 No. 14 in the first list (Apollonios Mikketou) and no. 13 in the second (Zeuxios Apolloniou Mikketou); no. 9 in the first list (Diodoros IV Gorgion) and no. 2 (one of the leaders) in the second (Athenagoras Diodorou Gorgionos; he might in turn be the father of the leader mentioned first, Diodoros Athenagorou). Almost certain is the pair Eiollas Zeuxidos (first list no. 18) and Zeuxios II Iolla (second list no. 9). A number of other links are plausible, e.g. Zosimos Alexandrou and Euxenion Zosimou. Cf. Ramsay Reference Ramsay1927: 208–9.

93 Robert Reference Robert1983: 62–3 thinks that the παραϕύλαξ was sent from Hierapolis to ensure that the village festival was carried out in an orderly fashion. On the competence of παραϕύλακες, cf. Brélaz Reference Brélaz2005: 133–41. He argues (135 n. 289) that the presence of the παραϕύλαξ links the whole ϕράτρα to Hierapolis. In my view, the local context is the dominant one; see below.

94 Published by Robert Reference Robert1983: 46–52 (SEG 34, 1298). His assumption that the stele originally contained representations of twenty-four members like the ones from Thiunta was based on an inadequate photo; the monument is in fact completely preserved. Cf. Chuvin Reference Chuvin1987 (reproducing a photo and a letter by P. Dessalle).

95 On the Motaleis and other villages with ‘their’ θεοί cf. Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 248–9.

96 Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: 156, no. 64. The main activity commemorated by the stele is not totally clear. L. 1 has ἀνέθηκεν, apparently without an object (thus referring to the stele); l. 2 has the ‘leaders of the Melokometai’ honour someone (presumably the person mentioned before, who can hardly be regarded as the object of ἀνέθηκεν, a possibility considered by Ramsay). On the capacity of religion to foster ‘village fraternity’, cf. Mitchell Reference Mitchell1993: 1.185–7.

97 SEG 34, 1299; 44, 1087.

98 As assumed by Robert Reference Robert1983: 50.

99 Thonemann Reference Thonemann2011: 263–4. Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 225 has already raised the problem of the size of the phratra and argued that they united ‘einige oder gar alle Mitglieder der dörflichen Elite’. The size of Phrygian families in the imperial era is relevant to the argument, but must remain uncertain. Gnoli and Thornton Reference Gnoli, Thornton, Gusmani, Salvini and Vannicelli1997: 162 and others have calculated an average of only four members of the nuclear family based on the funerary inscriptions. But Thonemann Reference Thonemann and Thonemann2013b: 125–7 points to the problems involved, as the data are filtered through both the epigraphic habit and funerary customs.

100 SEG 40, 1192 = MAMA XI 110 (215/16 c.e.; trans. P. Thonemann). On the Achaean claim, cf. Weiß Reference Weiß2000.

101 Stressed by Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 224–5.

102 cf., e.g., Chiai Reference Chiai and Auffarth2009: 142 (Apollon Lairbenos); Price Reference Price1984: 97–8 (Xenoi Tekmoreioi near Antioch in Pisidia).

103 Ramsay Reference Ramsay1927: 190–211.

104 Dorylaion: MAMA IX 89 (found at Aizanoi, but cf. the commentary ad loc.). Orkistos: IGR IV 548 (third century c.e.): οἱ περὶ τὴν γειτο|νίασιν τοῦ χ[ώ]ρου | Αὐρ. Ἀντιόχου Παπᾶ | κληρονόμοι καὶ | {καὶ} Αὐρ. Ἀπελλᾶς | Ἀλεξάνδρου μετὰ | καὶ πάντων τῶν | {τῶν} περὶ αὐ|τοὺς ϕρα|τόρων ὑπὲρ | τοῦ κυρίου | ἡμῶν τύχη[ς] | καὶ νείκης | καὶ ἐων[ί]ου διαμο|νῆς ἀνεστήσαμεν | θεῷ εὐχ[ήν]. A grammatically consistent translation would have to posit three actors: The κληρονόμοι from the neighbourhood of the land of Aurelius Antiochus, the individual Aurelius Apellas, and all the ϕράτορες around ‘them’, i.e. men in some way related to either the κληρονόμοι or Aurelius Apellas. I regard as irrelevant for this debate the groups of ἑταῖροι who bury their comrades (e.g. MAMA VI 47; Ritti and Baysal Reference Ritti and Baysal2008: 199, no. 99; 216–18, no. 137), because it is unclear whether or not they had an organized form.

105 Published by Ritti and Baysal Reference Ritti and Baysal2008: 178, no. 84. This could be an association, as the editors argue, but cf. no. 83, where ὁ χῶρος ὁ Πανοσκοπιατῶν sets up a memorial for a certain Diogenes — presumably a village community (on the term χῶρος, cf. Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 53–5). Diodoros’ ϕράτρα could be a representation of his village. A third option would be to see the ϕράτρα as a group of relatives; for a similar use of ἰδία, see below, n. 140.

