[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

This webpage reproduces an article in the
Journal of Roman Studies
Vol. 6 (1916), pp83‑134

The text is in the public domain:
Sir W. M. Ramsay died in 1939.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!

p83 Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age

Colonia Caesarea was the oldest and the chief among the Pisidian coloniae which were founded by Augustus. The emperor briefly refers in the Monumentum Ancyranum to one or more colonies in Pisidia; but the reference is so slight as to give no evidence of their number or of the time or circumstances of foundation: it only shows that he planted in Pisidia at least one colony of soldiers. Strictly these garrison cities were 'Pisidian,' not 'in Pisidia': they were founded on the Pisidian frontier of the empire, but the Romans expressed themselves with geographical looseness, and the looseness had a political meaning and purpose: Rome did not trouble herself about barbarian geography, but intended to substitute a Roman geography and classification.JJJ

The Pisidian coloniae of Augustus were not all situated in the country which bore the name Pisidia among geographers or Greek writers who had regard to racial facts. Augustus and the Romans generally employed the term Pisidia in a loose way to designate a large part of the western Taurus mountains between Lycia and Cilicia, together with the foothills and the valleys on the north side of Taurus, so far as these were commanded by the mountains. That the geographical names in Asia Minor were used in a very loose fashion is a complaint made by Strabo more than once; and he assigns part of the blame for this looseness to the Romans, who arranged their divisions without grand to racial facts.JJJ Part of the fault lay in the intermixture of races, and the difficulty of fixing definite limits between them.

Three of those colonies were in Pisidia proper: one, namely Antioch, was in Phrygia; one, namely Lystra, was in Lycaonia or in the Isaurican region: one, namely Parlais, is usually assigned to Lycaonia, although the Augustan term Pisidian is probably more correct. The fact that the intention of them all was to restrain the mountain tribes of Taurus, loosely called Pisidians by the Romans at that time, led to their being class d as Pisidian colonies.

These Pisidian colonies fall into two divisions, as their names show. The first division contains only Colonia Caesarea (Antiochea). The second contains five: Cremna, Olbasa, Comama, Parlais, Lystra (or Lustra as the inhabitants call it on coins and inscriptions). These five are all term d Colonia Iulia or Iulia Augusta, with additional epithets: Colonia Iulia Augusta Felix Cremnensium (Cremna), Colonia Iulia Augusta Olbasena, Colonia Iulia Augusta Prima Fida Comama, Colonia Iulia Augusta Parlais, Colonia Iulia Felix Gemina Lustra. The omission of Augusta in the last is probably accidental. The authorities often shorten the long titles of these coloniae by omitting one or more of the names: probably Parlais also had other epithets.

Colonia Caesarea stands by itself, and the name points to an earlier date for its foundation. Messrs. Cumont and Anderson point outJJJ that the name Kaisareion for a temple of Augustus implies an earlier date than the name Sebasteion or Augusteum. Now it is impossible to place the foundation of this colonia so early as 27 B.C. when the title was bestowed on Octavianus; for the province Galatia was not created until 25 B.C. and it is a fundamental principle that a colonia was on Roman soil, although even recent investigators sometimes ignore the principle,JJJ and KornemannJJJ says that Colonia Caesarea was founded before 27 B.C. inasmuch as after that year it would have been called Iulia Augusta: in other words he maintains that the Roman colony was founded in the kingdom of Amyntas. This principle does not imply that no colonia was planted in a country unless it had already been fully organised as a province; for there are exceptional case s, in which it was so important for the Roman to hold a piece of foreign territory, either for trade and imperial intercommunication, or for military reasons, that the foundation of a garrison city and centre of Roman power was necessary. Such was the case at Narbo, which was needed to hold the land-road to the two provinces of Spain. It was impossible to permit the connexion between Rome and Spain to depend solely on navigation: that was too uncertain. The land-route must be held firmly. The necessary basis for retaining the Spanish provinces was a safe road through the south of France. Again, evidently, in the case of the Mauretanian colonies founded by Augustus, the principle that the territory of the colony was a piece of Rome itself, separated in spaced from the rest of Rome, was observed. Pliny remarks with regard to first of these colonies that its territory was disjoined from the alien rule of Mauretanian kings and attached to the administration of the province Baetica; and the same may confidently be said about the others. All stood on or at no great distance from the coast, and were needed to maintain the Roman dominion on the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.

None of the conditions that Aphrodite to Narbo and other cases were fulfilled at Antioch, which had been a self-governing state from 189 to 40 B.C. It was then given to Amyntas, an energetic client king. No Roman interest was involved in this district, except that of general peace and order; and it was a principle of Augustan administration that, in such outlying distant regions, where the population was not yet fit for incorporation in the empire as a province, the general advantage would be best served by placing the territory under the government of a king, part of whose duty was to educate the people up to the standard needed for a provincia.JJJ Such kings were Amyntas, Polemon, Herodes, Antiochus IV, etc. No line of communication of great importance for the empire passed through Pisidian Antioch. There is no sign that it had been a centre of Roman trade, or that Roman traders had preceded the eagles in settling there. The rarity of cives romani consistentes in the province Galatia is remarkable, and contrarys with their great numbers and wide distribution in the province Asia (as is gathered from a wide survey of epigraphic material). In any case they must be looked for along the great central trade-route, and not at Antioch on a branch road. Amyntas perhaps founded a polis Kaisareia in his dominions, but Augustus would not found a colonia there before 25 B.C.

The question may be ask d whether Augustus would have permitted the name Carolina after he had assumed the title Augustus. There are two alternatives possible, and evidence does not prove or dis prove either as yet.

(a) It is possible that Amyntas may have renamed the Greek city Antiocheia as Kaisareia. Such an act would be quite probable, and many similar cases are known.JJJ All such cities, however, continued to be jjj of the Graeco-Asiatic type, and were not 'coloniae.' The new name would, doubtless, be accompanied by some change in its constitution: it was made by Amyntas his base of operations against the mountaineers of Taurus in the war during which he perished. Then Augustus in 25 B.C. made the city into a 'colonia' and settled here a large body of veterans, retaining the name Colonia Caesarea.JJJ

(bbb0 We might perhaps assume that the name Augusta was not forthwith made universal in imperial usage after 27 B.C. but that the name Caesarea was still allowed. Yet the older name for an Augustan foundation should be referred to as early a date as possible; and we should therefore be disposed to assign the colonia to the first organisation of the province, and would not even come down to Augustus's residence in Asia 20‑19 B.C.

In this obscure period and country the former alternative may be admitted as more probable, that Amyntas had changed the name Antioch to Kaisareia. Almost every vassal-king named some city in his realm to do honour jjj.

As to the other class of Pisidian coloniae, we know their date, ab. 6 B.C. They were founded at the conclusion of the Homonadensian war, evidently to keep the peace in that troubled region. They are very obscure, and play d little part in history. Their colonial character is known only from coins and inscriptions, except Cremna, which is mentioned by Strabo as a Roman foundation. In the progress of exploration it has gradually become possible to complete the list, and to understand the occasion of their establishment. Marquardt mentions only Cremna, Parlais on the authority of third-century coins, and Olbasa discovered by Duchesne and Collignon, and known from coins.JJJ The first reference to Colonia Julia Augusta Lustrensium was found, and a coin of Colonia Lustra was purchased on the site, by my friend and coadjutor Professor Sterrett in 1884: Waddington about the same time, without knowing of sterrett's discovery, published a coin of the Colonia Lustra. Yet in January 1884, when I showed to one of the greatest of German scholars Sterrett's copy of the inscription, he at first inclined to regard it as misread. Colonia Iulia Augusta Comama was discovered only in 1886, and then a series of coins, hitherto falsely attributed to Comana in Cappadocia, were correctly read and assigned to the newly discovered colonia. The Pisidian colonies had to fight for their recognition in the nineteenth century, as they had to fight for their existence in the first century.

