Van
Nijf
–
27.11.

18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 1

Public space and the political culture of Roman Termessos

Onno M. van Nijf

Introduction

Atalante

A visitor walking in the agora of the small city of Termessos, high up in the mountains of
Roman Pisidia, would be confronted with an odd phenomenon. On the West side of the agora
in a street right in front of the sumptuous stoa that had been presented to the city by King
Attalos of Pergamon, he would see not one, but two statues of the same local woman,
Atalante, the daughter of Piaterabis. His attention would first be drawn to a large lifesize
portrait statue accompanied by a long inscription recording the decree of the city by which the
statue was awarded.1

In the month of Soterios, on day thirteen in the regular assembly, it was resolved by the
people, on the proposal of the presiding committee (probouloi): since Atalante, daughter
of Piaterabis, granddaughter of Pillakoas, great-granddaughter of Kinnounis, a widow,
adorned both with nobility and with sophrosyne (temperance), and who reveals every
womanly quality, emulating by her exertions the accomplishments of her ancestors who
had frequently offered their philotimia (ambition through generosity) towards the city,
both in expenditure of no mean kind, and in advancing money, and in public
subscriptions and gifts and priesthoods, since she has promised when a great grain
shortage occurred to provide an ample supply for the populace (plethos), and since in
fulfilment of her philotimia she is providing grain unstintingly from the month Idalianos
of the present year, it was resolved that she shall be honoured by the people with a
bronze statue in her likeness (eikon) and a golden crown, and that the statue shall be set
up at a prominent location in the city, near the stoa of Attalos, along the wall of the
straight South Road where also the prizes are placed that were won by the boys in the
gymnastic games, which Hermaios, son of Hoplos had organized when he was
supervisor of the youth (paidonomos). And also that the artisans (technitai) shall have
permission to set up, at the same spot, a statue (andrias) of Atalanta through which they
displayed their philotimia, as they requested; and that on the statue set up by the people
this decree shall be inscribed, but on that of the artisans any inscription they shall want.

The other monument, standing immediately next to it, was the statue that was awarded to her
by the technitai of the city which was referred to in the larger inscription. It carried the
inscription that the technitai had been permitted to compose themselves:2

This paper is part of a larger project that is dedicated to the study of the epigraphic habits in Roman
Termessos, for which see i.a. van Nijf 1999; van Nijf 2000; van Nijf 2003a, van Nijf (in press) and
van Nijf 2001. This paper draws on some of the material presented in these previous works. Besides in
the Groningen session of the Greek city project, versions of this paper were read in Paris, Exeter,
Hamburg, Athens and Liverpool. I thank my hosts and audiences at these occasions for their questions
and remarks. I also like to thank Maaike Leemreize and Martine Hekman who have researched some
aspects of the epigraphic display in Termessos as part of their course work.
1
TAM 3.1, 4.
2
TAM 3.1, 62.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 2

The technitai honoured Atalante, daughter of Piaterabis, son of Pillakoas, son of

Kinnounis. Widow. Who had been their benefactress as she provided to the entire
populace ample supply when there was a grain shortage.

If our visitor would stroll further, to pay a visit to the temple that we know as N5, probably
dedicated to Artemis, he would come across Atalante again in an inscription that she had set
up herself for her grandfather Pillakoas, as she had been instructed to do in the testament of
her father Piaterabis.3
Atalante was clearly some kind of celebrity, but she was not the only one. Close inspection
of the epigraphy of Termessos would establish that the numerous statues that littered the city
centre represented in fact the members of just a handful of families. The urban landscape of
Termessos was apparently designed as a stage for a small group of local celebrities, whose
names and faces were visible everywhere. In this paper I want to try to explore the
implications of this monumental celebrity culture, and argue that ‘celebrity’ and power were
closely connected. I shall argue that the monumental culture that organised the Termessian
cityscape was a crucial ingredient of the language of power by which the notables of
Termessos represented and realised their dominant role in the city.

Termessos

At the turn of second and third century of our era Termessos was a flourishing small city, well
equipped with all the amenities of civilised urban life. This was a particularly active and
creative period: the city had adopted the new style in architecture and town planning that
characterised the ‘Great Rebuilding’ of the Roman East.4 Still based on classical principles,
the cities were now built on a larger scale than ever before, and monumental buildings with
spectacular façades displayed the wealth and power of their builders. Termessos was endowed
with many of the traditional buildings without which no town could expect to be considered
as a ‘polis’ by the Imperial Greeks:5 a theatre (O1), an odeion (O2), two gymnasia (H, I) and
monumental stoas on the agora (L1, L2), and the ultimate fashion statement of the era: a large
colonnaded street (L5), shown in the map on Figure 1.
The notables of Termessos, who had largely built and financed these constructions, were
also responsible for a huge epigraphic production. More than 1000 inscriptions have been
published in volume 3 of the Tituli Asiae Minoris, and in a number of supplements.6 Many of
these were epitaphs that were set up in the cemeteries bordering the city centre to the North
and the South, but a large proportion consists of honorific inscriptions that were found on
statue bases, scattered throughout the city. In this respect Termessos must have resembled any
other city in Roman Asia Minor. What makes Termessos unique, however, is the relatively
large number of preserved monuments found in situ. The exemplary publications by Heberdey
and his successors enable us to reconstruct in considerable detail the epigraphic landscape of a
typical provincial town at the turn of the second and third centuries AD.

Monumental politics

The Termessian notables

3
İplikçioğlu et al. 1991, 5 = SEG 41, 1258.
4
Van Nijf 1997, 71 and 181 for the expression.
5
The criteria are mentioned in a famous passage in Pausanias on the small town of Panopeus: 10.4.1.
6
TAM 3.1; İplikçioğlu et al. 1991; İplikçioğlu et al. 1992; İplikçioğlu et al. 1994 and İplikçioğlu et
al. 2007.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 3

One look at the map makes clear that the landscape of Termessos was literally dotted with
monuments (Figure 2). The great majority was, as we shall see, set up for a small group of
top-families, the local nobiles or ‘notables’. The power and influence of these families of
‘notables’ was paramount. Their political status depended on the appointment (by election or
co-optation) of male members of these families to traditional offices and priesthoods, and on
their primacy in the boule, membership of which became hereditary. The leading role of the
boule is nicely illustrated by a series of dedications that were set up in the Termessian agora
around the year 203: they were dedications to the boule by the demos, and by the boule to the
demos. Although they were no doubt erected to celebrate a local variant of a concordia
ordinum, it is nonetheless striking that in both inscriptions it was the boule that was
mentioned first. The boule was clearly represented as the dominant force of local politics.7
Like elsewhere in Roman Asia Minor the Termessian boule may have consisted of a few
hundred members. For what it is worth building O2, identified as an odeion or bouleuterion,
could seat 500-600 people, which would be a plausible figure for council membership in this
age.8
It is interesting to speculate about the implications of a boule of this size for the
constitution of the elite. To keep the boule at this size probably required c. 20 new entrants
each year, given prevailing mortality rates.9 It is likely that the traditional bouleutic families
would be hard pressed to find this number of recruits in their midst, and they would have to
resort to various strategies to keep the numbers intact: the entrance of younger men, or even
children from their own family would be an obvious strategy; bouleutic families that were
dying out could take recourse to adopting others.10 But even so, it would probably have been
necessary to accept from time to time fresh blood (and money).11 A large boule will by
necessity have caused some degree of social mobility.
One probable response to such mobility would be to internally stratify the bouleutic order
so as to have a ‘hard core’ of families that were successful in securing intergenerational
transfer of bouleutic status and probably maintaining control over positions of political