106 Ramsay Reference Ramsay1895–97: no. 506 (area of Sebaste; 169/70 c.e.): the ϕράτρα of (genitive, not περί) Heliophon son of Antiochos and Pompeius son of Marcus made a dedication to Men Askaenos (no list of members); MAMA IV 230 (Tymandos; third century c.e.): οἱ περὶ Αὐρ. Ἀρτέμωνα Ἑρμοκλ[έ]ους ϕράτρα Μηνὶ Πλουριστρέων εὐχήν (one leader; note the grammatically inconsistent designation, resulting from the combination of two well-established ways of naming a group: οἱ περί + personal name on the one hand, the corporate term ϕράτρα on the other).

107 Βοth ἑταιρείαι and ϕράτορες are mentioned in Dig. 47.22.4 (Gaius supposedly citing Solon; against authenticy, cf. Arnaoutoglou Reference Arnaoutoglou, Cartledge, Millett and von Reden1998: 72–3).

109 Published by Miranda Reference Miranda2003, who tends towards seeing him as the functionary of an association (170).

110 Akmoneia: MAMA VI 239; the numeral seems to indicate that there were other associations in the region; cf. Poland Reference Poland1909: 172. Apollonia: MAMA IV 167 (first or second century c.e.).

111 Published by Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1947–9 (SEG 40, 1223). The two priests are T. Flavius Fortunatus and Dionysios son of Menandros; the first is a Roman citizen, the second may belong to the family of Menandros son of Dionysios and Dionysios son of Dionysios, who belonged to the γερουσία of Sebaste in 98/99 c.e. (cf. Drew-Bear and Naour, ibid.). This does not, however, mean that the inscription belongs to the last quarter of the first century, as assumed by Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 166–7.

112 Haspels Reference Haspels1962; Cole Reference Cole1991; Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 152–60.

113 Haspels Reference Haspels1962: 287. Contrast Cole Reference Cole1991: 46–8.

114 [Μύστ]αι with functionaries: Drew-Bear Reference Drew-Bear1978: no. 1 (SEG 28, 1187); [ν]έοι μύσται: MAMA V p. 183 (SEG 20,37; Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 153–4); σπείρη: MAMA VI p. 151, no. 207 (SEG 41, 1171): Ἀγαθῇ Τύχῃ. | Αὐρήλιοι | Ἐπιτύνχανος κα[ὶ] | Ἐπίνικος σὺν τῆ μη|τρὶ Τερτύλλῃ πατέρα | Τελέσϕορον ἀπε<ε>ι|έρωσαν. | ἔτους τλδ’ (249/50 c.e.) | σὺν τῇ εἱερᾷ εἰσ|πείρῃ ἧς καὶ εἱρ[ο]|ϕάντης. The latter inscription purportedly comes from Akmoneia and is still attributed to that city by Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 163–4, but probably comes from the Upper Tembris valley; cf. Mitchell Reference Mitchell1993: 2.47.

115 Κοροσεανοί: Haspels Reference Haspels1962: 286 (Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 154–5); Πτολεμηνοί: MAMA V KB 6 (Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 152–3); Κρηουερηνοὶ: read ΚΗΙΟΥΕΡΗΝΟΙ by Haspels Reference Haspels1971: no. 139; cf. for other readings Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet2003: 156, who follows the proposal by Frei reproduced here.

116 On ‘Mysterisierung’ in the imperial era, cf. Auffarth Reference Auffarth2013: 433–6; Belayche Reference Belayche, Bricault and Bonnet2013.

117 This is not to enter the question of ‘real’ vs. ‘pseudo’-mysteries in the imperial era; cf. Jaccottet Reference Jaccottet, Bonnet, Rüpke and Scarpi2006: 219–20.

118 Cults labelled ‘mysteries’ were likely to be supported by the Roman provincial administration; cf. the documents discussed by Petzl Reference Petzl and Martínez Fernández2009.

119 Ramsay Reference Ramsay1889: 17–23, no. 1; Laum Reference Laum1914: nos 175–6.

120 This is denied by Kunnert Reference Kunnert2012: 28, because whoever does not participate in the gatherings will be excluded from the revenues, not from other activities of the association. But it is not clear that there were such other activities. Lines A 13–14 could be taken as evidence for the recent creation of the group: τ[οῖ]ς συνεστῶ[σιν] ἀπὸ ἄρτι [μ]ύσταις.

121 Kunnert Reference Kunnert2012: 26–8 objects to the idea that there was a civic ϕυλὴ Διός, because ‘initiates’ always defines a select, exclusive group. But the terminological inflation has to be taken into account; in addition, the μύσται are not grammatically identified with the ϕύλη.