A series of discoveries of milestones restored to us the knowledge of the Pisidian colonial system. The milestones were found both in the east and in the west of the country that looked to Colonia Caesarea as its centre and capital.

They are numbered in miles from Antioch as the 'caput viarum': the numbers go far over a hundred: cxxii was found on the site of Comama: xlv on the road to Colonia Lustra. The milestones are all dated in 6 B.C. and they all speak of the road on which they are placed as the Via Sebaste, the imperial road. The hybrid name Via Sebaste was so strange that it was at first misunderstood and altered; but, as one stone after another confirmed the name, we now know with certainty that this series of Pisidian roads was planned under Augustus, and called by the Greek form of his title. These roads connected the Coloniae Iuliae Augustae with the older military centre Colonia Caesarea. Everything points to a carefully planned effort to maintain the Roman authority in the Taurus mountains; the consummation of the policy is dated in 6 B.C. at the end of the war against the Homonades; and the circumstances become connected and intelligible only by reference to Colonia Caesarea as capital and military centre.

This last point I used to speak of as self-evident; but I have been criticised for stating it as obvious. The distinguished theologian who made this criticism asks what authority there is for regarding Antioch as the administrative and military centre of the great series of regions which formed the southern portion of the province Galatia. The answer to this question lies in the facts just stated and in Roman administrative principles. Antioch was the 'caput viarum,' and the roads leading east and west to the new coloniae are measured from it as centre.JJJ The single name for all the road s, Via Sebaste, implies a unity of plan. the Plan takes its name from Augustus, and is dated under him. The road-centre is in Roman custom the administrative centre. This centre was an older 'colonia,' already in existence when the plan was carried out; and therefore the old 'colonia,' Antioch, stood in 6 B.C. as the capital and seat of Roman government for all that country (which may be called by the modern descriptive term South Galatia, i.e. the southern part of the province Galatia).

The mountain-tribes of Taurus had been a constant source of danger to the plains on the north for centuries, as Xenophon mentions about 400 B.C. and Strabo in A.D. 19. Antioch was the basis from which the defence of the Phrygian plains was conducted bef6 B.C.; and in that year this defence was systematised by the construction of roads along the northern side of the Taurus region and by the foundation of five military colonies at important points in the mountains. The original Colonia Caesarea, however, did not lie in the mountains, which were still unsafe when it was founded: it was planted on a Seleucid site in the southern part of Phrygia, rich both as an agricultural centre and as situated on a great road running east and west between the Maeander valley and the Cilician Gates — not indeed the greatest of the roads across Asia Minor, but one that has always been an important line of communication.

Other considerations carry back to an early time the foundation of Colonia Caesarea. Antioch elected Drusus, stepson of Augustus, as one of its duoviri for two successive years, as we learn from the titulus mentioning hspraefectus in his second year.JJJ As Drusus died in 9 B.C. this carries us back much earlier than the making of the Via Sebaste and the foundation of the five Coloniae Iuliae Augustae in 6 B.C.

Moreover, PlinyJJJ mentions 'Colonia Caesarea, eadem Antiochia' alone of the Pisidian coloniae. It is now generally assumed that Pliny in these lists depended on the statistics of Agrippa, 12 B.C.; it is therefore inferred that Antioch was the only Pisidian 'colonia' which existed before 12 B.C.: and this inference is in perfect accordance with all the rest of our information.JJJ

Moreover, such a scheme as is involved in the creation of a military post for defence on the south belongs to the first constitution of the province. The province arose through the unsuccessful wars of Amyntas on the south frontier; and the defence on that side was urgent, and must have been attended to by the first governor Lollius.

In reading the inscriptions published in JRS 1914, pp253 and 254, by mrcheesman, we are amid the early fortunes of an established colonia. The first of them was engraved on the basis of the first statue erected in the colonia, an event which (as he says) is not likely to be postponed many years after its foundation. In a colony so situated, guarding the fertile plains amid which it lies from the ever-dreaded tribes of Taurus (as Strabo describes the situation on the frontier), the Roman soldiers of the city were sure to produce some man that deserved well of his country; and mrcheesman publishs the elogium inscribed on his statue and another which was probably engraved on his tomb.

The statue of this soldier and civilian official, c0caristianus Fronto Caesianus Iulius, was erected about 10‑7 B.C. Already we have at this time got beyond the first beginnings of the colonia. Caristianus is not a veteran of the first foundation. He is an official of the colonia, who goes through the customary career in the imperial and the colonial service. We must therefore go back to a still remoter period for the generation of veterans who came as the original 'coloni.'

Incidentally we notice that the cognomina Caesianus Iulius did not remain in use by the family, and should therefore be regarded as special to this individual. According to republican usage Caesianus is an adoptive cognomen, and perhaps may be so regarded here.JJJ Iulius, a nomen employed here as a third cognomen, may perhaps have been added to his name as a mark that his father had been in the service of Caesar himself:JJJ the father may have been one of the original veteran 'coloni,' but the son must have been born in the west, before the colonia was founded. h3 II. The First Coloni (Leg. V Gallica)

The theory has been generally accepted that Colonia Caesar was composed of veterans of Leg. V Gallica; but the evidence was hitherto so splendor that it is a great pleasure to be ableto confirm it.

Three epitaphs of such veterans occurred among the Latin inscriptions of Antioch. Those veterans could not be Antiochians born, who had gone to serve in that legion and returned to die at home, for it was a western legion. Several such veterans occur, who had served in eastern legions, and the military career was evidently common among the young Romans of Antioch; but they could not serve in the west. Still the facts stated below about Leg. VII, and our failure to find other similar inscriptions as the number of Latin epitaphs increased, were casting some doubt on the theory: especially as the lettering of the three knownJJJ was hardly such as to suggest so very early a date. Yet we must not expect carefully formed letters in inscriptions of this character. I recopied no. 6828 in 1912, and made a note that the first part is in good early letters, but the Bacchanalian sentiment is in poor careless letters: yet the two parts must be contemporaneous. All doubt, however, is removed by the following inscription and coins.

If Domaszewski's opinion be correct that Legio V Gallica was disbanded in 16 B.C. because it lost an eagle in a defeat on the Rhine, it would prove the truth of the theory. But we need not go into this point,JJJ as other conclusive evidence has been found.

In the court of a house in Yalowadj I copied the following epitaph in 1914. One advantage of long-continued work at Antioch is that from time to time one gains access to private houses (usually a difficult matter in Turkey except in peasant homes): inscriptions will continue to be found in this way for a long time, and probably any visitor to Yalowadj might have the luck to hit on a valuable document at any time in the future. IMAGE 1. (Fig. 6) Yalowadj: copied in 1914 (R.) L. Pomponio Nigro veterano legionis V Gallicae scribai quaistorio: Urbanus libertus. Also et Viviai in another part of the stone.

The Pomponian family is mentioned frequently at Antioch; but it is impossible at present to distinguish possible descendants of this veteran from 'incolae' who took the nomen of Pomponius Bassus (legatus of Galatia-Cappadocia, A.D. 95‑100) on receiving the 'civitas.'JJJ As is shown below, this veteran's family perhaps died out with him.

