Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:13:08.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Termessians at Oinoanda1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

J. J. Coulton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When in the late nineteenth century inscriptions from Oinoanda in the Kibyratis (Fig. 1) began to be recorded and published in quantity, the relationship between Termessos Minor and Oinoanda caused a good deal of discussion. For it was in the city which everybody agreed to be Oinoanda that inscriptions set up by the boule, demos, and gerousia of the Termessians were to be found. Holleaux and Paris supposed that the two communities shared the Oinoanda hill, and Cousin added the suggestion that the late Roman fortification wall (traditionally known as the Great Wall) separated them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 32 , December 1982 , pp. 115 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Apart from the fragments of the Diogenes inscription (for which see most recently Smith, M. F., AS 28 (1978), 39–92Google Scholar) the main collections are: Holleaux-Paris (1886), Petersen-von Luschan (1889), Heberdey-Kalinka (1896), and Cousin (1900). More recent additions to the corpus have been published by Bean, G. E., BSA 51 (1956) 142–3Google Scholar; id., Journeys in Northern Lycia 1965–7 (Denkschr. Oest. Akad. Wiss., phil.-hist. kl. 104, 1971) 18–22; Hall, A. S., AS 27 (1977) 193–7Google Scholar; id., JHS 99 (1979) 160–3; id., AS 31 (1981) 47–53.

3 Holleaux-Paris, 216–17.

4 Cousin, G., BCH 16 (1892) 57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Petersen-von Luschan, 178.

6 Heberdey-Kalinka, 55; Heberdey presents his view more fully in RE 5A (1934) 775–8Google Scholar.

7 The inscription is to be published by Dr M. Wörrle; meanwhile see Smith, M. F., AS 33 (1973) 62Google Scholar; id., in Proc 10th Int. Cong. Class. Arch. (1978); id., in Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie antique (1980) 79–80; Bean, G. E., Lycia 170Google Scholar. Both Smith and Bean accept the Heberdey-Kalinka explanation, as do Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950) 522Google Scholar, 1377 n. 22, J., and Robert, L., REG 63 (1950) 191Google Scholar, and Hall, A. S., AS 26 (1976) 191Google Scholar. Hill, G. F., NC 1897, 30Google Scholar and Ruge, W., RE 17 (1937) 2231Google Scholar, were more sceptical.

8 Müller, C., Geographici Graeci Minores 2 (1861) 368Google Scholar.

9 Compare Strabo 14.3.9–10 (666).

10 13.4.17 (631).

11 Steph. Byz. s.v. Oinoanda.

12 Pliny, , Nat. Hist. 5.101Google Scholar.

13 Bell. Civ. 4.79.

14 Ptol., Geog. 5.3.5Google Scholar; Hierokles, , Synekdemos (ed. Burckhardt, A., 1893) 685.4Google Scholar.

15 The usual assumption is that Termessos Minor was the lesser partner in a sympolity with Oinoanda, but on that see below.

16 Anrich, G. (ed.), Hagios Nikolaos; der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche 1 (1913) 47, ch. 61, 2 (1917) 535Google Scholar; Moschos, John, Pratum Spirituale 215Google Scholar ( = Migne, , Patr. Gr. 87.3, 3108Google Scholar); Robert, L., Hellenica 10 (1955) 202, n. 4Google Scholar.

17 Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (1759–1798) 3, 571Google Scholar; 7, 580; 8, 493, 1147; 11, 1001; 13, 393; 17, 377.

18 Holleaux-Paris, nos. 9, 10; Petersen-von Luschan, 159, no. 187 (Gördev Göl); Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 61; IGR 3, no. 483. Also IGR 3, no. 476 (Balboura); IGR 3, no. 739.xix.217 (Rhodiapolis).

19 Holleaux-Paris, nos. 7, 11; Petersen-von Luschan, nos. 226–8, 230; Heberdey-Kalinka, nos. 60, 63. Also Jameson, S., AS 16 (1966) 129Google Scholar (Kadyanda) and probably CIG, no. 4240c (Tlos).

20 The Sidon stele (below n. 22) is almost an exception. However, it describes the dead man not as Τερμησσεὺς τῶν πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις, but as Τερμησσέων τῶν πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις Πι[σί]δης. An unpublished agonistic inscription cited by Heberdey, , RE 5A (1934) 776Google Scholar, preserves the ethnic Τερμησσεύς, which he supplements τῶν πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις. But the victor was probably from Pisidian Termessos, and the ethnic was either unqualified, or perhaps qualified by τῶν τῆς Πανφυλίας, on the analogy of Holleaux-Paris, no. 3, Cousin, no. 1.