122 Justly criticized by Ritti Reference Ritti and Giannattasio1995: 68–9.

123 Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1956–61, 1987–91; cf. Schwabl Reference Schwabl1999: 346–8. Earlier attempts had relied on Celtic benna, ‘wagon’ (especially Ramsay Reference Ramsay1927: 182–9).

124 MAMA X 304 (second century c.e.).

125 SEG 40, 1221 (after 212 c.e.): Αὐρήλιοι | [Ἑ]ρμῆς Δημ|[ᾶ]δος σὺν | Ἀνδρέᾳ δὶς | Ἀβουαδεινεῖ|ται ἐστεϕάνω|σαν τὸ βέννος | Διὸς Βροντῶντος.

126 SEG 36, 1150: ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ · Διὶ Βενίῳ ἐπηκόῳ Ἀπολλώνιος Σαινιανὸς ἀντὶ τῶν εἰς αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ βέν|νους εὐεργεσιῶν εὐσεβείας ἕνεκα καὶ τε[ιμ]ῆς τῆς πρὸς τὸ βέννος τὸν βωμὸν ἀνέθηκα.

127 MAMA I 390; cf. the translation for πατρὶς ἐμὴ βέννευε by Schwabl Reference Schwabl1999: 354 n. 22: ‘Mein Vaterland, sollst verbunden sein …’. Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1991 had taken the verb to mean ‘les activités de l'association’.

128 MAMA V 176: Μᾶρκος | Μάρκου | Διὶ Βροντῶν|τι καὶ Βεννει | Σερε̣ανῶ στ|έ̣ϕανον. Cf. MAMA V 175, where the same procedure is mentioned without the term βέννος. Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1998–2000 speculate that SEG 40, 1221 might refer to the same association, the only one in the territory of the Sereanoi. But the parallel between MAMA V 175 and 176 seems to point not to associations, but to a village in its capacity as cult community.

129 SEG 40, 1229 (for the reading βέννει Σοηνῶν, see Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1989, against Βεννεισοηνῶν [CIG 38571]). This case is especially interesting because the Soenoi are also attested in later inscriptions: in the mid-third century c.e., they had a κοινὸς δῆμος together with the Moiteanoi (MAMA X 114, 244–47 c.e.), but later apparently possessed the status of a πόλις (IGR IV 605, a dedication by ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος Σοηνῶν); for the development, see Strubbe Reference Strubbe1975: 235 (but note the rebuttal of his terminus ante quem for IGR IV 605 by Drew-Bear and Eck Reference Drew-Bear and Eck1976: 294 n. 12). Leaving aside this last stage, a tentative explanation could base itself on an observation by Schuler Reference Schuler1998: 222, namely that villages could be united in a common δῆμος for political purposes, but remain separate entities in the cultic sphere. In this case, βέννος instead of δῆμος may have marked the difference on a terminological level. But this reconstruction must remain insecure, as it is not clear that the κοινὸς δῆμος of the Soenoi and the Moiteanoi existed in the time of Trajan.

130 SEG 6,550: Ὁ αὐτὸς Σκύ|μνος καὶ ἔτι | ἐπικαταλεί|πω τῇ κώμῃ | (δηνάρια) ρ’ἐκ τόκου | γείνεσθαι βέ<ν>|νος Δεῒ Καλα|καγαθίῳ ὑ|πὲρ καρπῶν.

131 Contrast Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1991 and Schwabl Reference Schwabl1999: 349, who argue that γείνεσθαι refers to the founding of an association.

132 That the basic meaning is ‘feast’ was argued by Şahin Reference Şahin, Şahin, Schwertheim and Wagner1978 (780–1 on the endowmen of Skymnos).

133 In Phrygia and elsewhere, there were also πανηγυριάρχεις, without anyone arguing that a πανήγυρις was an association. For βεννάρχης = σπειράρχης, see Drew-Bear and Naour Reference Drew-Bear and Naour1990: 1991. The term βεννάρχης is attested twice: in I. Nikaia 1206 (131/2 c.e.), the δῆμος Μοσσυνεανῶν καὶ Συνλαντηνῶν honours Okktaios son of Okktaios, βεννάρχης ἐκ προγόνων, its benefactor δὶα βίου, and an unpublished inscription from eastern Phrygia mentions a βεννάρχης θεοῦ Ἀντηνῶν (cf. the information given by Drew-Bear and Naour, ibid.). The first case is difficult to reconcile with the view that βέννος always means a cult association; the assumption that Okktaios was the organizer of a regular feast (cf. Şahin in I. Nikaia, p. 287) fits the impression of a civic office conveyed by the decree (through the standard formulae ἐκ προγόνων, δὶα βίου) much better (comparable perhaps to an ἀγωνοθέτης). In the second case, the identity of the Ἀντηνοί is unclear, but they were probably a village. The assumption that the βεννάρχης θεοῦ Ἀντηνῶν was responsible for organizing a festival for the main god of that village is not far-fetched. In both cases, the alternative would rather not be the ‘normal’ private associations envisaged by Drew-Bear and Naour, but the model developed above for ϕράτρα etc.