The spelling ai in the first declension dative is an important criterion of age. Treating form was archaic. It lingers in the poetry of Lucretius, where its use is generally taken as due to intentional archaism, and it is sporadically found in inscriptions under ClaudiusJJJ and in Christ inscriptions. The soldier who used it here must have learned it in Italy, and brought his native dialect with him. The descendants of the first colonists would not be likely to learn an archaic form. Latin was in the position of a language fighting for its existence in Antioch against the pressure of Greek, the speech used by the 'incolae,' Greeks or Phrygians, and by the more educated among the surrounding Phrygian population of the villages on the great 38s of the god (inherited by the emperors).

Bücheler indeed has suggested that the sporadic late use of ‑ai was due to Greek influence, and this might be held to account for its occurrence at Antioch. If, however, Greek influence was the reason for introducing ‑ai,JJJ then we should expect to find it oftener in Antiochian inscriptions. For my own part I venture to think that ‑ai here is a true survival of an archaism preserved in rustic Italian speech, and not a new form introduced into Antiochian Latin under Greek influence. The Greek form was not, and had not for centuries been, a sound like ‑ai: the iota adscript had long ceased to affect the sound of the termination, and was preserved in writing only sporadically, and practically it was never appended to α at Antioch:JJJ Greek influence, therefore, could not produce the sound ai in Latin. The occurrence of ai in some Christian inscriptions is probably due to false declension and ignorance (like so many other wrong forms of inflexion in Christian Greek and Latin); and it is not to be taken as a real survival of an old form. The use of hhi ai under Claudius certainly springs from his fondness for archaic forms.

Pomponius may confidently be regarded as one of the original coloni, sent by Augustus in 24 or 23 B.C. His career, therefore, is interesting: he became a clerk in the office of the quaestor of the colonia (scriba quaestorius). Presumably he had some education such as would qualify him for this position.

His freedman Urbanus erects the monument to his memory. As no children are mentioned, it may perhaps be presumed that there were none of the marriage,JJJ which was perhaps contracted late in life, after he had served his time in the army. His wife bears a Latin name, Vivia (probably for Vibia). Both names, Pomponius and Vibius, remained in use at Antioch; but, if we are correct, it was not descendants of this pair that appear in later history. Vivia probably came from the west with Pomponius: he did not marry in Antioch, for in that case his wife would have had a Greek or a Phrygian name.

It is hardly what we might expect, that one of the original coloni should be only a clerk in the quaestor's office, for the coloni were the aristocracy of the Roman colonia; but in the beginning they had to conduct the entire government for the young foundation. Gradually the 'incolae,' the native population, were admitted to the civitas. In the first years of the colonia, however, only the original coloni possessed the Roman civitas or the right to vote and conduct the administration in the colonia. Moreover, inscriptions show that in Rome the office was not a humble one,JJJ and in Antioch it was no doubt quite honourable.JJJ

The difference in form between C and G is very slight: Nicro would naturally bread. In the earliest Antiochian inscriptions the distinction is slight.

At the same time this tombstone is an interesting example of Greek influence on the Romans of the colonia. It is quite Greek in general character, but a Roman touch appears in the scutum. The pediment outline d on the stone is common throughout this whole region, and characteristic of Phrygia; and the custom of representing articles of household use in relief on grave-stones is also general in Phrygia. In this case they are chosen to suit the Roman soldier and scribe: shield and sword and capsa of documents lock d, with the basket of Vivia at one side and the spindle of Vivia hanging over the shield. The dwells and shield are a device rare in Phrygia, but more common in Pisidia. In Pisidian and Isaurian monuments the shield is round: in this monument a Roman scutum is intended. These objects are executed in high flat relief. The architectural devices of the acroteria are badly executed in a sprawling fashion. The freedman also must have come with Pomponius from Italy. A slave acquired in Antioch would probably have had a Greek or eastern name. Urbanus ordered the gravestone after the native fashion to be adorned with devices suited to the special case.

Another fact seems to show that the first coloni were largely or perhaps entirely veterans of Legio V, namely, the legend of a coin at Berlin, the description of which I owe to Mr. gf0hill (from Dr. Imhoof). The coin is dated in the seventh consulship of Vespasian, A.D. 76, and shows on reverse an eagle standing between two military standards with the inscription on l. leg V and on r. CC.JJJ The memory long remained in the colonia of the original coloni and the legion to which they belonged. In regard to this coin we must reject the explanation which at first suggested itself, that Legio V Macedonica is meant, and that a vexillatio of that legion was detached to Antioch to aid in the reorganisation of the Taurus region at the beginning of Vespasian's reign (when a large part of Pisidia was detached from Galatia, and Cappadocia was united with Galatia, and Armenia Minor was included in the province, and Cilicia Tracheia was taken over from the sons of Antiochus). The view had some apparent show of probability, for much would have to be done in those changes which required in the Roman system the service of soldiers: it was really, according to our custom, work for civilians; but the empire had only soldiers available for census and similar during. Mrcheesman, however, points out that legions were urgently needed on the denuded Danube frontier; and Josephus says positively that Legio V was sent back from Syria to Moesia (in the autumn of A.D. 71).JJJ

Another hypothesis must also be rejected, namely, that this supposed vexillatio was detached from the Legio V stationed in Lower Germany. This legion went to Italy with Vitellius, and was sent after Vespasian's victory to Moesia, where it was urgently needed, and where it was annihilated by the enemy in A.D. 86‑87.

The only explanation that seems possible is that the legend Leg. V on this coin must be a memory of Leg. V Gallica as the original source of the colonia. The type is two pairs of military standards. In general on those earlier colonial coins the types are purely military.

Accordingly the situation seems clear. Antioch rtadits military character through the first century of its history: its coins are legionary, and it cherish d the memory of the Fifth Legion Gallica from which its first settlers had been largely derived. The early coisn show a Roman colonia, whose interests and pride turn towards Rome; but a change begins under the Flavian emperors.

This character for the colonia in the first century confirms also the view that the policy of the Romans on the NE. Asiatic frontier centre d in provincia Galatia, and every change or development in that policy was reflected in a modification of the province.JJJ Down to A.D. 69 the province continued steadily to increase, as new parts were added to it. Then in 72 the Flavian emperors began to modify the plh: they cut off parts of the south-west from the province, but joined to it the vast mass of Cappadocia and Lesser Armenia, made the united provinces consular in rank, added legionary troops in permanence, and organised the military lines and stations along the upper Euphrates. Thus after 25 B.C. Galatia Provincia meant the frontier policy in that quarter, as Cilicia Provincia had meant the frontier policy on that side between 80 and 49 B.C.; and this fact shows in clear light the importance of the provincia from 25 B.C. to A.D. 70.

The following facts suggest that another legion may have furnished part of the original coloni. Two veterans of Legio VII are mentioned in Antiochian epitaphs.JJJ As the legion is named without the epithet Claudia, these epitaphs belong to a period older than A.D. 42. At that time it would not be possible that recruits from Antioch should go to serve in the seventh legion in the west. It is therefore probable that some of the coloni sent to Antioch were of that legion (or they represent a subsequent draft required to increase the strength of the colonia); but they were apparently fewer in number. With this hypothesis we may perhaps connect the fact that on early coins (Augustus to Vespasian) the customary type shows two eagles on two standards:JJJ these may indicate that veterans of two legions were among the early coloni.

It may be added that the following inscription, found in the sanctuary of Mên above Antioch, cannot be restored as mentioning this Gallic Legion V. IMAGE

2‑4. (Fig. 7) Three fragment of marble tablet (R, A, C, 1912): good letters of first century A.D. carefully engraved. Above is a bust of Mên broken. I unite conjecturally the three fragments on account of their resemblance in my copies.