21 Demos: Cousin, nos. 4, 6, 9; boule and demos: Petersen-von Luschan, no. 226; boule, demos and gerousia: Holleaux-Paris, nos. 3–6, 8; Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 68; Cousin, nos. 1, 3.

22 Macridy-Bey, T., Rev.Bibl. N.S. 1 (1904) 551Google Scholar, no. 2; Ruppel, W., Philologus 82Google Scholar = N.S. 36 (1927) 310 dates the group to which it belongs to the late third-early second century B.C. See also Bikerman, E., Institutions Séleucides (1938) 88–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Launey, M., Recherches sur les armeées héllénistiques (1950) 475–6, 1081–4Google Scholar, Robert, L., Hellenica 10 (1955) 196–7Google Scholar.

23 Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 49; the omission of τῶν πρὸς Οἰνοάνδοις is understandable in a quotation. The formula used in the Kemerarası inscription remains unpublished.

24 Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 61.11. In ibid., nos. 65.15 and 67.1 it is pure supposition that the unspecified boule is that of the Oinoandans.

25 Holleaux-Paris, no. 1; Petersen-von Luschan, no. 234; CIG no. 4380,0 (Yuvalı).

26 Hall, A. S., AS 31 (1981) 49–50 (fragment g)Google Scholar.

27 IGR 3, no. 483.

28 Petersen-von Luschan, nos. 187, 234; CIG, no. 4380,0.

29 Heberdey and Kalinka were not able to find any inscriptions at Kemerarası (Heberdey-Kalinka, 55); and only one has been recorded since (above n. 7). M. F. Smith tells me that in 1972 he saw but was unable to record another inscription (very worn); by 1973 it had disappeared. Cagnat gives the location of IGR 3, no. 481 as “Termessi ad Oenoanda”, but it is actually on the agora at Oinoanda, as Holleaux-Paris, no. 2 makes clear. Balland, A., Xanthos 7 (1981) 67Google Scholar, n. 195 wrongly attributes to Termessos Minor IGR 3, no. 1496, which actually comes from Pisidian Termessos (TAM 3.1 (1941)Google Scholar no. 115).

30 As suggested by G. Cousin, (n. 4 above).

31 TAM 3.1 (1941)Google Scholar nos. 2, 13, 80 82 and perhaps nos. 942–3. See also CIL 1.22, no. 589 (Lex Antonia) and Le Bas, P., Waddington, W. H., Inscriptions grecques et latines, recueillies en Asie mineure (1870)Google Scholar no. 358A (Mylasa).

32 For Termessians-at-Oinoanda see above n. 21, 22; for Termessians-of-Pamphylia see Holleaux-Paris, no.3, Cousin, no. 1.

33 TAM 3.1 (1941)Google Scholar Index IV, s.v. Τερμησσεύς, and outside Termessos see for example IG 3, nos. 2464, 2936–7; IG 12.1, nos. 385, 544.

34 Bean, G. E., JHS 68 (1948) 46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, suggesting a date after 129 B.C. J., and Robert, L., REG 63 (1950) 185–97Google Scholar, no. 183 argue for a date about 180 B.C., and this generally been accepted (SEG 18 (1962)Google Scholar no. 570.

35 Bean, op. cit. (n. 34) 49, could not decide between the two, and Larsen, J. A. O., Class.Phil. 51 (1956) 162Google Scholar argued for Termessos Minor. Robert preferred Termessos Major, with Termessos Minor still being attached to the mother city; Bean, (BSA 51 (1956) 142)Google ScholarLarsen, (Greek Federal States (1968) 244–5)Google Scholar also later opted for Termessos Major.

36 NC. 1897, 25–6Google Scholar; BMCLycia etc., 73. The later date is followed by Head, , HN2, 696Google Scholar. Dr. M.J. Price of the British Museum kindly advises me that in spite of the late letter forms, the fabric and style of the coin suggest a date before 168 B.C., most probably in the first quarter of the second century.

37 Imhoof-Blumer, , Gr.Münz., 703–4Google Scholar; Hill, G. F., NC. 1897, 25–30Google Scholar; Head, HN2, 698Google Scholar; Bosch, E., Türkiyenin Antik Devirdeki Meskukatina Dair Bibliografya (1949) 154Google Scholar.

38 BMCLycia etc., xcii–xciii, 276–7Google Scholar; Inv. Waddington, nos. 4017–20; Weber Coll., nos. 7475–9; SNGAul., nos. 4455–60; SNGCop., Lycia, nos. 137–44; H.v. Aulock, Münzen und Städte Pisidiens 1 (Ist Mitt Beih 19, 1977) 27 (Ariassos)Google Scholar.