134 McLaughlin Reference McLaughlin2001 discussed the biblical texts and also assembled (9–64) most of the extra-biblical evidence.

135 e.g. RES 1423 (mrzḥ’ of Obodas); Negev Reference Negev1963: 113–17, no. 10 (mrzḥ’ of Dushara).

136 The normal translation for mrzḥ’ was συμπόσιον. Cf. Kaizer Reference Kaizer2002: 229–34.

137 Mainly through procuratorial jurisdiction; cf. Kantor Reference Kantor and Thonemann2013: 158–61.

138 The evidence is assembled by Polito Reference Polito2004.

139 Excluding ΜΑΜΑ V 183, where the reconstruction [… ἀδελϕι]|δοῦ μου is likely. Cf. on earlier discussions Polito Reference Polito2004: 24–5.

140 Drew-Bear et al. Reference Drew-Bear, Thomas and Yildizturan1999: 137, no. 167: […]ς ὑπὲρ ἰδίου δούμου | [- - -]τη|ς [Διὶ - -]νῷ | [ε]ὐχήν; for the interpretation, see Neumann Reference Neumann2002.

141 MAMA V p. 182; new edition and translation in Woudhuizen Reference Woudhuizen2008/2009: 213.

142 cf. Kretschmer Reference Kretschmer1900. He also argued that Ενσταρνα was the name of the village, but more recent discussions see enstar as analogous to ἐνίστημι: Lubotsky Reference Lubotsky, Gusmani, Salvini and Vannicelli1997: 123; Woudhuizen Reference Woudhuizen2008/2009: 213.

143 This explanation presupposes that κώμη should be understood as ‘village’ and not as ‘religious association’, and that the understanding of δοῦμος should be based on the Greek parallel, because this is the text that we completely understand (contrast the above-mentioned treatments, which give priority to δοῦμος = association and argue from here). That the ‘father’ mentioned in the text is not the leader of an association (Lubotsky Reference Lubotsky, Gusmani, Salvini and Vannicelli1997: 120, 128), but the father of the deceased has already been noted by Polito Reference Polito2004: 29.

144 cf. for similar observations in other fields Schuler Reference Schuler, Davies and Wilkes2012: esp. 90–1.

146 cf. Ando Reference Ando and Whitmarsh2010 (18 for the quotation).