7
TAM 3.1, 48 and 49. A similar inscription was set up in Theatre O 1.
8
It is in this context relevant to look at the situation in Termessos Minor, or Oinoanda, that had been
founded as an apoikia from Termessos Maior, as we saw above. It has been argued that the boule in
this city numbered about 500 members, but Wörrle has shown that the number of 500 refers to a
privileged group of grain-recipients that included the bouleutai, and an unknown number of others
who would be added by lot until the 500 were reached. We do not know how large the gap was, and
the number may have fluctuated anyway, but I suspect that councillors made up the greater part of the
500. Termessos was much larger than Oinoanda, and a figure of 500 is not unreasonable.
9
If we use the tables of Coale and Demeny Model South, and assuming that the average entry age
would be 30 years we get the following results: level 3 males (e0= 24.7; e30 = 28.1): annual number
of recruits necessary 21.4; level 5 males (e0=29.3; e30=29.9): gives an annual of 20.1, and level 7
males (e0=33.9; e30=31.6): results in 19.1 new entrants per year. I would like to thank Arjan
Zuiderhoek for supplying me with the calculations, see also his contribution to this volume. The
implications of demographic conditions for the composition of the elite in Roman Egypt are admirably
explored by Tacoma 2006.
10
Adoption (huiothesia) must have been common in Termessos, cf. TAM 3.1, 54 and 234. Many more
inscriptions identify the natural father: 14, 55, 98, 104, 153, 158, 161, 164, 717.
11
Such men were often accommodated in an institution like the gerousia which catered both for
members of long established families as well as ‘new men’. The gerousia might have been a
representative cross-section of the population, as has been argued by J.A. van Rossum in his Leiden
dissertation (van Rossum 1988), and in a paper at the 2003 Groningen conference that could
unfortunately not be included in this volume. There was a gerousia in Termessos, but we are not
informed about it is membership; cf. Heberdey in RE s.v. Termessos 763.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 4

importance, and a second tier of ‘new men’.12 Some of the latter might have been able find
their own place in the inner core, but the greater part may not have stayed in the boule for
more than one or two generations. The Termessian data provides evidence for the
development of just such an inner oligarchy.
The fortuitous combination of a relatively large number of inscriptions and the obsessional
tendency of Termessians to list their ancestry on their monuments has allowed Rudolph
Heberdey to reconstruct the genealogies of more than twenty families of notables who could
trace their families back for several generations.13 These families appear to have formed the
hard core of the Termessian elite. We come across these families exactly where we would
expect them. We know that the practical affairs in the boule were in the hands of a small
committee the probouloi: about 12 men between 30 and 40 who may have served for one
year, under an archiproboulos, who appears to have been the eponymous magistrate.
Heberdey has been able to link 29 out of the 52 (archi)probouloi that were known to him to
families whose family trees he was able to reconstruct.14 An analysis of the individuals who
took on civic priesthoods and magistracies yields a very similar picture, with the same known
families providing many of the priests.15 The evidence suggests that there was indeed an
‘inner oligarchy’ in Termessos. Public life in Termessos was perhaps not monopolised, but
certainly dominated by a small côterie of families.
The status and power of this inner oligarchy were not only dependent on their institutional
positions. For power to be accepted it also has to be represented: the formulation and
visualization of power is often as important as its institutional base, though this has been less
frequently investigated as an element of political culture. The notables had to communicate
their social superiority as natural and self-evident. In Termessos, as elsewhere in the Roman
East, power and status were made visible through what we may call a particular ‘oligarchic
style’ that created social distance between the ‘ordinary’ population and the ‘notables’ and
their families. Ancient politicians stylised their appearance and their public personae no less
than their modern successors.
One way to express status was through material culture. A conspicuous atrium house in the
centre of the city near the agora provides an example of the display associated with notables.16
Although a private dwelling, it served a semi-public function since the monumental atrium
allowed the owner to receive the public, as every Roman patronus received his clients at
home. An inscription on the outside marked it as the house of Besa, the son of Arteimos, the
son of Trokondas, ktistes (founder) of the city, who is not otherwise known, but who must
have belonged to the upper echelons of Termessos.17 We know next to nothing about the
dwellings of his fellow-notables, but the scale of their ambitions can be deduced from their
conspicuous tombs that dominated the extensive funerary zones on either side of the city,
forming a city of the dead that was an extension of the city of the living.18
The best surviving evidence for the oligarchic style of the Termessian notables is found,
however, in the many honorific inscriptions and monuments that were set up to commemorate
the achievements and qualities of the honorands in the public space of the city. These

12
For a discussion of the notion of an inner oligarchy, see Pleket 1998.
13
The stemmata of the most important families are reconstructed in Heberdey 1929. They are
reproduced in Appendix V of TAM 3.1.
14
TAM 3.1, Appendix IV.
15
Cf. TAM 3.1, Appendix III, 17 out of 26 imperial priest came from known families.
16
The House is discussed and illustrated in Lanckoronski et al. 1892, 101-102. The rise of the ‘noble
house’ is discussed in Walter-Karydi 1994.
17
TAM 3.1, 878. For a discusion of the term ktistes, see below.
18
I discuss some aspects of the funerary culture in van Nijf (in press). For a discussion of the material
remains, see Cormack 2004, 306-323.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 5

monuments give us a good idea of the core values of the notables and are, therefore, a good
guide to the oligarchic political style that was current in Roman Termessos. Even if we cannot
see the politicians in action, these inscriptions at least captured how and why the notables
wanted to be commemorated.

Honorific monuments

It is by now widely accepted that honorific inscriptions of the Roman empire are not simply
material records of political transactions, but are themselves an integral ingredient of a
process of representation of social and political roles.19
We need only to return to the monuments of Atalante to get a taste of the intense
discussions, the personal energy, and the political time that must have gone into the conferral
of this particular set of honours. There is no reason to assume that other monuments would
have given rise to fewer issues, and the conclusion must be that public honour, and more in
particular the setting up of public statues, must have been a fixture on the political agenda.
There were several dimensions to monumental honours that are crucial in determining their
significance in the political culture of Termessos, and their materiality is not the least
important. We tend to consider inscriptions as texts, but we should not forget that they were
monuments too. The decree for Atalante makes clear that the Termessian authorities were
fully aware that monuments had a striking visual impact. Each monument was a kind of
multimedia event that served as a vehicle for a complex process of elite self-fashioning: text,
image and location played an important part in defining the meaning of each monument.
The first thing that you would see, drawing your attention to each monument, was of
course the statue. Traditionally, archaeologists and art historians have ignored the portrait
statues of the Roman East – which they considered as artistically inferior derivatives of
classical examples. Recently, however, scholars are beginning to place this art form in its
cultural and political context, and these ‘two cultures’ are now increasingly studied together.20
A major impetus to this approach was given by archaeologists like Paul Zanker and Bert
Smith who were among the first to explain the statuary representation of the political classes
“not only in terms of chronology or biography, but of cultural choices. The portraits … deploy
a received and recognizable statue and portrait language to make and project plausible looking
statements about selected social, cultural and political aspirations.”21 Then as now image was
a matter of acute political importance. It is unfortunate, therefore, that we do not have at our
disposal the Termessian statues, but we can safely assume, the portrait style of Termessos to
have conformed to that employed in other cities of Roman Asia Minor.
Secondly, the text of the Atalante monument reminds us of the importance of place for the
‘visualisation of power’.22 The decree is very particular about the exact location of the various
monuments set up for Atalante. This is not peculiar to Termessos. As public honour was a
form of political capital, city authorities seem to have maintained throughout the empire a
strict control over access to honorific space. It was not possible for just anyone to receive an
honorific statue in public space, nor was it possible for all groups or individuals to set up
statues wherever they wanted. There were clear rules laid out by the authorities for these
matters. Throughout the Roman empire we find city councils exercising strict control over the