39 E.g SNGAul., nos. 5330–7; SNGCop., Pisidia, nos. 290–312.

40 BMCLycia etc., 277, no. 15; Inv. Waddington, no. 4021; Macdonald, G., Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian collection (1899–1905) no. 505Google Scholar; SNGAul., no. 4461; SNGCop., Lycia, no. 145; Imhoof-Blumer, , Gr. Münz., 703–4Google Scholar, no. 548. E. Babelon (Inv. Waddington, no. 4021) and Grant, M., From Imperium of Auctoritas (1946) 354–5Google Scholar, identify the head as Augustus, others as Tiberius. It is not clear that more than one portrait type is intended, although there is some variation in the head.

41 Head, , HN2, 712Google Scholar, and (e.g.) SNGCop., Pisidia, nos. 290–303, SNGAul., nos. 5330–4.

42 Imhoof-Blumer, Gr. Münz., no. 547; SNGAul., no. 4460.

43 E.g. in Lycia the numerous combinations with Kragos and Maassikytos (see below n. 98), and Myra with Podalia (Pinder, M., Friedländer, J., Beiträge zur Aelteran Münzekunde (1851) 118)Google Scholar; Kremna and Keraia in Pisidia (Imhoof-Blumer, F., Monnaies grecques (1883) 336, no. 72Google Scholar; for the site for Keraia see Aulock, H. v., Münzen und Städte Pisidiens 2Google Scholar (Ist Mitt Beih 22, 1979) 33–4Google Scholar); Plarasa and Aphrodisias in Caria (Robert, , VAM2, 64, n. 4Google Scholar); Stratonikaia and the Indeipediatai in Mysia (Robert, , VAM2, 46–66Google Scholar). Imhoof-Blumber, (Gr. Munz. 693Google Scholar) and Robert, (VAM2, 63–4Google Scholar) interpret these joint issues as evidence for smypolities, but their significance seems to vary (see below n. 98 and p. 130). Since neighbouring cities might use the same coin dies without a political union (Robert, , VAM2, 188–91, 366–77Google Scholar; Johnston, A., NC 1980, 208–10Google Scholar), a joint issue surely need not imply one either.

44 Hill, G. F., NC. 1897, 25–30Google Scholar; Head, , HN2, 698Google Scholar; and all the references in n. 40 except Imhoof-Blumer, who merely offers it as an alternative to a joint issue by two communities in one city.

45 Head, , HN2, 712Google Scholar; BMCLycia etc., 268–77; SNGAul., nos. 5341–68; SNGCop., Pisidia, nos. 312–43.

46 For the walls see Petersen-von Luschan 177–8. pl. 26–8 and the unpublished Oxford D.Phil. thesis of McNicoll, A. W., Hellenisitic Fortifications from the Aegaean to the Euphrates (1971) 203–10Google Scholar. Recent topographical work at Oinoanda by the British Institute at Ankara is summarized by Hall, A. S., AS 26 (1976) 191–7Google Scholar, id., AS 28 (1978) 5–6, and id., TAD forthcoming.

47 Petersen-von Luschan, 177–8, quoting Bohn's comments.

48 Petersen-von Luschan, 183, describe the walls of Balboura as “late”, but substantial stretches are clearly Hellenistic. For the Hellenistic walls Pisidian Termessos see Lanckoronski, K., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens (1892) 2, 24–5Google Scholar.

49 See for example Ling, R. J., AS 31 (1981) 31–46Google Scholar, and J.J. Coulton in this volume.

50 Their absence is noted without comment by Heberdey, , RE 5A (1934) 778Google Scholar.

51 These and the inscription mentioned in n. 29 could well be spolia brought down the hill from Oinoanda.

52 Heberdey says only that the ruins are extensive (Heberdey-Kalinka, 55, and RE 5A (1934) 776Google Scholar). M.F. Smith tells me that much of the disturbance has taken place since 1968.

53 IGR 3, no. 483; Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 61.

54 See above n. 3.

55 Balboura: Heberdey-Kalinka, nos. 30, 69 ( = Robert, L.Études Anatoliennes (1937) 382–4Google Scholar); Bean, G. E., BSA 51 (1956) 152–6Google Scholar, nos. 55, 59. Oinoanda: a Χωρίον of Οὐάλω and a kome of Κεδρέβατα, neither identified on the ground (references in n. 16).

56 A study of the Oinoanda water supply is in preparation.

57 See above n. 17.

58 IGR 3, no. 739.xix.217.

59 Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 60. For the connections of the family see Jameson, S., AS 16 (1966) 125–30Google Scholar.