Anicius Caesianus was duumvir at Antioch (doubtless as the climax of a municipal career), and served in the army, rising to be tribune of the (third) legion (stationed in Syria). I should hardly be inclined to place this inscription so early as the time of Augustus, and judge that it belongs rather to the middle of the first century A.D.; yet the cognomen Caesianus recalls the second cognomen of C. Caristanius Fronto,JJJ and indicates some possible connexion between the families, perhaps through marriage. Anicius took the cognomen from the mother Caesia Procilla.

The other fragment mentions a daughter of C. Anicius Caesianus. It may perhaps be placed between the other two fragments, as I have done. I must confess that the restoration is here less probable, (1) because the daughter's name is drawn in my notebook slightly larger,JJJ (2) because the order — father, daughter, mother — is unusual. The fact that the shape of the fragments is similar is not conclusive proof that they are parts of one memorial: the form is frequent. It is unfortunate that we did not put these three pieces side by side at Antioch, but I observed the resemblance from the drawings in my notebook too late. As to the order — father, daughter, mother — it may be observed that in Greek authors, children are often mentioned before the mother: in fact this order is distinctly commoner in the classical Greek period.JJJ In Anatolia, however, the mother is usually mentioned before the children; but there are exceptions.

I place all three stones conjecturally here as parts of one: there are, however, many cases where two dedications were made by one family, with only slight variations, and it seems certain that these three pieces were all dedications by one family and help to complete our knowledge of it, even if they are not parts all of one stone, CIL III.6830 mentions freedmen and a freedwoman of this family: I have never seen this inscription, and cannot speak of the lettering; Sterrett and Mommsen print it in type, not in facsimile.

The same duumvir may be mention d in the inscription on the entablature of a heroon of ornate character, in letters 3½ inches high, of a good early first-century form, C. Anicio Co . . . . . . (fig. 8). h3 III. Cornutus Arruntius Aquila leg. Aug. pr. pr. 6 B.C.

At this point the orderly execution of the plan would require a section devoted to the military history of Colonia Caesarea in the Augustan period. All the information that is abbreviate at present centres round the notable figure of L. Caristanius Fronto caesianius Iulius. The study which mrcheesman has devoted to this leader of the colony in war and peaceJJJ may be regarded as the execution of our plan at this point. Caristanius is the one name which stands out in the wars of the colony under Augustus; and its military history is, for the present, confined to an exposition of his achievements and his place in Roman history on the eastern frontier. It is to be hoped that further discovery will increase our kgeots man and also add some other early military names.

An hypothesis may, however, be advanced about an insignificant fragment, CIL III.6834,JJJ which defies all interpretation in its published form, and demands some drastic treatment. If our conjecture is right, this mutilated fragment reveals the family of the governor of Galatia in 6 B.C. and throws some light on the Homonadensian war. The war must have been pressed simultaneously from north and south. Caristanius, as acting magistrate (praefectus) of Colonia Caesarea, worked in concert with his provincial governor, who had indeed no legion under his command, but only auxiliary troops: the writer has long thought (and wrote fully about it in his last letter to mrcheesman) that the Cohorotes Phrygum (of which six disappeared soon from history, leaving only Coh. VII Phrygum were needed in the early years of the provincia, but were not maintained after danger from the Taurus mountaineers ceased. The governor of Galatia was also active in the pacification that followed the Homonadensian war; for the milestones along the whole series of Viae Sebastae east and west bear his name.

Incidentally the following not es show how deceptive epigraphic copies printed in type liable to be, even if carefully supervised. One would hardly recognise in the accompanying zincograph (fig. 9, a) the inscription which is published in Sterrett's Ep. Journ. no. 128 (fig. 9, c) and CIL III.6834 (fig. 9, b). The copies perhaps suffered from a feeling on the part of the copyists (myself in 1882 and Professor Sterrett in 1884)JJJ that the scrap was too insignificant to reward care: at least I must confess to this, so far as I am concerned. Accordingly, we are reduced to a conjectural restoration, where probably a minutely careful examination of the stone would give certainty, as some slight traces of the lost letters might be detected.

As Sterrett says, the stone is broken at the left, but whole at the top, the right side and the bottom. Evidently, however, the inscription continued on another stone immediately underneath, showing that the whole was engraved on a wall and extended over at least two stones (as was the case with many honorary inscriptions in Antioch).JJJ The accompanying illustration will show the state of the stone better than any description. While the stone is complete on three side s, the surface has been injured a good deal at the top and in a smaller degree on the right side. The letters in the top line were larger than in the body of the inscription, but the published epigraphic copies show no difference in size. This causes a wrong arrangement in Sterrett's publication, and the reader will naturally ask how he can describe the right side as complete when line 2 stretches much beyond line 1n line 3 beyond line 2. The error, however, lies not in Sterrett's own copy, but in the type as set by the printer.

In attempting to represent the epigraphic text by type the printer finds difficulty, and hence this inscription as hitherto published is not merely unintelligible, but even misleading. Any one who looks at the published texts must inevitably conclude that the name in the first line ends in atrvno, or airvno, but this appearance is largely due to the wrong spacing between the letters. There is a considerable gap between R and the broken letter which pcdsit and which certainly was not T but R. Further, in those publications no indication is given where the surface of the stone is broken, so that although rvno can be read with certainty, one cannot infer that there was nothing protrudeing above the top of the letters. Mommsen's publication of the text suffers both from the use of type (like Sterrett's), and also from the attempt to incorporate two copies in one text.JJJ He and Sterrett place at the beginning of the first line part of the letter C, but this is really part of a leaf ornament;JJJ and the only fragment of a letter before A is a part of M, the praenomen M(arcus). At the end of line 3 Sterrett is indubitably correct, and here Mommsen follows my copy.

With regard to the arrangement of the lines one thing remains in doubt. Is there a gap sufficient to contain one letter at the end of line 3, or is this line complete> My copy leaves this uncertain. The stone has disappeared, as we did not find it in 1911‑1914, though we repeatedly examined the cement where it was seen in 1882 and 1884. Perhaps, however, this small stone has been covered with soil during the interval since 1884, and may yet be recovered.

Our hypothesis (as shown in fig. 9, a) is that the letter N had T written over the top of it, and that on the top of T was I. NT are frequently written liqqes in this way, and the three letters NTI written liqqes occur at Antioch in inscriptions of a later date. When the letter R after A is restored, as seems certain, the completion of the lettres liées NTI is in the highest degree probable. We have, then, a certain m0arruntius, son of Cornutus, who was patron of the colony at some period comparatively early in the history of Colonia Caesarea. Cornutus must here be interpreted as a praenomen: in a Latin inscription of early imperial time we are not justified in supposing that the filiation is stated by the cognomen of the father. On this point I had some correspondence many years ago with Mommsen, arguing that Cornutus in this case was used as a praenomen; but the possible restoration Arruntius did not occur to me, and was not put before him.JJJ

In this period the patron of a colonia, especially when it was a city so important as Caesarea Antiochia, was usually a man of standing in Rome, who had some hereditary or personal connexion with the city: e.g. in CIL III.4817, Gnaeus Pompeius Collega is simply described as patron of the colonia: we know, however, from milestones and coins that he was governor of the province about A.D. 74‑77. On this analogy it might be argued that m0arruntius, son of Cornuts, was himself governor of the province and patron of the colonia; but our inscription was evidently one of some length and gave a different reason for the honour (of a statue?) conferred on Arruntius:JJJ he had contributed liberally to certain colonial purposes (in all probability to the cost of gladiatorial sports): this is not characteristic of the conduct of provincial governors in inscriptions of Antioch, but rather was the duty of local priests and magistrates. In the case of Pompeius one can understand that, in a being honorary inscription inscribed in very large letters, stress was laid only on the patronage and no further information was given as to his standing in the city or the reasons for honouring him; but in the case of Arruntius a different reason is given and his governorship of the province is not mentioned (for it would be out of place that this should be mentioned after the tale of his liberality). We therefore conjecture that m0arruntius held a hereditary patronage, and that his father or grandfather had been governor of the province and in close relation with Colonia Caesarea.