19
An excellent article by Wulf Raeck established this already for the Hellenistic period: Raeck 1995.
See now also Oliver 2007. I have discussed the importance of honorific statues for the political
processes in van Nijf 1997, van Nijf 2000, and van Nijf 2003b.
20
Cf. Ma 2006.
21
Smith 1998, 91.
22
Cf. Oliver 2007.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 6

organisation of public space, and over the exact location of statues.23 This must have affected
the social impact that a monument could make. A conspicuous life-size statue strategically
located at a prominent place close to the centre of political decision-making clearly carried
other connotations than a small statuette set up in a backstreet with little traffic, or a statue in
a gymnasion packed with similar objects. The setting of a monument constituted an essential
part of its political meaning, and it follows that place is also a feature that needs to be taken
into account in an analysis of the honorific practices.
This is where the Termessian material is of particular interest. This city offers an
unparalleled insight into the arrangement of monuments in the city centre due to the large
number of monuments that were found in situ, and most of all thanks to the meticulous
recording and publication of these findspots by Heberdey and his successors.24 Even if
Termessos was not unique in the tight regulation of its honorific spaces, it is a uniquely rich
source for this kind of question. In a previous article I studied some aspects of the
arrangements of honorific monuments throughout Termessos, and argued that various zones
in the city centre attracted particular types of monuments.25 In this section I shall build on the
results of that study.
A closely related aspect that must have determined the meaning of honorific moments is
the authorship. As I stated above, not everyone or every group was allowed to set up statutes
anywhere they liked in public space. The dossier for Atalante makes clear that overall control
was exercised by the city authorities, but other groups and organisations could ask for
permission to set up a statue. In the case of professional associations, this was a way of
marking out a place for themselves in the civic world. The inscription for Atalante shows that
the technitai felt that the honorific exchange with Atalante also contributed to their philotimia,
love of honour.26 Seen in this light the monument was a joint project in self-representation of
the technitai, the city, and Atalante herself. The authorship of honorific inscriptions can help
us, therefore, to fill in details concerning the social and political hierarchy in this city.
Finally, we should pay attention to the language that the notables used to present
themselves and members of their families. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to
give an in-depth analysis of all the elements of the language of power, we should also pay
attention to some nuances of the honorific language.
The inscriptions offer us a view not only of what was done and by whom, but also of how
actions and personalities were discussed in public. Honorific language is an important guide
to the concerns and pre-occupations that define the political culture of the age.
In a recent study of the ‘language of responsibility’ in Greek cities, Sviatoslav Dmitriev
has noted that in the Roman period inscriptions began to attach various honorific epithets to
offices and liturgies presenting them as first, highest, most splendid, most remarkable,
greatest, most estimable, or even most perfect.27 This terminology was important because it
performed a kind of political alchemy by representing archai and liturgies as prestigious
social functions, rather than as administrative positions.28 Something similar seems to have
happened with the terminology used to qualify the individuals concerned. The honorific

23
For a discussion of the location of statues in the western half of the Roman Empire, see Zimmer
1989 as well as Alföldy 1979 and Alföldy 1984.
24
TAM 3.1; İplikçioğlu et al. 1991; İplikçioğlu et al. 1992; İplikçioğlu et al. 1994 and İplikçioğlu et
al. 2007.
25
Van Nijf 2000.
26
Van Nijf 1997, 73-127.
27
Dmitriev 2005, 109-139.
28
Dmitriev 2005, esp. 109-119.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 7

inscriptions were peppered with adjectives that denoted the personal excellence, highness,
majesty, fame, honour, and dignity of the honorands.29
This kind of honorific language was, I suggest, not merely flattering, it was performative
and politically relevant: it served as a kind of marker, a signal that the honorands were
capable and worthy of public representation. The expressions used also signalled that the
achievements and qualities of the honorand were important to the civic community at large.
An analysis of the honorific inscriptions of Termessos should, therefore, also take account of
matters like style and vocabulary.
So what can we say about the styles associated with civic leadership in Termessos? What
was important enough to commemorate? What crucial qualities did the Termessian notables
want to get across? I shall discuss here a number of ‘domains’ that were apparently very
important to the Termessian elite and their self-representation: inscriptions highlight their
patriotism, piety, loyalty to Rome, Greek identity, and athletic success.

Patriotism

Most inscriptions in Termessos can be read as a testimony to the patriotism of the honorand.
Social superiority implied that the members of the elite had a special relationship with their
fatherland. Elite citizens could stake out their claims to patriotism in various ways. As
magistrates, priests and benefactors they could fairly argue that they contributed more to their
polis than other citizens. They offered, in material terms, what made the polis really a polis.
Thus we find inscriptions that commemorated individuals as civic magistrates or liturgists,
and others that marked their contributions to buildings, the financing of an aqueduct, funding
of embassies, or the grain supply of the city, and (very frequently) the organisation of athletic
contests.30 These monuments displayed the importance of serving one’s city in various ways.
But, at the same time, as Richard Gordon argued, “the nature of what was given … construct
an idea of what is needful to the community, and idea constructed by the elite in terms of its
own judgments of values” and by means of its euergetism, the elite “sets it self up as the
major carrier of central values in the community.”31 The honorific monuments did not simply
testify to the patriotism of the honorands, but also presented them as exemplary citizens
without whom the city could not continue to exist. Patriotism was not simply a label that
could be stuck to various actions or offices; the monuments displayed patriotism as a defining
characteristic of the honorands. This was not merely a matter of practice, but also or mainly a
matter of style. To be a benefactor, one also had to look the part. As we saw above, no statue
has been found in Termessos that would accompany this type of patriot, but it was plausibly
argued by Paul Zanker that statues of the type ‘Angestrengter Polispatriot’ or ‘stressed polis
patriot’ were particularly suitable here.32
This imagery was underlined by an explicitly patriotic language. The paramount
importance of wealthy benefactors for the existence of the city found expression in the title
ktistes (founder) or ktistria (foundress) of the city. Some Termessians were expressly