60 Aujac, G., Lasserre, F. (ed.), Strabon, Geog. I (1969) xxxixGoogle Scholar.

61 E.g Imhoof-Blumer, , Gr. Münz., 693Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire2 (1971) 108, 406–7Google Scholar, n. 20; Grant, M., From Imperium of Auctoritas (1946) 355Google Scholar.

62 On sympolity see Robert, , VAM 2, 55–64Google Scholar.

63 Sympolities between Mylasa and Euromos (Michel, C., Recueil d'inscriptions grecques (1900), no. 472Google Scholar) and between Keramos and another city (Hicks, E. L., JHS 11 (1890) 114Google Scholar) were broken off, and arrangements were made for the possibility of breakdown in that linking Melite with Peraia Thessaly (SIG 3, no. 546).

64 Thus Robert, L., AJA 39 (1935) 338–9Google Scholar, RArch 107 (1935) 159Google Scholar, VAM 2, 55, shows that when Olymos and Hydai united with Mylasa, their citizens enrolled in Mylasen tribes.

65 Aperlai with Apollonia, Isinda, and Simena; Akalissos with Idebessos and Korma (?); Arneai with Koroai, and others; Myra with Trebenda (Robert, , VAM2 55–8Google Scholar; Robert, L., Hellenica 10 (1955) 206, n. 3Google Scholar.

66 IGR 3, no. 642; cf. Robert, , VAM2, 57–8Google Scholar.

67 IGR 3, no. 692; cf. Robert, , VAM2, 55–6Google Scholar.

68 Wagener, , Inscriptions grecques recueillies en Asie Mineure (1859) 27Google Scholar; Paris, P., BCH 8 (1884) 381Google Scholar; Robert, , VAM2, 58Google Scholar.

69 Grant, M., From Imperium to Auctoritas (1946) 355Google Scholar.

70 On the character of the Pisidians in general see Strabo 12.7.3 (570) and Levick, B., Roman Colonies in Southern Aisa Minor (1967) 16–20Google Scholar. Termessos itself defied Alexander (Arrian, , Anab. 1.27.5–28.8Google Scholar). Note also the behaviour recorded in Arrian, , Anab. 1.24Google Scholar, and in the Araxa inscription (above n. 34).

71 SIG 3, no. 344; it is called a synoikismos in line 110. In the event the synoikism did not take place, and the Lebedians were later moved to Ephesos (Pausanias, 1.9.7). On synoikism in general see Hornblower, S., Mausolus (1982) 79–81Google Scholar. He recognises a merely political synoikism (as at Athens) in addition to a physical synoikism. In the Hellenistic period, however, some physical transfer of population seems to distinguish synoikism from sympolity, even though the contributing cities might remain minor settlements, as in the case of Demetrias (Strabo 9.5.15(436)).

72 Reynolds, J., Aphrodisias and Rome (1982)Google Scholar, nos. 1,3,6,8,9,11,13. Miss Reynolds (ibid. 1–5, 164) follows Robert, VAM 2, 64 in supposing a sympolity, but doubts whether there was a pre-existing polis of Aphrodisias. Paton, W. R., JHS 20 (1900) 62–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar argued, however, for a synoikism, and the references to a single polis and demos, and the absence of Plarasaieus as an individual ethnic, support that view.

73 Compare Ἀντιόχεια ἡ πρὸς Κράγῳ, Σελευκεία ἡ πρὸς Εὐλαίῳ any many others; see also below n. 91.

74 See below n. 88.

75 Tarn, W. W., The Greeks in Bactria and India2 (1951) 12–16Google Scholar.

76 The nearest equivalent in Roman Asia Minor is the occasional abbreviation of Alexandria Troas to Troas alone (e.g. Pliny, , NH 5.124Google Scholar). This does not appear in inscriptions, but COL TROA appears on coins (Head, , HN2, 541Google Scholar).

77 See above n. 25.

78 Pausanias 1.9.7; Kawerau, G., Rehm, A., Milet 1.3 (1914)Google Scholar nos. 33–8; OGIS, no. 233.

79 Ruppel, W., Philologus 82 (1927) 268–312Google Scholar; Tarn, W. W., Griffith, G. T., Hellenistic Civilisation3 (1952) 147–8, 157–8, 220–1Google Scholar.

80 E. Bikerman, Institutions séleucides (1938) 80, n. 2; Robert, , VAM2, 71–6, 264–71Google Scholar; Cohen, G. M., The Seleucid Colonies (1978) 9–11Google Scholar.