Now with regard to praenomen Cornutus, which is so far as I know unique in that usage, it probably belongs to the reign of Augustus, when some attempt was made to add to the inconveniently small number of praenomina. For example Iullus was invent d, used only, so far as is known, in the case of the son of Antony and Fulvia; and various cognomina were employed as praenomina under the early empire. There is therefore some probability that a person named Cornutus Arruntius is likely to have lived in the time of Augustus.

The cognomen of m0arruntius is omitted in our inscription. There is no possible room to addit, for the gap at the left of the inscription seems to have contained only one broad or two narrow letters. It was, therefore, left out by those who composed the inscription; but the designation of a Roman by his praenomen and nomen is quite common, and was prescribed by early custom and practised in S. C. Now in the first century A.D., the cognomen Aquila occurs intention family bearing nomen Arruntius: at Padua, CIL V.2819, m0arruntius Aquila is mentioned, and was evidently a person of high standing, being quaestor Caesaris, praetor, consul and quindecimvir S. F. The same or another m0arruntius Aquila was careless in the time of Vespasian (CIL X.8038). m0arruntius Aquila was also procurator governing Pamphylia in A.D. 50 (CIL III.6737): he was evidently a procurator of the highest class 'cum iure gladii,' and his name appears on a milestone. A procurator of this class might quite naturally be the father of a consul;JJJ but speculation has no sure ground here.

It follows then in all probability that the governor of Galatia in 6 B.C. was Cornutus Arruntius Aquila, and that his son was m0arruntius Cornuti f. (Ter. Aquila), who mindful of the hereditary connexion with Colonia Caesarea Antiochea made at some time a gift of money to that city (ex liberalitate sua).

The readers of the mrcheesman's article felt that the governor of Galatia during the Homonadensian war must have had some part in it. It is not without interest to show that he belonged to a family of note, which perhaps sprang from transpadane Gaul. h3 IV. Name of the Colonia and the Province

Colonia Caesarea was at first the complete name of the new Roman garrison city. It is so called in inscriptions as late as clauJJJ and on the early coins.JJJ The first intention evidently was to substitute the Roman idea and to get rid entirely of the nationalist spirit: hence the old name Antiocheia was done away with. The new colonia was to be a Roman city, secondary capital of the organised Provincia Galatia.JJJ The new province, however, was at the same time a transformation of the old kingdom of Deiotarus and Amyntas: hence the capital remained at Ancyra. similarly, when Asia Provincia was created out of the Attalid kingdom in 133 B.C. the royal capital Pergamum continued, although Ephesus was by far the most important and convenient for Rome from every point of view. But Colonia Caesarea was at that time a more thoroughly Roman city than Ancyra; and, when the history of the private comes to be written, this will be evident in the statement of the fact s.

The old name of Antioch, however, was too firmly root d to be done away. The hold of Hellenism on the city was too strong, and the coloni fell gradually under its influence. They learned Greek, as was necessary, since the great majority of the population used that language, and it was the language of education for the whole of central Anatolia as well as the familiar speech of almost all the coast-lands. They could not neglect the native god Mên who was the patron of the region, and whose anger must not be roused by neglect. Thus the Latin language was gradually forgotten:JJJ by A.D. 300 it was rarely used in epigraphy, and few seem to have known it familiarly; though a certain acquaintance with it seems still to have been a mark of good birth. Antioch became once more a Hellenistic city, and its colonial character was practically obliterated. Accordingly the name jjj never was attached to the city in Byzantine time: it was than jjj. Very different is the case in Cappadocia and Armenia Minor, where the Hellenic influence was never so strong, and where the Roman character was graft d on the native non-Hellenic stock. Both Archelais and Nikopolis are always called jjj in Byzantine lists. That was so, because in the local speech during the earlier centuries the name cuia was familiarly used by itself as the name of the town, and this usage established itself. An example occurs in CIL III.14186, a milestone, where the distance is stated A COlonia MIL X.JJJ This milestone implies that the people around Colonia Archelais spoke of it simply as jjj in the time of Diocletian.

The same is true about the province Galatia as about the Colonia Caesarea. The intention was to introduce the Roman provincial unity within the empire. All national distinctions and separatist names were to be done away as non-Roman and nationalist and sectarian. The entire province was to be bound together in a non-national and purely Roman union, held together by the loyalty of the empire as expressed in the worship of Rome and Augustus. The empire consisted of provinces. The population, so far as they did not possess the 'civitas,' were members of the Roman empire in virtue of being members of a province. Rome did not recognise them for her children on the ground that they were Phryges or Lycaones or Pisidae: such national names were hostile or servile, as Mommsen has shown in his own perfect and final way when discussing the designation of legionary and auxiliary soldiers, and 'classiarii.'JJJ The inhabitants of this vast province were Roman through being units in the province, and therefore the pro and its members must have a name and a unity . It was called Galatia. As the realm of Attalus III, when converted into a province, had been called by the name which the Romans previously had applied to the realm (calling it loosely Asia, as the part of the continent which most concerned them), so now they called the new province by the name Galatia, which they had been wont to apply to the realm of Amyntas. Strabo describes Amyntas as successor of Deiotarus, i.e. last of the sovereigns of Galatia; and so the Romans spoke of the new province Galatia.

This statement, which is made the application of the principles taught by Mommsen in more convincing and conclusive style than by any other, was in the last years of his life rejected by him; and in the index to CIL III, pp2459, 2649, he has invented a new Latin name for the province, 'Galatia adiunctaeque provinciae'; and this modern name, being now canonised in the Corpus, is likely to be adopted as if it had really been in Roman use.JJJ No ground for it is stated: none of the inscriptions in the volume support it. They are contradictory of it (because they use the singular provincia, not the plural, as it demands), where they give any evidence on the point. The sole origin of it and the sole foundation for it are a wrong interpretation of a Greek expression used in an inscription of Bithynia. That Bithynian inscription produced a marked effect on that great scholar's judgment, as I know, because he wrote to me about it. I could not at the moment produce any explicit epigraphic evidence against his interpretation of the Greek, though I knew that it was wrong, because it sinned against the deepest principles of Imperial policy as enunciated so often by himself. I had to wait until the decisive analogy should be discovered. After all the decisive analogies had been published in the Corpus long before; but I did not notice them until after Mommsen's death.

The point at issue is this. Was the province Galatia, as Augustus organised it, a real one, a unity under a single governor; or was it a mere congeries of distinct countries which were placed under one governor by a sort of chance, but of which each remained a separate individual province with its own special constitution? In the former case, the province was real, single and unified in administration. In the latter case, the use of the term Galatia to denote the province would be a mere abuse or convenience, corresponding to no real administrative character. Mommsen adopted the latter view, but only in the last part of his life, for it is contrary to all the principles laid down in his earlier work. I am quite sure that he would never in his earlier time have admitted that Augustus created out of the kingdom of Amyntas a bundle of distinct provinces, 'Galatia et adiunctae provinciae.' On the contrary Augustus took a kingdom as the inheritance of Amyntas, and made a single province, Galatia.