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agusta-Boularot, S., and Seigne, J. 2004: ‘La vie civique de Gerasa de la Décapole. L'apport des inscriptions du “théâtre” nord de Jerash (Jordanie)’, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 116, 481569 Google Scholar
Alföldy, G. 2005: ‘Romanisation – Grundbegriff oder Fehlgriff? Überlegungen zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Erforschung von Integrationsprozessen im römischen Weltreich’, in Visy, Z. (ed.), Limes XIX, Pécs, 2556 Google Scholar
Ameling, W. 2004: Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis. Band II: Kleinasien, Tübingen Google Scholar
Ando, C. 2010: ‘Imperial identities’, in Whitmarsh, T. (ed.), Local Knowledge and Microidentities in the Imperial Greek World, Cambridge, 1745 Google Scholar
Arnaoutoglou, I. N. 1998: ‘Between koinon and idion: legal and social dimensions of religious associations in ancient Athens’, in Cartledge, P., Millett, P. and von Reden, S. (eds), Kosmos. Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, Cambridge, 6883 Google Scholar
Arnaoutoglou, I. N. 2002: ‘Roman law and collegia in Asia Minor’, Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 49, 2744 Google Scholar
Arnaoutoglou, I. N. 2011: ‘Craftsmen associations in Roman Lydia – a tale of two cities?’, Ancient Society 41, 257–90Google Scholar
Auffarth, C. 2013: ‘Mysterien (Mysterienkulte)’, Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 25, 422–71Google Scholar
Ausbüttel, F. 1982: Studien zu den Vereinen im Westen des römischen Reiches, Kallmünz Google Scholar
AvH: Humann, C. et al. (eds), Altertümer von Hierapolis (1898), Berlin Google Scholar
Belayche, N. 2013: ‘L’évolution des formes rituelles: hymnes et mystèria’, in Bricault, L. and Bonnet, C. (eds), Panthée: Religious Transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire, Leiden, 1740 Google Scholar
Bendlin, A. 2005: ‘“Eine Zusammenkunft um der religio willen ist erlaubt … ”? Zu den politischen und rechtlichen Konstruktionen von (religiöser) Vergemeinschaftung in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, in Kippenberg, H. G. and Schuppert, G. F. (eds), Die verrechtlichte Religion. Der Öffentlichkeitsstatus von Religionsgemeinschaften, Tübingen, 65107 Google Scholar
Bendlin, A. 2011: ‘Associations, funerals, sociality, and Roman law: the collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.2112) reconsidered’, in Öhler, M. (ed.), Aposteldekret und antikes Vereinswesen. Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung, Tübingen, 207–96Google Scholar
Benndorf, O., and Niemann, G. 1884: Reisen in Lykien und Karien, Vienna Google Scholar
Brélaz, C. 2005: La Sécurité publique en Asie Mineure sous le Principat (Ier–IIIème s. ap. J.-C.). Institutions municipales et institutions impériales dans l'Orient romain, Basel Google Scholar
Cadwallader, A. H. 2007: ‘A new inscription, a correction and a confirmed sighting from Colossae’, Epigraphica Anatolica 40, 109–18Google Scholar
Cadwallader, A. H., and Trainor, M. (eds) 2011: Colossae in Space and Time. Linking to an Ancient City, Göttingen Google Scholar
Çenival, F. de 1988: ‘Papyrus Seymour de Ricci: le plus ancien des règlements d'association religieuse (4ème siècle av. J.-C.) (Pap. Bibl. Nationale E 241)’, Revue d’Égyptologie 39, 3746 Google Scholar
Chiai, G. F. 2009: ‘Die Ortsgebundenheit des Religiösen: Das Paradigma der ländlichen Heiligtümer Phrygiens in der Kaiserzeit’, in Auffarth, C. (ed.), Religion auf dem Lande. Entstehung und Veränderung von Sakrallandschaften unter römischer Herrschaft, Stuttgart, 133–60Google Scholar
Chuvin, P. 1987: ‘Une stèle des Motaleis, sur le territoire de Hièrapolis’, Revue archéologique, 107–8Google Scholar
Cole, S. G. 1991: ‘Dionysiac mysteries in Phrygia in the imperial period’, Epigraphica Anatolica 17, 41–9Google Scholar
Cracco Ruggini, L. 1976: ‘La vita associativa nelle città dell'Oriente greco: tradizioni locali e influenze romane’, in Pippidi, D. M. (ed.), Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde ancien, Bucharest, 463–91Google Scholar
De Ligt, L. 2001: ‘D. 47,22,1,pr.-1 and the formation of semi-public collegia’, Latomus 60, 340–58Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. 1983: ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48, 147–60Google Scholar
Dittmann-Schöne, I. 2001: Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens, Regensburg Google Scholar
Dondin-Payre, M., and Tran, N. (eds) 2012: Collegia. Le phénomène associatif dans l'Occident romain, Paris Google Scholar
Drew-Bear, T. 1978: Nouvelles inscriptions de Phrygie, Zutphen Google Scholar
Drew-Bear, T., and Eck, W. 1976: ‘Kaiser-, Militär- und Steinbruchinschriften aus Phrygien’, Chiron 6, 289318 Google Scholar
Drew-Bear, T., and Naour, C. 1990: ‘Divinités de Phrygie’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II , 18, 3, 19072044 Google Scholar
Drew-Bear, T., Thomas, C., and Yildizturan, M. 1999: Phrygian Votive Steles, Ankara Google Scholar