81 Heberdey-Kalinka, no. 61.11, Cousin, no. 1.25–6

82 Liebenam, W., Städteverwaltung im Römischen Kaiserreiche (1900) 229, n. 5Google Scholar, lists boulai of various sizes.

83 The identity of the Five Hundred with the boule is questioned by Levy, I., REG 14 (1901) 366Google Scholar.

84 The lack of an Oinoandan coinage was remarked on by Bean, , Lycia, 170Google Scholar; for the coinage of Boubon and Balboura see Head, , HN2, 694–5Google Scholar.

85 Coinage: Head, , HN2, 649Google Scholar; inscriptions: IGR 4, 720, 717Google Scholar.

86 Of the inscriptions collected by Bikerman (above n. 80) note especially those of Thyateira, Doidye, Akrasos, Kobedyle, and … spoura.

87 Holleaux-Paris, no. 3, Cousin, no.1; for the untrustworthiness of such traditions (such as a Spartan orgin for Kibyra, OGIS no. 497, IGR 3, no. 500.I.1–13) see Robert, L., Hellenica 8 (1950) 90–1Google Scholar; id., REG 85 (1972) 396, no. 139.

88 There are numerous cases of new names given in the Hellenistic period which failed to stick; in Aisa Minor we may cite Eurydikaia for Smyrna, Arsinoe for Ephesos and Patara, Seleukeia for Tralleis, and Eusebia for Tyana (Tscherikower, V., Hellenistische Städtegründungen (1927) passimGoogle Scholar). Further east the native name Doura was widely used before the citizen body stopped calling themselves Europaioi (Rostovtzeff, M., Dura Europos and its Art (1938) 20Google Scholar), and there was a similar overlap at Sousa/Seleukeia on the Eulaios (SEG 7 (1934)Google Scholar nos. 1, 12–14).

89 Strabo 13.4.17 (631) notes the mixed community at Kibyra. For the Pisidian element in the area see Robert, , VAM2, 212–14Google Scholar and id., Hellenica 10 (1955) 11.

90 Strabo 13.4.17 (631); Diod.Sic. 33.5a; Macridy-Bey, T., Rev. Bibl. NS 1 (1904) 550–1Google Scholar, no. 1 (for the date see Rupple, op. cit. (n. 22).

91 The general point emerges from the coin legends in Head, HN 2. Strabo distinguishes Illyrian Apollonia as ἡ πρὸς Ἐπιδάμνῳ and Phrygian Apollonia as ἡ πρὸς Ἀπαμείᾳ (Strabo 9.3.16 (424), 12.6.4 (569)), but these are not official titles.

92 Arrian, , Anab. 1.24Google Scholar; Jones, A. H. M., Greek Cities of the Eastern Roman Empire2 (1971) 406, n. 20Google Scholar.

93 For the Sidon stele see above n. 22; for the Letoon inscriptions see Hall, A. S., AS 27 (1977) 193–7Google Scholar, esp. no. 2 SEG 27 (1977) 930–2, 935Google Scholar; J., and Robert, L., REG 91 (1978) 475–6, no. 462Google Scholar.

94 Heberdey, R., Anz.Akad.Wien., phil.-hist. kl. 1931, IV–X, 19Google Scholar.

95 Livy 38.39.

96 TAM 3.1 (1941) no. 9Google Scholar. Pergamon's war with Selge (Pomp. Trogus, pr. 34) may have fostered friendship with Termessos, for those two cities were traditional enemies (Arrian, , Anab. 1.28.1Google Scholar).

97 Winter, F. G., AJA 70 (1966) 127–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hansen, E. V., The Attalids of Pergamon2 (1971) 182Google Scholar considers that Pergamene building activity demonstrates that both Oinoanda and Pisidian Termessos were part of the Pergamene kingdom, but contrast Winter's less rosy view of the relationship. For the difficulty which successive rulers had in enforcing their rule over Pisidia see Levick, B., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967) 16–20Google Scholar.

98 There was of course a city of Kragos, but Hill, G. F., BMCLycia etc., xlvii–xlviiiGoogle Scholar, interprets the “joint” issues linking Kragos with four other cities as issues by those cities for what he calls the monetary district of Kragos. The issues linking Massikytos (where there was no city of the same name) to Myra and Xanthos (ibid., lii–liii) support this interpretation.

99 Robert, , VAM2, 43–70, 261–2Google Scholar. Robert (ibid., 69–70) is doubtful whether Indeipedion was a city site or not; the evidence seems to me to argue against it.

100 Livy 38.14.

101 See above n. 90 (Rev. Bibl. 1904).

102 So also Smith, M. F., Actes du Colloque sur la Lycie antique (1980) 74Google Scholar.