29
TAM 3.1, Index X, Apellationes honorificae mentions i.a. ἀξιολογώτατος, διασημότατος, ἔνδοξος,
κλυτός, λαμπρός, σεμνός, and φιλότειμος.
30
A list with the athletic contests can be found in TAM 3.1, Appendix II Certamina. To which should
be added the contests in İplikçioğlu et al. 2007, Tafel 2.
31
Gordon 1990, 229-230
32
Zanker 1995b.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 8

commended as philopatris, lovers of their country, whereas many others were praised for their
philotimia to their city.33
In some cases the patriotism of the elite was presented in even more affective terms:
prominent councillors were described as ‘fathers of the polis;’ wealthy women as its mothers,
and of young men and boys it was said that they were ‘sons of the polis’, which seems to have
been considered as a preparatory stage for their future role as ‘fathers of the city.’ 34 It was
suggested by İplikçioğlu that we interpret such terms as an expression for a kind of ‘honorary
citizenship’. However, this affective language also has certain political overtones implying a
sense of superior love for the city on the part of the elite, while at the same time reducing the
citizen body to the rank of children.35 Walking through Termessos a Termessian notable
would be able to establish to his satisfaction that he belonged to a group of ‘super citizens’
who loved their home-town more than anyone else.

Exemplary piety

But notables were not only seen as more patriotic, they also presented themselves as more
pious than others. Piety was expressed by performing priesthoods, but also by performing acts
of piety, such as setting up votives to the gods. Piety was of course linked to social and
political status in various ways, but most common was the commemoration of civic
priesthoods. Most of these were for cults that the Termessians shared with other Greeks, and
included of course the emperors themselves, or Imperial gods as they have been described.36
In some cases however we see that piety was given a particularly local twist, e.g. when
dedicating a processional statue of the goddess Thea Eleuthera;37 another Termessian patriot
set himself up as the first priest of the local founder-hero Termessos.38
As civic priests or priestesses, the notables offered prayers on behalf of their community.
They provided the gods of their city with treasures and dedications, or arranged for the
construction or embellishment of temples and sanctuaries at the expense of the city, or met the
bills themselves. Civic priesthoods were of course not new, but the frequent commemoration
in this period by local notables of their religious functions and achievements presented civic
piety as a core attribute of elite families. The Termessians would often see members of their
notable families in their official garments, wearing conspicuous priestly crowns, and holding
sacred objects during the frequent sacrifices, contests and other rituals; statues near or in
sacred buildings, but also on public squares and along the main streets, made this image a
permanent fixture of the urban landscape. To drive the message home monuments frequently
highlighted the piety of the notables by stressing their eusebeia, or by referring to their
priestly status even where this was not strictly relevant, as in athletic inscriptions or on
epitaphs.39 When individuals were simply identified as ‘So-and-so, the Priest’ without
specifying a deity, it is clear that piety was used as a marker of elite identity.40

33
Ktistes/ktistria: TAM 3.1, 57, 58, 121, 122, 123; Philopatris i.a. TAM 3.1, 58, 83, 87, 98, 115, 12,
123; philotimia is very common: I counted more than 40 attestations, including TAM 3.1, 1, 4, 7, 55,
102, 109, 136, 139, 141.
34
Cf. TAM 3.1, 14, 16, 21, 87, 98, 105, 122 and als (with discussion) İplikçioğlu et al. 2007, no. 18,
pp. 76-78.
35
Pleket 1998, esp. 212-214.
36
For a survey Heberdey, in RE s.v. Termessos, 753-759.
37
TAM 3.1, 136.
38
TAM 3.1, 101, the reading is not certain, however.
39
E.g. TAM 3.1, 25, 53, in the funerary area e.g. 222, 283, 330; cf TAM 3,1. Index VII.2, s.v. ἱερεύς.
40
Cf. Heberdey, RE s.v. Termesssos 753;
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 9

Loyalty to Rome

The position of the elite was, however, more complex: although they liked to be seen as the
‘rulers of their city’, they were themselves also in a dependent position vis à vis Roman
power. It was said that the notables always had to worry about the ‘boot of the Roman soldier’
hanging over their head, so it is not surprising that loyalty to Rome was also displayed.41 The
Roman empire depended on the loyalty of the urban elites – whose job it was to make sure
that taxes were paid, and to impose order on the urban population. In return, wealthy families
emerged as the ordo of decuriones, whose superiority was guaranteed by the emperor and
Imperial elites. Loyalty to Rome was a crucial element of their social power, and therefore
frequently highlighted in their self-representation.
The inscriptions of course commemorated activities that displayed loyalty to –and good
relations with– Rome, notably the organisation and financing of embassies, former military
service, or even activity as a governor or other administrator. Of course Imperial priests and
priestesses, or the priest of Thea Rome, were the most conspicuous local philoromaioi, but on
a more concrete level we find commemoration of the construction or embellishment of shrines
and dedications to the emperor, and the organization of Imperial contests that underlined the
same mentality.42 Visually, loyalty to Rome could be signalled by showing the honorand in
Roman military gear, or as an Imperial priest or simply by representing him as wearing a toga.
Although the ‘love of Rome’ could be represented at various locations, there was a particular
concentration of Roman images in the stoa built by the benefactor Osbaras in the second
century AD.43

Athletic skills

The most common statue-type in Termessos, however, must have been that of the victorious
athlete, as more than half of the honoraries are dedicated to athletes, nearly all belonging to
known elite families.44 The ritual calendar of Termessos was punctuated by the constant
sequence of festive contests, with a special place for the heavy sports: wrestling and
pankration, although other disciplines were also found. Some contests were organised with
public funds, within the gymnasia of the city, but the more prominent ones were funded by
private benefactors. More than 20 of these games were known, and although we do not know
exactly how these were distributed over the year, we may safely assume that the Termessians
frequently had the opportunity to sit and watch the games together.45
Athletic skills carried many different connotations. The popularity of athletics in
Termessos reminds us of the importance of the body in expressing cultural and social ideals.
Athletics signified leisure and success, dedication and training, strength and health. Moreover
athletic competence may also have been used to establish masculinity as a civic virtue. Perfect
citizens also had perfect bodies. But as athletics was also a quintessentially Greek activity, the
desire to claim Greek identity though mastery of a traditional Greek sport in the gymnasion
would also have been important.46

41
For the expression: Plutarch Praecepta (813e).
42
E.G. TAM 3.1, 41, 52, 55, 66, 74, 85.
43
See van Nijf 2000, 29.
44
There are more than 40 inscriptions that commemorate athletic success. I have discussed the link
between athleticism and elite status in Termessos at various places: van Nijf 1999, van Nijf 2001 and
van Nijf 2003a.
45
They are listed i.a. in TAM 3.1, Appendix II, certamina, and in İplikçioğlu et al. 2007, Tafel 2.
46
I have discussed this link in more detail in van Nijf 2003a.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 10