Ehrhardt, N., and Günther, W. 2013: ‘Hadrian, Milet und die Korporation der milesischen Schiffseigner. Zu einem neu gefundenen kaiserlichen Schreiben’, Chiron 43, 199220 Google Scholar
Engelmann, H. 2012: ‘Inschriften von Patara’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 182, 179201 Google Scholar
Erdemir, H. 2011: ‘Woollen textiles: an international trade good in the Lycus valley in antiquity’, in Cadwallader and Trainor 2011, 104–29Google Scholar
Feyel, C. 2009: Δοκιμασία. La place et le rôle de l'examen préliminaire dans les institutions des cités grecques, Paris Google Scholar
Gabba, E. 1984: ‘The collegia of Numa: problems of method and political ideas’, Journal of Roman Studies 74, 81–6Google Scholar
Gabrielsen, V. 2007: ‘Brotherhoods of faith and provident planning: the non-public associations of the Greek world’, Mediterranean Historical Review 22, 183210 Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, N. 2008: Ο Θεσμός της Γερουσίας των Ελληνικών Πόλεων κατά τους Ρωμαϊκούς Χρόνους. Οργάνωση και Λειτουργίες, Thessalonike Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, N. 2013: ‘The gerousia of Akmonia’, Gephyra 10, 1331 Google Scholar
Gnoli, T., and Thornton, J. 1997: ‘Σώζε τὴν κατοικίαν. Società e religione nella Frigia romana. Note introduttive’, in Gusmani, R., Salvini, M. and Vannicelli, P. (eds), Frigi e Frigio, Rome, 153200 Google Scholar
Harland, P. 2003: Associations, Synagogues and Congregations. Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society, Minneapolis Google Scholar
Harland, P. 2006: ‘Acculturation and identity in the Diaspora: a Jewish family and “pagan” guilds at Hierapolis’, Journal of Jewish Studies 57, 222–44Google Scholar
Harland, P. A. 2014: Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translation, and Commentary. Vol. II: North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor, Berlin CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspels, C. H. E. 1962: ‘Relics of a Dionysiac cult in Asia Minor’, American Journal of Archaeology 66, 285–87Google Scholar
Haspels, C. H. E. 1971: The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments, Princeton Google Scholar
Huttner, U. 2008: ‘Die Färber von Laodikeia und Hierapolis. Eine Nachricht aus dem Corpus der Alchemisten’, Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 26, 139–57Google Scholar
Jaccottet, A.-F. 2003: Choisir Dionysos. Les associations dionysiaques ou la face cachée du dionysisme, Vol. 2, Zürich Google Scholar
Jaccottet, A.-F. 2006: ‘Un dieu, plusieurs mystères? Les différents visages des mystères dionysiaques’, in Bonnet, C., Rüpke, J. and Scarpi, P. (eds), Religions orientales – culti misterici. Neue Perspektiven – nouvelles perspectives – prospettive nuove, Stuttgart, 219–30Google Scholar
Jones, C. P. 1987: ‘Sophron the comoedos’, Classical Quarterly 37, 208–12Google Scholar
Kaizer, T. 2002: The Religious Life of Palmyra. A Study of the Social Patterns of Worship in the Roman Period, Stuttgart Google Scholar
Kantor, G. 2009: ‘Knowledge of law in Roman Asia Minor’, in Haensch, R. (ed.), Selbstdarstellung und Kommunikation. Die Veröffentlichung staatlicher Urkunden auf Stein und Bronze in der römischen Welt, Munich, 249–65Google Scholar
Kantor, G. 2013: ‘Law in Roman Phrygia: rules and jurisdictions’, in Thonemann, P. (ed.), Roman Phrygia. Culture and Society, Cambridge, 143–67Google Scholar
Kearsley, R. A. 2011: ‘Epigraphic evidence for the social impact of Roman government in Laodicea and Hierapolis’, in Cadwallader and Trainor 2011, 130–50Google Scholar
Kirbihler, F. 2007: ‘Die Italiker in Kleinasien, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Ephesos (133 v. Chr.–1. Jh. n. Chr.)’, in Meyer, M. (ed.), Neue Zeiten – Neue Sitten. Zu Rezeption und Integration römischen und italischen Kulturguts in Kleinasien, Vienna, 1935 Google Scholar
Kloppenborg, J. S. 1996: ‘Collegia and thiasoi. Issues in function, taxonomy and membership’, in Kloppenborg, J. S. and Wilson, S. G. (eds), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, London, 1630 Google Scholar
Kokkinia, C. 1999: ‘Rosen für die Toten im griechischen Raum und eine neue ῥοδισμός-Inschrift aus Bithynien’, Museum Helveticum 56, 204–21Google Scholar
Kolb, A. 2003: ‘Δεκάνιον – ein hapax legomenon’, Epigraphica Anatolica 36, 115–19Google Scholar
Kretschmer, P. 1900: ‘Bilinguis aus Dorylaion’, Athenische Mitteilungen 25, 445–6Google Scholar
Kunnert, U. 2012: Bürger unter sich. Phylen in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Ostens, Basel Google Scholar
Laubry, N., and Zevi, F. 2012: ‘Inscriptions d'Ostie et phénomène associatif dans l'empire romain: nouveaux documents et nouvelles considérations’, Archeologia Classica 63, 297343 Google Scholar
Laum, B. 1914: Stiftungen in der griechischen und römischen Antike. Ein Beitrag zur antiken Kulturgeschichte. Band 2: Urkunden, Leipzig Google Scholar
Le Roux, P. 2004: ‘La romanisation en question’, Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 59, 287311 Google Scholar