The Bithynian inscription which produced this error speaks of a procurator of Galatia and the adjoining provinces (jjj).JJJ Procuratorial administrative districts or provinces were of a totally different character and class from the real imperial provinces, and no one has put this more precisely and emphatically than Mommsen himself.JJJ It was obviously a mere slip, the failure to hold together all the factors in a complicated system, that led him, when casually taking up a new topic, to regard this phrase as equivalent to the private Galatia in all its part s. This phrase is to be understood as meaning 'Galatia Provincia and the adjoining provinces, Lycia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, etc.' These provinces were all placed under that procurator in one special respect, and formed no unity in any sense except that the procurator discharged his own special duty in them all at the same time. CIL III.431 (7116), speaks of a procurator of Lycia, Pamphylia, Galatia, etc. but that does not iph that Lycia and these other were then or ever under the same governor or in any way unitedJJJ except in respect of the duty of the procurator concerned. The exact Latin phrase corresponding to the Greek title was elicited by Mommsen from a fragmentary inscription procurator per asiam et adhaerentes provincias (III.6994). This is the analogous phrase which proves the sense of jjj and is the true Latin equivalent. Mommsen had forgotten it when he adopted or accepted the Latin 'Galatia adiunctaeque provinciae' for the index.

As to the meaning of per asiam et adhaerentes provincias there can be no possible doubt. The procurator concerned held authority over a great series of provinces, almost the whole of Asia Minor. Mommsen enumerates them in Staatsrecht, II, p1071; Hirschfeld in Kaiserl. Verwaltungsb. p292; and similar lists occur in the inscriptions CIL III.6753, X.7583 and 7584; etc. It was a procurator fam. gladiator. that held authority 'per asiam et adhaerentes provincias.' The procurator jjj must be interpreted in the same way: he held authority in Galatia Provincia and certain adjoining provinces, including certainly Lycia-Pamphylia.JJJ The connexion between the Pisidian cities (which were transferred from Galatia to Pamphylia Provincia in A.D. 72) and their old capital Antioch last d as a procuratorial fact, and will be often referred to in our future investigations in the antiquities of Antioch.

That the kingdom of Amyntas was created a unified province with a single name Galatia by Augustus seems established beyond question both by the principles of Augustus's administration and by the failure of every attempt to find evidence to the contrary. The earliest name for it found as yet in an inscription is jjj in CIG 3991 (at Iconium A.D. 54). Galatia is used in historical authorities regarding the foundation and early history of the province.JJJ The importance of this matter of the name lies in its bearing on the constitution of the province, a very obscure subject. So far as I know, nothing has yet been found to indicate that the original province Galatia had anything to differentiate its government from other imperatorial provinces governed by 'legati', but only scanty evidence of any kind has been found. With what has been said by Professor Calder in JRS II (1913), pp82 ff., I am in agreement, but there is now a good deal to add, and the excavation of Antioch should afford much further information.

On the other hand, the additions that were made to the province Galatia after its original organisation were probably not actually incorporated in it in the same intimate fashion as the original part s: they were excrescences, so to say, fastened to it:JJJ they had had their own separate older organisation, which they probably retained under the signal superintendence of the governor of Galatia.

The attempt to disregard the power of nationality and to create an imperial unity that should override national differences was inevitably a failure. Rome learned another way, and Hadrian it was who most of all practised and inculcate d it. But the former way was tried for a time, alike in the province Asia and in Galatia and elsewhere; and Strabo, p629, speaks very strongly of the Roman disregard for national bounds in Asia Minor. The Galatian provincial unity was supported for a time with all the moral force of the Roman authority, and during that time the acceptance of Roman ideas and method was accompanied by use of the Roman names and forms. But the native names outlived the Roman names;JJJ the expansive and dominating force of the older Roman idea grew weaker in the latter part of the first century, and the force of nationalism grew stronger. The provinces (and especially the eastern provinces) overcame the old narrower Roman idea, and it was modified and brought into alliance with the national spirit. The fact that it failed and was abandoned should not blind us to the fact that it was tried, that for a time there is seemed to be successful and to control the organisation and the growth of the empire, and that it was accepted and effective in the Iulio-Claudian period. h3 IV. Augustus and Colonia Caesarea

Considering the great importance of Colonia Caesarea in the province of Galatia and the great part that Augustus play d in the city's history, one could feel no doubt that a copy of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, similar to the famous Monumentum Ancyranum, must have existed there. Augustus founded the colonia. He made it the military and administrative ce of the southern half of the province, a secondary capital after Ancyra (as the writer has repeatedly emphasised).JJJ His guiding purpose appears throughout its early history. That this garrison-city, which owed so much to the hand and the policy of Augustus should seek to perpetuate the memory of its founder by some memorial after his death in A.D. 14, might be taken as a matter of course.JJJ It was therefore no surprise that we should begin to find in 1914 fragments which seemed to belong to the res Gestae. The scraps which we found were, with one exception, very small. Two of the earliest I sent to Professor Dessau, as the nearest scholar to whom I could appeal for confirmation, but, long before his corroborating answer came, other fragments had made our first conjectural identification a matter of certainty.

As yet we are only beginning the work of discovery, but so much interest attaches to this monument that it is worth while to sum up what can already be determined with regard to the Antiochian copy, its situation, and the surroundings of the inscription. Moreover, for the sake of the future, it is advisable to show what promise the further excavation of Antioch, and especially of the Forum of Augustus, holds out, if it can be done in a thorough fashion. I shall follow the order of discovery in placing first a description of the locality and circumstances, and afterwards the words of the text.

6. In 1912 Mr. jgc0anderson and I copied at the village of Hissar-ardiJJJ a tantalising fragment of an inscription of the first or early second century (fig. 10). Only a small piece of the combined part of the stone remains; and the surface of this piece is so much broken that few letters can be read. At first it seemed hopeless, but it became a guide for future excavation, as soon as we recognised the meaning of Aug. Pla. as 'Place d'Auguste,' one of the 'vici' of the colony.JJJ IMAGE

In Pauly-Wissowa's list alae simply styled miliariae are mentioned in Mauretania Caesariensis and in Dacia, also one styled prima miliaria in Palestine. The first and second are known only from late authority, but the third may probably be the ala miliaria in Syria, mentioned by Pliny, Ep. VII.31.JJJ If that be so, the Syrian squadron may probably be the ala of this inscription, which may be dated about A.D. 100 to 160.

The unknown person honoured in this inscription served in the equestrian military career, and also held office in his native city of Antioch as flamen and gymnasiarch.JJJ As in the case of stated by mrcheesman,JJJ the imperial part of his career is enumerated before the municipal. Service in the army was evidently regarded as the proper career of the enterprising young Roman of Antioch in the first and second century s.

The inscription was erected in his honour by the Augusta Platea. This restoration seems certain. The Augusta Platea must be rank d with the various 'vici,' or divisions of the city;JJJ and the 'vici' individually were in the habit of erecting honorary inscriptions to distinguished persons. To judge from the name, the Augusta Platea is likely to have been a conspicuous part of the city, associated with the name of the great founder of the colonia. If that may be assumed (as appears beyond question), then the excavations of the present year (1914) enable us to place it with complete certainty. It approximates in shape to a square of 200 feet. Three sides were straight, north, south and west. The east sideJJJ was disclosed in 1913, and consists Ostia great curved stoa back d by rock, with a small temple (of Augustus?) in the centre on a high platform of rock. In 1914 we made a few trenches at points on the south side. The north side remains untouch d. on the west side at the middle we opened up partially in 1914 a broad staircase, about 65 feet wide, leading down from the Platea to a street which descends towards a large church (beyond which are the theatre and other public buildings).

The staircase was not a single flight extending unbroken across the whole breadth of 65 feet. It was divided into two or three narrower flights separated by intervals; but the arrangements remains uncertain, partially because the excavation was stoppd in the middle, partially because the staircase has been greatly injured. There were found on or between the steps slabs of two friezes, one 4 ft. high, showing Victories and erotes (each doubtless in pairs) supporting garlands, the other 1 ft. 11 inches high, showing Capricorn and other symbolic figures.