Participation in these games was not limited to the upper classes, but elite families played a
prominent part in the games, both as their organisers, and as their main performers.47 The
majority of the inscriptions for athletes were –as one would expect– set up for boys and young
men of ephebic age, most of whom can be traced to one of the leading families of the city. But
athletic competence was also attractive to adult citizens: several priests and magistrates
thought it appropriate to commemorate their athletic successes on their inscriptions as well.48
Such statues were not only found in the gymnasia, or other buildings, but were visible
throughout the city in the most conspicuous places, alongside the statues for priests and
benefactors. The Termessians were confronted everywhere with images of their elite in the
shape of well-trained athletes, and apparently there was no perceived conflict between these
different spheres. Athletic skill was represented as a political virtue.49

The culture of power

I have suggested above that one of the attractions of the commemoration of athletic skills was
that it drew attention to the Greek credentials of the honorands. It is widely accepted that
Greek cultural identity was of prime importance for the self-image and orientation of the local
elites throughout the Roman East. Schmitz’ excellent study, Bildung und Macht has made
clear that traditional Greek paideia –high literary culture– served the elites as a source of
social-political capital.50 Even in remote Termessos, we see individuals flaunting their
familiarity with Greek culture in various ways. A recently published inscription for a
prominent Termessian, who was praised by his friends for ‘being a champion with words’,
demonstrates that the ability to speak in public was even in Termessos one of the defining
characteristics of the local elite.51 Several notables were also able to present themselves as
benefactors of Greek cultural institutions, such as the gymnasium, or as founders of traditional
Greek competitions. In some cases, they clearly aimed for more. A certain Marcus Aurelius
Platon, for example, had not only been the benefactor to the local gymnasion, but he was also
hailed as a neos Herodes, a New Herod, presumably referring to the famous orator Herodes
Atticus.52
Marcus Aurelius Platon’s name is suggestive of more subtle ways of claiming cultural
allegiance. It is striking that there was something of a fashion in Termessos for Greek
designer names that had a clear highbrow ring about them.53 Among the hundreds of standard
Greek names, names such as Plato, Atalante, Apelles, Achilleus, Homeros, Iason, Kadmos,
Kleon, Perikles, Philologos, Solon, and Sokrates stand out. Such highly classicizing names
were clearly used to mark the bearer –and his or her parents– as au fait with the Greek literary
and cultural heritage. Such names were common among the Termessian elite, but were not
limited to just the families of the notables. Whatever this may imply for the depth of
Hellenization, it shows that a Greek identity provided some cultural capital, and members of
the Termessian elite found it attractive to be portrayed as pepaideumenoi – cultured Greeks. A
recent study by Paul Zanker identifies the various options open to a Greek notable wanting to
draw visual attention to his intellectual qualities.54 But any degree of Hellenism would have

47
Van Nijf 2001.
48
E.g. TAM 3.1, 152, 168.
49
Above and in van Nijf 2003a.
50
Schmitz 1997.
51
İplikçioğlu et al. 2007, 21.
52
TAM 3.1, 123.
53
I discuss this issue more fully in van Nijf (in press).
54
Zanker 1995a.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 11

implied a dress and hairstyle that was easily recognizable: wearing a traditional cloak or
sporting a beard went a long way in establishing one’s Greek credentials.
Honorific monuments offered individual members of the elite an opportunity to represent
themselves in various guises: as super citizens, as pious priests, loyal Roman subjects, as
well-trained athletes and as educated Greeks. Most inscriptions seem to present themselves as
concrete exchanges for concrete benefits: offices, priesthoods, and benefactions are obvious
examples. And every modern reader who has witnessed the upsurge of national feeling during
soccer championships, or Olympic games, will understand that even an athletic victory might
be construed as a civic benefaction. The honorific statue was then presented as a mutually
advantageous exchange where concrete benefactions were traded for the best that a
community had to offer: status and renown.
However, it should be noted that the honorific language did not always stress an exchange
of benefits. In many cases the monuments highlighted the patriotism, piety, paideia or even
athleticism of the honorand, without making explicit the basis for these honours, or why he –
or occasionally she– was thus addressed.55 These qualities were simply presented as the
personal attributes of the honorand, and as such were sufficient reason in themselves for an
honorific monument. Such inscriptions made clear that Termessian notables embodied the
qualities which justified their public prominence. They did not have to prove anything.

Kinship and pedigree

However, the most important dimension of political culture to emerge from the epigraphic
material is the centrality of kin and family in the construction of individual elite identities.56
The monuments allowed the notables to connect their individual representation with that of
their kin and ancestors. In this final section I discuss how individual representation served a
wider social strategy, aimed at the collective representation of the families of notables as
repositories of the totality of qualities on which civic life was said to rest.
The Termessian material allows us to explore in some detail the centrality of the family in
the representation of the social status and power of the elite. The central role of elite families
is most clearly visible in the representation of women in the civic landscape. Honorific statues
for women were found throughout the city centre (Figure 3). Some of these women would
have been liturgists, priestesses, or benefactresses, as we have seen in the case of Atalante.
And even though none of these women ever occupied a position of formal administrative
power, they did attain a prominence that clearly had a political dimension. Riet van Bremen
has shown that the visibility of women was normally a function of the status of their families.
When women performed a function like that of high-priestess of the Imperial cult, they often
shared this position with their husbands, and when they offered a liturgy they did so normally
on behalf of their male relatives. Thus, the public representation of women was a family
affair.57
This connection was further underlined by the fact that most of the women were described
in terms that drew attention to virtues that could be construed as particularly suitable for

55
I discuss this issue briefly in van Nijf 1997, 11-13. It was not uncommon for young members of elite
families to be praised for their athletic skills, without being able to show an impressive palmarès, see
van Nijf 2001, 325-327.
56
These paragraphs are based on an MA dissertation written in 2008 by Martine Hekman under my
supervision.
57
Van Bremen 1996. Even though Kearsley has demonstrated that the archiereiai of Asia were not
always married to an archiereus, in Termessos this seems to have been standard practice. TAM 3.1,
55, 78, 83, 97, 99 and İplikçioğlu et al. 2007, 9, 11, 15.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 12