Liebenam, W. 1890: Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens. 3 Untersuchungen, Leipzig Google Scholar
Liu, J. 2005: ‘Local governments and collegia: a new appraisal of the evidence’, in Aubert, J.-J. et al. (eds), A Tall Order. Writing the Social History of the Ancient World. Essays in Honour of William V. Harris, Leiden, 285316 Google Scholar
Lubotsky, A. 1997: ‘New Phrygian inscription no. 48: palaeographic and linguistic comments’, in Gusmani, R., Salvini, M. and Vannicelli, P. (eds), Frigi e Frigio, Rome, 115–30Google Scholar
Malay, H. 2005: ‘Φιλάνπελοι in Phrygia and Lydia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 38 (2005), 42–4Google Scholar
Martin, K. 2013: Demos – Boule – Gerousia. Personifikationen städtischer Institutionen auf kaiserzeitlichen Münzen aus Kleinasien, Bonn Google Scholar
McLaughlin, J. L. 2001: The marzēaḥ in the Prophetic Literature. References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence, Leiden Google Scholar
Mentxaka, R. 1995/96: ‘El derecho de asociación en Roma a la luz del cap. 74 de la “Lex Irnitana”’, Bulletino dell'istituto di diritto romano 37/38, 199218 Google Scholar
Miranda, E. 1999: ‘La comunità giudaica di Hierapolis di Frigia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 31, 109–56Google Scholar
Miranda, E. 2003: ‘Dioniso Kathegemon a Hierapolis di Frigia’, in Epigraphica. Atti delle Giornate di Studio di Roma e di Atene in memoria di Margherita Guarducci (1902–1999), Rome, 165–76Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. 1993: Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (2 vols), Oxford Google Scholar
Negev, A. 1963: ‘Nabatean inscriptions from ‘Avdat (Oboda) II’, Israel Exploration Journal 13, 113–24Google Scholar
Neumann, G. 2002: ‘Ein neuer Beleg für Doumos’, Historische Sprachforschung 115, 57–8Google Scholar
Ott, J. 1995: ‘Die Kommandeure der norischen Hilfstruppen’, Tyche 10, 107–38Google Scholar
Paris, P. 1883: ‘Inscriptions de Sébaste’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 7, 448–57Google Scholar
Parker, R. 2010: ‘A funerary foundation from Hellenistic Lycia’, Chiron 40, 103–21Google Scholar
Petzl, G. 2009: ‘Bedrohter Kultvollzug: Hilfe von höherer Stelle’, in Martínez Fernández, Á. (ed.), Estudios de epigrafía griega, La Laguna, 377–86Google Scholar
Poland, F. 1909: Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig Google Scholar
Polito, M. 2004: Ιl δοῦμος. Un'associazione sacra in zone di contatto, Naples Google Scholar
Price, S. F. 1984: Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. M. 1889: ‘Inscriptions d'Asie Mineure’, Revue des Études Grecques 2, 1737 Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. M. 1895–97: The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (2 vols), Oxford Google Scholar
Ramsay, W. M. 1927: Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisation, London Google Scholar
Randazzo, S. 1998: ‘I “collegia tenuiorum”, fra libertà di associazione e controllo senatorio’, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris 64, 229–44Google Scholar
Ricl, M. 2003: ‘Society and economy of rural sanctuaries in Roman Lydia and Phrygia’, Epigraphica Anatolica 35, 77101 Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 1983: ‘Epigrafi dedicatorie imperiali di Hierapolis di Frigia’, Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei 38, 171–82Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 1985: Hierapolis. Scavi e richerche I: fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche, Rome Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 1992/93: ‘Nuovi dati su una nota epigrafe sepolcrale con stefanotico da Hierapolis di Frigia’, Scienze dell'Antichità 6/7, 4168 Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 1995: ‘Associazioni di mestiere a Hierapolis di Frigia’, in Giannattasio, B. Maria (ed.), Viaggi e commerci nell'antichità. Atti VII Giornata Archeologica, Genova, 6584 Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 2002: ‘Documenti epigrafici dalla regione di Hierapolis’, Epigraphica Anatolica 34, 4170 Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 2003: ‘La neocoria di Hierapolis di Frigia’, in Epigraphica. Atti delle Giornate di Studio di Roma e di Atene in memoria di Margherita Guarducci (1902–1999), Rome, 177215 Google Scholar
Ritti, T. 2006: An Epigraphic Guide to Hierapolis (Pamukkale), Istanbul Google Scholar
Ritti, T., and Baysal, H. H. 2008: Denizli-Hierapolis Arkeoloji Müzesi. Yunanca ve Latince Yazılı Eserlerin Kataloğu, Naples Google Scholar
Robert, L. 1983: ‘Les dieux des Motaleis en Phrygie’, Journal des Savants, 4563 Google Scholar
Royer, A. 2006: Associations professionnelles et groupes de gens de métier dans les cités grecques d'Asie Mineure à l’époque impériale (Ier–Ve siècles ap. J.-C.), Dissertation LyonGoogle Scholar
Şahin, S. 1978: ‘Zeus Bennios’, in Şahin, S., Schwertheim, E. and Wagner, J. (eds), Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens. Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65. Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976, Leiden, 771–90Google Scholar