The symbolism is obviously Augustan, and the style of the larger frieze is consistent with early Roman period; the brittle limestone requires different treatment from marble; it is therefore natural to suppose that these friezes and the staircase as a whole belong to the age of Augustus. Further, we may conjecture with some confidence that the staircase was constructed, or at least remodelled, to serve as a memorial of the deceased and deified Augustus, for on and about it were found the fragments of the great inscription recording the Res Gestae Divi Augusti.

These fragments seem to have no connexion with the temple on the east side of the Platea.JJJ In a paper read before the Society on 12th May, 1914, by Miss Ramsay, the opinion was expressed that this was a temple of the imperial cult, dedicated to emperors generally or to one emperor specially, and that it belongs to the second century of our era. The opinion is now seen to be right except as regards date. The temple was probably dedicated to Augustus. It is the dominating feature of the Platea Augusti, as one comes to the great Square or 'Place' from the lower town; and one cannot imagine the Platea without the temple. The temple, which doubtless gave name to the square, stands high on a platform of native rock, and must therefore be coeval with the 'Place,' for some use must have been made of this large and prominent mass of rock in planning and constructing the Square. If it were not to be used as the basis of the temple, the rock could easily have been removed at no great expenditure of labour. The basis was high, because the temple would have been dwarfed by the great rock Stoa, unless it stood very high.

The temple, therefore, must have been already in existence before the death of Augustus. If it had been built in his memory, the Res Gestae would naturally have been inscribed on it, as was the case with the Monumentum Ancyranum. The temple of [Rome (?) and] Augustus at Antioch was therefore probably older than the Ancyran temple; and the inscription was engraved on, or at the summit of, the staircase, which was built (or altered) as a memorial soon after the death of Augustus. h3 V. Monumentum Augusti Antiochenum.

The exact position of the inscription is not certain. It was certainly arranged in column s, like the Ancyran copy; but the columns are shorter, for one seems probably to contain only 40 lines. Also there seems to have been more in Ant. (as we may now term the new copy) than in Anc. As yet no scrap that can be placed in an explanatory preface or in the first seven paragraphs of the Res Gestae has been found.JJJ It may be suggested that there were at the top of the staircase two buildings forming part of the west side of the Platea, and that the beginning of the Res Gestae was engraved on the building at south summit of the stairs, perhaps on its front; and, since no part of first seven paragraphs has yet been found, these perhaps may have fallen into the Platea and not on the steps, so that they remain outside the small area overwhelm our excavations extended in 1914. It is also possible that the inscription was engraved on either hand as one ascended the stairs.

The inscription was engraved in short paragraphs, as at Ancyra; and the paragraphs in Ant. agree with Ancient. but not the columns of the lines. The wording is almost exactly the same.

The text of the Res Gestae D. Aug., so far as historical purposes are concerned, is practically assured from the Ancyran copy. Either in the Latin or the Greek form we there have all but a few words; and the meaning is almost everywhere certain. Yet even the present provisional state of the Antiochene document possesses some value for textual purposes, as well as historic interest. It confirms Mommsen's restoration of Augustus's words in a number of places, but justifies Bormann against Mommsen in par. 10, also Reid's restoration in the same par.; the commentary on the fragments points out some interesting features, and probably others, which have escaped me, will be discovered.

The completion of the work of clearing the staircase and surroundings may reveal much more. The fragments of the brittle limestone are evidently widely scattered, and the excavation of the staircase is still far from complete. The lowest stratum, which is still covered, is most likely to contain fragments; but the large blocks were beyond our power to move, and require machinery; and the surroundings are still untouch d by us. It remains uncertain whether a Greek text was engraved on the left (north) side of the staircase; but that is hardly probable as we should have expected to come already on outlying scraps of such a text.JJJ The discovery of so many large slabs of the friezes, generally almost perfect, shows that, while the ruin of the construction was very thorough, yet much of the component parts may be expected around. The friezes must have been near the highest part of the mmml, whatever was its exact form; and the lower parts are not likely to have been carried away leaving the upper part little injured. These lower part s, therefore, are likely to be still lying amid the dqqbris under the soil.

The circumstances in which the Antiochene memorial was raised, and its form, still remain for further excavation to determine. Nothing as yet has been found to throw light on these points; yet there must have been one or more inscriptions describing the stin and construction, and incidentally throwing light on the constitution of the early province of Galatia. The recovery of these would be very important, and the search ought to be prosecuted actively. They are probably to be expected on the right (south) summit of the staircase. Moreover Ant. probably contained a longer appendix than Ancient.: this probably should be looked for on the left summit. The relation of Ancient. and of Ant. to the original two bronze tablets in Rome in front of the Mausoleum of Augustus may perhaps clear up some of the difficulties regarding the common source of both inscriptions.

The important fact is that there existed at Colonia Caesarea a monument in memory of Augustus. The first emperor lived in the constitution and administration of the province; and we know that his birthday was still celebrated close to the colonia as late as A.D. 237.JJJ This memory means much for us in studying province.

Returning from Antioch (where our excavation was suddenly stopped, quite without justification, by the governor of the vilayet of Konia), I found in Constantinople a copy of Diehl's little edition of the Res Gestae D. Aug. which Professor Dessau's thoughtfulness had provided for me; and the task of identifying the fragments which we had found while d away the long hours in the train to Berlin: there can be no more successful way of beguiling the time on a journey than in deciphering and pieceing together the fragments of inscriptions. Having identified a good many of them, I wrote out the paragraphs from which fragments had been preserved according to the Antiochene arrangement of the lines, and in doing so found to my great satisfaction that several other fragments occupied their proper places in the lines. Then at home, by comparison with Mommsen's tables of the Ancyran text, two or three more fragments found their proper place; and the whole was again transcribed as here published. The process is described in order to show why it is that the work has been done mainly in dependence on Diehl.JJJ While I cannot hope to have succeeded always in hitting on the true arrangement of lines in Ant. yet I came so near it at the first trial as to identify survey small fragments because they fitted the lines as arranged in the first attempt.

Though the writing looks well as a whole, yet it is in detail a little irregular. The small cross strokes vary much in size, so that I read one night RIGIS where next morning I read wrongly REGIS;JJJ and it is difficult sometimes to distinguish between t, i, l, e, f. The limestone is a bad material, as it is brittle and easily splinters.

Most of the fragments are on small splinters, but two are on large blocks containing parts of par. 27, and of 21 f. Although the former block is large and contains much of the right edge, yet only a few letters remain about the middle of the line. These blocks seem to have been part of a wall; but the whole problem of construction is still unsolved. More than sixty fragments were found, but several contained only one letter.

In the earlier part of Ant. the lines are about five letters shorter than those of Ancient. In the later parts the lettering of Ant. becomes smaller than at the beginning, and the lines contain nearly the same number of letters as, or even more than, Ancient.

The columns of Ant. did not consist of single slabs of stone: there were more slabs than one in each column of the text. The letters, therefore, were probably engraved after the stones were in place — which is natural for other reason s. A column of Ant. perhaps began with Martial es in IV.38 of Ancient. (par. 22). A column of Ant. (perhaps the same) certainly end d with the words oppida capta in V.21 of Ancient. (par. 26). If, as seems probable, these are the limits of a single column, this column would be rather shorter than any of the columns of Ancient. containing about 37 lines of that copy.

The limits of the columns can be inferred only from the fact that in certain fragments there is a considerable space unengraved below the last line, and that this space does not coincide with an unengraved space in a short line ending a paragraph: e.g. the space unengraved below statuarum in a fragment of par. 24 does not indicate the bottom of a column, because the last line of that column was very short, consisting only of arum honorem habuerunt posui; and thus statu at the end of the second last line stood over a blank space in the last line.