women such as sophrosyne, eunoia, and eusebeia. This language was used to emphasize that
despite their public appearance, women had not lost their female qualities.58
At the same time the honorific statues of Termessos were used to show that these women
still played their traditional role within their family. Some statues for women did not
commemorate public achievement, but merely referred to roles as dutiful daughters, nieces or
wives, emphasizing moral qualities. Philandreia, love for her husband, was in itself sufficient
reason for a public monument.59 The imagery of the statues would also have emphasised
domestic qualities such as modesty or pudicitia.60
As such, monuments were more often than not paid for by, or set up at the initiative of, the
families involved; these public honours became a simple extension of family self-
representation. The statues for elite women, whether in commemoration of a public role or a
more private quality, were a function of the desire of their male relatives to represent their
family as ideal.
It is striking that the same principles seem to have applied to the less prominent male
family members or even children. Many honorific monuments did not specify any concrete
achievements. The desire to commemorate kinsmen alone was apparently reason and
justification enough.61
The emphasis on the family as the core of their identity was also visible in other ways.
Termessians were avid ‘genealogical bookkeepers’ who used inscriptions to list their ancestry
in considerable detail. A Termessian was known not only by his own name, and that of his
father, as was standard practice in the Greek world, but by the names of several generations of
ancestors as well. 62 Atalanta was known as Atalanta Piaterabios Pillakoou Kinnounios, but
other (male) Termessians were equally keen to outline their lineage. To give some examples:
Oplesianos Oplonos Oplesios Arteimou or Hermaios Moleous Pillakoou Hermaiou Attatos.
Other women include Nannelis Platonos Ermaiou II Theodosiou. We find one Roman citizen
tracing his family back for seven generations (M. Aurelios Asklepiades Troïlou Trokondou V
Atteous), as well as evidence of adoption (Apollonios Simonidou Apolloniou Thoantos phusei
de Simonidou).63
This emphasis on kin and descent makes good political sense: in an oligarchic system all
politicians, i.e. all politically active persons, were represented not only as individuals, but also
as members of an identifiable family. Individual qualities and achievements did not only
reflect the social status and political power of individuals, but added to the achievements,
traditions and aspirations of entire families.
At this point we can go back to the inscriptions for Atalante and her family with which I
started this paper. We saw there that statues and images for her family and for members of the
other families were spread throughout the city. It is now clear that this dissemination of
family images was closely connected to the wider epigraphic strategies of elite families. The
total epigraphic representation of each family across town was a function of –and a
precondition– for their social and political status. The top Termessian families literally
towered over the landscape. When we zoom in on particular parts of town, we can get an even
better sense of the effect this must have had. One of the most popular and best recorded areas
of statue display is the colonnaded avenue L5 (Figure 2). Colonnaded streets seem to have

58
See for this line of argument the analysis of the so-called Laudatio Turiae by Emily Hemelrijk
Hemelrijk 2005.
59
TAM 3.1, 96.
60
Eule 2001.
61
E.g. TAM III, 54,56, 64, 79 and 81.
62
On this tendency, see van Nijf (in press).
63
TAM iii, 4,
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 13

been a quintessential part of the urban armature in the cities of the Roman East.64 Of course
they may have served as an easy flow of traffic, but it should be noted that in Termessos the
street L5 was not exactly a main artery. The intercolumnar spaces were made for the display
of statues, and whatever its role in Termessian traffic, one of its purposes must have been to
serve as an urban statue gallery. As most of the orginal inscriptions in this street were found
in situ, or at least very near to their original location, we can reconstruct the layout in
considerable detail.65
At first sight, the street offered a random mix of statues for athletes and priest, benefactors
and magistrates, men and women, and young boys. In between them you would find the
occasional statute for a non-Termessian, usually a representative of the central government.
But there was a clustering of members of certain families – each member being
commemorated for different individual achievements or qualities. But while each individual
inscription may have concentrated on one particular honorand, or on a particular set of
attributes, seen together these monuments sent out the message that this or that particular
family collectively possessed all the attributes and qualities that were expected of the urban
elite. The cumulative psychological effect of this strategy should not be underestimated: it
was by walking through Termessos that one was constantly reminded of who really mattered,
and why. The honorific inscriptions put the Termessian notables literally and metaphorically
on a pedestal. The arrangement of statues in the urban landscape was clearly a politically
relevant phenomenon.

Envoy: the strength of traditional politics

This discussion of the political culture in Termessos may seem grist to the mill of scholars
who argue that traditional politics had atrophied.66 Surely the personality cult that we find
here proves that politics had indeed become a meaningless pastime for the happy few?
However, we should not be too quick to dismiss Termessian politics, since behind and around
the statues traditional politics were remarkably resilient.
The Termessians had acquired a democratic constitution early on in the Hellenistic period. In
the Roman period, this would have been evident to any visitor, before he even entered the
city. Down in the valley, along the ‘royal road’ (C1) leading into the city, an inscription of
just under half a square metre commemorated the treaty between the Termessians and the
citizens of Adada, which obliged them to lend mutual aid in case one of the cities was
attacked, ‘or when in either city the laws were subverted’, or when the ‘established
democracy’ would come under threat.67
The use of the term ‘demokrateia’ is significant. ‘Demokrateia’ could be used to mean no
more than an internally autonomous city that was not a tyranny.68 Yet although the term does
not mean that Termessos had acquired a constitution on a par with that of Classical Athens, it
would be unwise to assume that it was without value. For Adada and Termessos demokrateia
was meaningful enough to need preservation. Even though we know little about levels of
political participation, the installation of a ‘democratic’ regime must have helped ‘politicise’

64
For the new fashion of colonnaded streets in the Roman East, see Ward-Perkins 1981, 286, Coulton
1976, 176 ff. and Parrish 2001, 11.
65
The inscriptions along this street are conveniently listed in topographical order in TAM 3.1,
Appendix I. Heberdey lists inscription numbers, names of honorands and the stemma where known.
66
Cf. for a modern formulation of this prejudice, see Runciman 1990, taking his lead from Jones 1940
and De Ste. Croix 1983. See the introduction and also Salmeri in this volume.
67
TAM 3.1, 2.
68
Rhodes and Lewis 1997, 528 ff.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 14

the population. Citizens would have to gather in assemblies where collective decisions were
taken, and there was a range of offices that had to be filled.
For most of the Hellenistic period Termessos had maintained its relative independence.69
The Termessians seem to have made contact with the Romans in the early second century
BCE. Later, having succumbed too easily to Mithridates, they lost their independence – and a
substantial part of their territory. They seem to have rehabilitated themselves in Roman eyes
some time in the seventies BCE: their territory was restored and the Termessians were
recognised as leiberei amicei socieique populi Romani. Termessus Maior thus became a
civitas libera et immunis – a free and tax-exempt city, yet compelled to recognize Roman
suzerainty and to follow Rome’s foreign policy.70 Having learned that autonomy was
something that was the Roman Senate’s –as it would be later the Roman emperor’s– to
remove or restore, the Termessians appear to have remained in this relatively free position
throughout the Principate. The city was allowed to mint its own coinage, and continued to
advertise their autonomy on their coinage until the early third century.71 Freedom was also
represented otherwise. Around 200 CE a processional silver statue of the personification of
Free Termessos (Thea Eleuthera) was commisioned for 2500 denarii by her priest Tiberius
Claudius Florus, a former eponymous magistrate, who belonged to one of Termessos’ best
known families.72 And finally an inscription found in the theatre records the acclamation εἰς
ἐῶνα τὰ δίκεα Τερµησσέων αὐτονόµων (May the Privileges of the Autonomous Termessians
Last Forever!).73 This shows that the Termessians of the Imperial period still cared strongly
for their autonomia. Freedom and autonomy were clearly a source of considerable civic pride.
The inscriptions also show that Termessos was technically still a democracy. The decrees
were still passed by the demos on probouleutic advice from the councillors. The assembly met
regularly,74 and we know that at least some meetings took place in the theatre that seated c.
4500 people. If, as one text suggests, the entire population was gathered there, this would
imply that the number of the politically active citizens may have been of the same order.75
The Termessian demos was active: what little evidence we have for the issues on which the
assembly deliberated suggests that the demos concerned itself with many of the areas that had
always been on the agenda of poleis: the appointment of magistrates, financial affairs, civic
subdivisions (including the introduction of new phylai), construction works (roads and
cisterns), food-supply, and the organization of games and festivals. And although Termessos
would not have been able to have its own independent foreign policies, there were still
external matters to decide such as sending of auxiliary troops, and the maintenance of good