Sartre, M. 2007: ‘Romanisation en Asie Mineur?’, in Urso, G. (ed.), Tra Oriente e Occidente. Indigeni, Greci e Romani in Asia Minore, Pisa, 229–45Google Scholar
Schuler, C. 1998: Ländliche Siedlungen und Gemeinden im hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, Munich Google Scholar
Schuler, C. 2012: ‘Inscriptions and identities of rural population groups in Roman Asia Minor’, in Davies, J. K. and Wilkes, J. (eds), Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences, Oxford, 63100 Google Scholar
Schwabl, H. 1999: ‘Zum Kult des Zeus in Kleinasien (II). Der phrygische Zeus Bennios und Verwandtes’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 39, 345–54Google Scholar
Şimşek, C. 2007: Laodikeia (Laodikeia ad Lycum), Istanbul Google Scholar
Sommer, S. 2006: Rom und die Vereinigungen im südwestlichen Kleinasien (133 v. Chr.–284 n. Chr.), Hennef Google Scholar
Steinhauer, J. 2014: Religious Associations in the Post-Classical Polis, Stuttgart Google Scholar
Strubbe, J. H. M. 1975: ‘A group of imperial estates in central Phrygia’, Ancient Society 6, 229–50Google Scholar
Terpstra, T. T. 2013: Trading Communities in the Roman World. A Micro-Economic and Institutional Perspective, Leiden Google Scholar
Thonemann, P. 2010: ‘The women of Akmoneia’, Journal of Roman Studies 100, 163–78Google Scholar
Thonemann, P. 2011: The Maeander Valley. A Historical Geography from Antiquity to Byzantium, Cambridge Google Scholar
Thonemann, P. 2013a: ‘Phrygia: an anarchist history, 950 bcad 100’, in Thonemann, P. (ed.), Roman Phrygia. Culture and Society, Cambridge, 140 Google Scholar
Thonemann, P. 2013b: ‘Households and families in Roman Phrygia’, in Thonemann, P. (ed.), Roman Phrygia. Culture and Society, Cambridge, 124–42Google Scholar
Trainor, M. 2008: Epaphras. Paul's Educator at Colossae, Collegeville Google Scholar
Tran, N. 2012: ‘Associations privées et espace public. Les emplois de publicus dans l’épigraphie des collèges de l'Occident romain’, in Dondin-Payre and Tran 2012, 63–80Google Scholar
Tran, N. 2013: Dominus tabernae. Le statut de travail des artisans et des commerçants de l'Occident romain (Ier siècle av. J.-C.–IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.), Rome Google Scholar
Tsouvala, G. 2015: ‘Women members of a gymnasium in the Roman East (IG IV 732)’, in Bodel, J. and Dimitrova, N. (eds), Ancient Documents and their Contexts, Leiden, 111–23Google Scholar
Van Nijf, O. M. 1997: The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, Amsterdam Google Scholar
Van Nijf, O. M. 2003: ‘Les élites comme patrons des associations professionnelles dans l'orient romain’, in Cébeillac-Gervasoni, M. and Lamoine, L. (eds), Les Elites et leurs facettes. Les élites locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain, Rome, 307–21Google Scholar
Varinlioğlu, E. 2006: ‘Five inscriptions from Acmonia’, Revue des Études Anciennes 108, 355–73Google Scholar
Velkov, V. 1980: ‘Zur Entwicklung des Handwerks in den Städten Thrakiens und Untermösiens’, in Velkov, V., Roman Cities in Bulgaria. Collected Studies, Amsterdam, 131–6Google Scholar
Verboven, K. 2012: ‘Les collèges et la romanisation dans les provinces occidentales’, in Dondin-Payre and Tran 2012, 13–46Google Scholar
Versluys, M. J. 2014: ‘Understanding objects in motion. An archaeological dialogue on Romanization’, Archaeological Dialogues 21, 120 Google Scholar
Waltzing, J.-P. 1895: Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains depuis les origines jusqu’à la chute de l'Empire d'Occident, Vol. I, Bruxelles Google Scholar
Weiß, P. 2000: ‘Eumeneia und das Panhellenion’, Chiron 30, 617–39Google Scholar
Woolf, G. 1994: ‘Becoming Roman, staying Greek. Culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman East’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40, 116–43Google Scholar
Woolf, G. 1998: Becoming Roman. The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul, Cambridge Google Scholar
Wörrle, M. 2011: ‘Aizanoi's theatre in use: an epigraphic approach’, in Bilgen, A. N. et al. (eds), Archaeological Research in Western Central Anatolia, Kütahya, 140–50Google Scholar
Wörrle, M. 2015: ‘Die ptolemäische Garnison auf der Burg von Limyra im Licht einer neuen Inschrift’, in Beck-Brandt, B., Ladstätter, S. and Yener-Marksteiner, B. (eds), Turm und Tor. Siedlungsstrukturen in Lykien und benachbarten Kulturlandschaften, Vienna, 291304 Google Scholar
Woudhuizen, F. C. 2008/2009: ‘Phrygian & Greek’, Talanta 40/41, 181217 Google Scholar
Ziebarth, E. 1896: Das griechische Vereinswesen, Leipzig Google Scholar
Zimmermann, C. 2002: Handwerkervereine im Griechischen Osten des Imperium Romanum, Mainz Google Scholar
Zimmermann, K. 2007: ‘Les origines de la gérousie de l’époque impériale’, in Mayer i Olivé, M., Baratta, G. and Almagro, A. Guzmán (eds), XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae. Provinciae Imperii Romani Inscriptionibus Descriptae, Barcelona, 1523–7Google Scholar