69
For a discussion of the Hellenistic period: Kosmetatou 1997. Roman Termessos is discussed by
Heberdey 1931.
70
For a discussion of the Lex Antonia see Ferrary 1985.
71
For images of the coinage see: 40, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54; pl. xli and xlii. For some easily accessible
examples see: SNGFr 2214v and Martini 13-18 via:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/pisidia/termessos_major/t.html (Consulted 17 Sept. 2008).
72
TAM 3.1, 136.
73
TAM 3.1, 877.
74
The expression used in the decree for Atalante was ‘ennomos ekklesia’. This will have implied a
normal, regular assembly as was prescribed by the laws of the city, as opposed to some kind of
emergency session,Rhodes and Lewis 1997, 503.
75
ΤΑΜ 3.1, 5. The text differentiates between the entire populace (to sunpas plethos) and the political
assembly (demos). I assume that the people gathered in the theatre at that occasion were not the entire
population, nor all the citizens, but a selection of politically active citizens, supplemented by an
unknown group of interested inhabitants without political rights. These may have included the
perioikoi that are on record, but it hard to imagine that the plethos contained a high proportion of
individuals who were not part of the demos.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 15

relations with Roman officials and indeed the emperor, to whom the city sent out several
embassies, and the negotiation of relations with the emperor (not least in the context of the
Imperial cult) was at the core of political life under the empire.76
Of course, a great deal of attention was lavished on the award of honours and statues to the
city’s notables, but we have seen that these negotiations were of political importance. Politics
is always in the first place “a debate on what politics is about, and with which issues it can
occupy itself,” and such debates helped to the relationship between the demos and its
leaders.77 And this was certainly the core business of politics. Even in democratic Athens the
relationship between mass and elite was a crucial dimension of political culture.78
It should not be assumed that political debate was meaningless, and that the outcome of
each deliberation would have been set in advance. Christina Kokkinia has argued on the basis
of a study of Plutarch, Dio and Aelius Aristides that politics was played for real, that elites
would not so much have feared the demos, but rather the threat of factionalism, manipulated
by elite politicians.79 We do not have the writings of a Termessian Plutarch or Dio, but it
would be unwise to assume that the Termessian elite did not take the assembly seriously. We
should not underestimate the leverage that a full assembly could have on the process and
outcome of political decision-making, even if the decision mainly concerned awarding
political honours.80
If an active assembly is a sign of a well-developed political culture, Termessos seems to
have been a success. This is confirmed by the fact that the demos was apparently concerned
about the effects of its own decisions. A fragmentary inscription that was set up in Temple N3
in the first half of the second century CE is a decree of the boule and the entire demos
regulating the archiving and re-publication of important decrees that had been issued for the
deliverance (soteria) of private and public interests.81 P.J. Rhodes has argued that concern for
the publication of the public decrees was a sign of a strong and active demos; in that respect
Termessos does fairly well.82
Finally, it would seem that political culture was not limited to the city centre: Termessos
had a large territory on which there were various rural settlements (peripolia) which like
Athenian demes could be villages or even small towns. These appear to have had some degree
of political autonomy, and were able to pass their own decrees, mainly in honour of local
benefactors.83The evidence for the activities of these peripolia covers both the Hellenistic and
Imperial periods, which suggests that in this respect there was at least a degree of continuity:
Termessos did not get depoliticised under the empire, neither did the Termessian chora. In
sum, it seems difficult to deny the Termessians their identity as a politically active
community. Institutional continuity and a widespread political activity throughout the Roman
period suggest that political life in this polis was far from dead.

Conclusion

76
For the Imperial cult see Price 1984.
77
De Haan and Velde 1996, 168: “’Politiek’ is allereerst een strijd om de vraag wat politiek is en
waarmee politiek zich mag en kan bezighouden.”
78
Ober 1989, cf. Salmeri in this volume.
79
This was emphasised at the Groningen 2003 conference by Christina Kokkinia. Het paper was
published elsewhere, Kokkinia 2006. For the strengths of the political debate see also Salmeri and
Tacoma in this volume.
80
See for a discussion of this point see Rogers 1991.
81
TAM 3.1, 3.
82
Rhodes and Lewis 1997.
83
İplikçioğlu 2004, is the best discussion: he argues that the territory was even larger than Heberdey
had thought and gives a detailed account of its extent.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 16

In this paper I have explored various aspects of the political culture in Roman Termessos. I
have collected the evidence for political practices and institutions and argued that Termessos
was anything but de-politicized. The Termessians were active citizens who took their pride in
their city’s autonomy, and who debated in the assembly about the pressing issues of the day.
These included crucial issues like the food-supply of the city, the sending out of troops and
negotiations of relations with the Imperial centre. But much political time must have been
devoted to praising and honouring members of the leading families.
This was not meaningless. Politics is also a discussion about the rules by which politics are
played, and about identifying and qualifying the players. I have argued that the honorific
representation in a city like Termessos was an important ingredient of the political culture and
a good guide to the mentality and self-image of the political classes. Inscriptions clarify the
basic elements of the political style that the leaders of the Termessian community adopted.
Monumental commemoration was a political strategy and a fundamental part of the way in
which the members of the elite reinvented themselves as a bouleutic order. Text, image, and
location of each monument together made a statement of political importance. Social distance
and political power were made present by the use of an explicitly elevated symbolic language,
and legitimated by an abundant display of moral and personal qualities. The monuments
represented individual members in moral terms as patriots, as pious priests, and as loyal
subjects to Rome. They positioned them as super citizens: as benefactors, as cultured Greeks,
and as successful athletes. These were the core elements of an oligarchic style that was not
limited to Termessos, but which we can follow there in more detail than in other cities.
The most telling conclusion is however, is that a study of the monuments highlights the
importance of kin and family structures for the identity of the Termessian notables. The
monuments were used in various complementary ways to locate individuals with precision in
the context of kinship networks, and in their aristocratic pedigrees. The honorific practice was
a joint effort by the city and the families of the notables to ensure maximal commemoration of
the members of a handful of families. Inscriptions honoured public achievements, but private
virtues and family relations were displayed with equal dedication. Many of the ‘public’
monuments were family affairs: they were set up, or paid for by family members, and not
infrequently commemorated matters of a mostly domestic importance. Honorific inscriptions
were a crucial element in making the private lives of the notables a matter of public interest.
In Roman Termessos the personal had become the political.

Department of Ancient History, University of Groningen

Bibliography

Alföldy, G. (1979), ‘Bildprogramme in den römischen Städten des Conventus Tarraconensis:

das Zeugnis der Statuenpostamente’, Revista de la Universidad Complutense 18, 127-275.
─── (1984) Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria. Epigraphische Quellen., Heidelberg:
Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil hist. Kl.
Cormack, S. (2004) The space of death in Roman Asia Minor, Wiener Forschungen zur
Archäologie, Vienna: Phoibos.
Coulton, J.J. (1976) The architectural development of the Greek stoa, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
de Haan, I. and H. te Velde (1996), ‘Vormen van politiek. Veranderingen van de
openbaarheid in Nederland 1848-1900’, BMGN 111, 167-200.
De Ste. Croix, G.E.M. (1983) The class struggle in the ancient world from the archaic age to
the Arabic conquests, London.
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 17

Dmitriev, S. (2005) City government in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor, Oxford: OUP.
Eule, J.C. (2001) Hellenistische Bürgerinnen aus Kleinasien. Weibliche Gewandtstauen in
ihrem antiken Kontext, TASK Vakfi Y, Istanbul.
Ferrary, J.L. (1985), ‘La Lex Antonia de Termessibus’, Athenaeum 63, 3-4.
Gordon, R. (1990) ‘The veil of power: emperors, sacrificers and benefactors’, in M. Beard
and J. North, Pagan Priests, Oxford: Blackwell, 199-231.
Heberdey, R. (1929) Termessische Studien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Denkschriften,
69. Band, 3. Abhandlung. Vienna: Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.
─── (1931), ‘Zur Geschichte von Termessus Major in römischen Zeit’, Anzeiger -
Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 68, 18-
28.
Hemelrijk, E.A. (2005), ‘Masculinity and femininity in the Laudatio Turiae’, CQ 54, 185-197.
İplikçioğlu, B. (2004) ‘Ländliche Siedlungen und das Territorium von Termessos (Pisidien)’,
in F. Kolb and E. Müller-Lucker, Chora und Polis, Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 103-146.
İplikçioğlu, B., G. Çelgin and A.V. Çelgin (2007) Epigraphische Forschungen in Termessos
und seinem Territorium, IV, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Sitzungsberichte 743 /
Veröffentlichungen der Kleinasiatischen Kommission, 18, Vienna: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
İplikçioğlu, B., G. Çelgin and A.V. Çelgin (1991) Epigraphische Forschungen in Termessos
und seinem Territorium, i, Vienna: Sitzungsberichte 575.
─── (1992) Epigraphische Forschungen in Termessos und seinem Territorium, ii, Vienna:
Sitzungsberichte 583.
─── (1994) Epigraphische Forschungen in Termessos und seinem Territorium, iii, Vienna:
Sitzungsberichte, 610.
Jones, A.H.M. (1940) The Greek City. From Alexander to Justinian, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kokkinia, C. (2006) ‘The governor’s boot and the city’s politicians. Greek communities and
Rome’s representatives under the empire’, in A. Kolb, Herrschaftsstrukturen und
Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Startegien der Administration im römischen
Kaiserreich: Akten der Tagung an der Universität Zürich, 18.-20.10.2004, Berlin:
Akademieverlag,
Kosmetatou, E. (1997), ‘Pisidia and the Hellenistic Kings from 323 to 133 BC’, AncSoc 28, 5-
37.
Lanckoronski, K., G. Niemann and E. Petersen (1892) Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, ii.
Pisidien., Vienna: F. Tempsky.
Ma, J. (2006), ‘The two cultures. Connoisseurship and civic honours’, Art History 29, 325-
338.
Ober, J. (1989) Mass and elite in democratic Athens. Rhetoric, ideology and the power of the
people, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Oliver, G.J. (2007) ‘Space and the visualization of power in the Greek polis. The award of
portrait statues in decrees from Athens’, in P. Schultz and R.von den Hoff, Early
Hellenistic portraiture. Image, style, context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parrish, D. and H. Abbasoğlu (2001) Urbanism in Western Asia Minor. New studies on
Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge, and Xanthos. Journal of Roman
Archaeology, no. 45. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Pleket, H.W. (1998) ‘Political culture and political practice in the cities of Asia Minor in the
Roman empire’, in W. Schuller, Politische Theorie und Praxis im Altertum, Darmstadt
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 204-216.
Price, S. (1984) Rituals and power. The Roman Imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge:
Van
Nijf
–
27.11.18
–
author’s
version
|
formatted
and
reviewed

 18

Raeck, W. (1995) ‘Der mehrfache Apollodoros. Zu Präsenz des Bürgers im hellenistischen

Stadtbild am Beispeil von Priene’, in M. Wörrle and P. Zanker, Stadtbild und Bürgerbild
im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München 24. bis 26. Juni 1993, Munich, 231-238.
Rhodes, P.J. and D.M. Lewis (1997) The decrees of the Greek states, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Rogers, G.M. (1991), ‘Demosthenes of Oenoanda and models of euergetism’, JRS 81, 91-100.
Runciman, W.G. (1990) ‘Doomed to extinction. The polis as an evolutionary dead-end’, in O.
Murray and S. Price, The Greek city from Homer to Alexander, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 347-368.
Schmitz, T. (1997) Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten
Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit, Zetemata 97, Munich: Beck.
Smith, R.R.R. (1998), ‘Cultural choice and political identity in honorific portrait statues in the
Greek East in the second century A.D.’ JRS 88, 56-93.
Tacoma, L.E. (2006) Fragile hierarchies. The urban elites of third-century Roman Egypt,
Leiden: Brill.
van Bremen, R. (1996) The limits of participation, Amsterdam: Gieben.
van Nijf, O.M. (In press) ‘Being Termessian. Local knowledge and identity politics in a
Pisidian city’, in T. Whitmarsh, Local knowledge and microidentities in the Roman East,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
─── (2003a) ‘Athletics and paideia. Festivals and physical education in the world of the
Second Sophistic’, in B.E. Borg, Paideia. The world of the Second Sophistic, Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 203-228.
─── (2003b) ‘Les élites comme patrons des associations professionalees dans l’Orient
romain’, in M. Cébeillac-Gervasoni and L. Lamoine, Les élites et leurs facettes. Les élites
locales dans le monde hellénistique et romain, Ecole française de Rome, Paris: Presses
universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 307-321.
─── (2001) ‘Local heroes. Athletics, festivals and elite self-fashioning in the Roman East’,
in S. Goldhill, Being Greek under Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 306-
334.
─── (2000) ‘Inscriptions and civic memory in the Roman East’, in A. Cooley, The Afterlife
of Inscriptions, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplements 75, London:
Institute of Classical Studies, 21-36.
─── (1999) ‘Athletics, festivals and Greek identity in the Roman East’, PCPhS 45, 175-200.
─── (1997) The civic world of professional associations in the Roman East, Amsterdam:
Gieben.
van Rossum, J.A. (1988) De gerousia in de Griekse steden van het Romeinse Rijk, Diss.
University of Leiden.
Walter-Karydi, E. (1994) Die Nobilitierung des Wohnhauses. Lebensform und Architektur im
spätklassischen Griechenland, Konstanz: Xenia, Konstanzer althistorische Vorträge und
Forschungen Heft 35.
Ward-Perkins, J.B. (1981) Roman Imperial architecture, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Zanker, P. (1995a) The mask of Socrates. The image of the intellectual in antiquity, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
─── (1995b) ‘Zur bürgerlichen Selbstdarstellung in den hellenistischen Städten’, in M.
Wörrle and P. Zanker, Stadtbild und Bürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München 24.
bis 26. Juni 1993, Munich: Vestigia, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte. Band 47,
Zimmer, G. (1989) Locus datus decreto decurionum. Zur Statuenaufstellung zweier
Forumsanlagen in römischen Afrika, Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.