The writing is not always of the same size. At first it seemed almost as if we were finding fragments of two separate inscriptions, because the variation in size of letters was so considerable; but the attempt to make use of the variation to determine what part of the inscription each Frenchman belonged to proved abortive. Next year, since the place of almost all fragments is determined, something may be gathered from the variation in size.JJJ h3 VI. Tet of Monumentum Antiochenum

Words or letters enclosed in brackets are due to restoration in the text of Ancient. and it is chiefly in those passages that the textual value of Ant. lies.

In the fragments many letters are imperfect. These, as a rule, I have tacitly completed in the transcription. Whrr the letter is not quite certain, I place a dot in some cases underneath the capital letter. Where the broken letter is wholly uncertain, and is only restored from Ancient. I print it as a small letter with a dot underneath.

Accents are written in Ant. on the same principle as in Ancient. but with even greater irregularity of omission. Cases where any of the few preserved accents in Ant. agree with Ancient. are rare: in par. 17 pecuniá meá occurs in both.

The mark at the end of paragraphs or sentences is rarely found in Ant., but a case occurs in par. 22. It is usually expressed in the printed editions of Anc. by the symbol §.

As in Ancient. so in Ant. (if we may generalise from a small part) the words are written in full almost universally, and abbreviations are extremely rare: the numbers are almost invariably written in full. Even where they do not occur in the fragments, the conditions of space show that the longest form must have been used. Only in one small fragment the letters cs occur at the end of a line with a space unengraved beneath: I could not understand this, and doubted my own copy, until I found, when transcribing par. 25 in the train on the way home from Constantinople, that IMA stood at the end of the third line from the end of the paragraph, and exercs at the end of the line below it, leaving in the last line only ad oppidum · mariba. It is obvious, therefore, that exercitus was abbreviated to exerc's. In 35 (with Ancient.) and probably in 10, S. C. Perhaps in App. pa' for patris.

As regards spelling, the only differences that I have noticed between Ancient. and Ant. are:—
Ant. Anc.
24 quadrigis quadrigeis
26 exerc's exercitus
17 consulibus cos
21 sestertium HS
22 quinquiens quinquens
22 spectaculum spectaclum restored
26 ant. id ante id. (see note ad loc.)

The last four paragraphs, which are an appendix added to Augustus's own composition (paragraphs 1‑34), seem to have been almost or quite identical in the two copies (if we may venture to generalise from the very scanty fragments of this part). The appendix, however, in Ant. was perhaps longer than in Ancient. Several fragments remain, which I cannot identify with any part of Ancient., not even with any of the lost and unrestored parts in pars. 6 and 7; and one of these is so considerable in size as to give one great confidence that it must belong to a paragraph which was peculiar to Ant. The most probable place is the conclusion of the appendix.

No evidence could be gathered from the situation in which the fragments were found. A note of this was made at first; but the great majority of the fragments escaped the notice of the workmen on account of their minuteness, and they were pick d out afterwards from the earth which was wheeled away in order to allow the digging to proceed. It is highly probable that in this débris other tiny fragments may still be found. When we first noticed a few of these very small fragments, we hired some boys to go over the earth which had been wheeled away, and rewarded them liberally for every inscribed fragment which they pick d out. This operation was not completed when the Pasha of Konia (who had sent a spy to report what was being done) telegraphed to the kaimmakam of Yalowadj putting an abrupt and instantaneous end to the work. We were not allowed even to cover over the sculptures in order to preserve them from the weather or from the inhabitants of the town, who construct all their buildings of stones taken from the ancient city.

All cases in which the edge of an inscribed stone is preserved are marked by lines. In one case, par. 27, the right edge is preserved in a figure of five lines, but the only letters that remain are quite in the middle of the lines, and all the other letters up to the extreme right edge are lost owing to splintering of the brittle surface.

There are only two cases in which the end of a column or pagina is quite certain, one in the middle of par. 22 and the other in the middle of par. 26. In the former case it fortunately happens that the last letters of one pagina and the first of the next are preserved. In the other a small fragment marks the first line of the new pagina.

As to the length (i.e. the height) of the columns or paginae there is little evidence. There are 37 lines of Ancient. between the two ends of paginae which are marked with certainty. As the lines of Ant. are usually shorter by three or four letters, the consequence is that this pagina contains 40 lines in Ant.; but, if the theory that the inscription was incised on the side of a staircase should prove correct, the paginae would differ in height.

Again, there are 64 lines of Ancient. between the beginning of a pagina in par. 26, and the probable end of a pagina at §2 of Appendix. This suggests that, if the latter division is correctly made, two paginae of Ant. were comprised in these 64 lines of Ancient.

8. The arrangement of the last lines is fixed by the fragment preserving initial letters; and the preceding lines must be grouped accordingly, so as to be about three to four letters shorter than in Ancient. The evidence tends to confirm Mommsen's restoration against others, though not decisively: the text given by Diehl leaves the lines too short: more letters seem needed to fill the lines; yet it is clear that these lines must have been spaced more widely, as the total number of letters is small. There is an empty space under the second fragment, proving that it stood over an incomplete line (as shown in the rearranged epigraphic text). The space that remains empty is deep and might at first sight suggest that a column (pagina) may have end d here; but this is impossible because 9 continues on the same stone in the first fragment: moreover the second fragment is broken at the bottom, whereas, if it end d a pagina, it would almost certainly show the edge of the stone there. TEXT pp115‑121

9. The initial letter is preserved here and in par. 16: the arrangement is as in Ancient. The length of the first line favours Mommsen's restoration suscipi (54 letters) in preference to Diehl's suscipere (56 letters), though not decisively. The exact position in the line of the small fragment of the last two lines is not certain: this fragment contains also an accent which belongs to the first line of the following paragraph. I conjecture that this accent fell on inclúsum, which would fix the position of the small fragment. As arranged, the third line of the paragraph seems rather short (42 letters; next is 48); but similar variations in length are assured in Ancient. as well as in the other parts of Ant. In the third line of the paragraph the spelling was perhaps quattuor, not quatuor as in Ancient. as that tends towards greater uniformity. The exigencies of typesetting necessitate a broader space wherever an accent has to be indicated. In the original text the accents are indicated by a line which approximates more to horizon, while in the type the accent is placed at an angle nearer to perpendicular.

10. It is probable that S. C. was written in ANt. (as in paragraph 35), not senatus consulto as in Ancient.; but this is only conjectural, as the evidence is insufficient to give certainty in respect of line arrangement. Only one very small fragment of four lines remains, but this fragment falls wholly in a part where Ancient. fails; and no restoration yet proposed seems to suit the traces. Counting according to Diehl's printed text the letters per line indicated by the intervals between the parts of the fragment, I find three lines of 48, 56, and 44. The differences seem suspiciously great: inserting idem (as might be proposed), the numbers are 48, 56, and 48, which might pass. Mommsen's cepi id suits the numbers, but traces of imperfect letters do not suit. The s of sanctum falls in the proper place, but the letter before it was apparently M or A: accordingly (as Professor Reid suggests) I have printed per legem, instead of lege.JJJ Habuerat (Bormann) is confirmed against habuit (Mommsen); also locum and mortuo; but the broken letter following mortuo is part of a P or R or F or D, not Q. This confirms Reid's suggestion demum tumultus occasione, in support of which he quotes Suet. Aug. 31, mortuo demum suscepit. On the other hand recusavi (Mommsen) is confirmed against Reid's doubt.

15. The ends of the lines may be gathered approximately from the two last fragments; in one dedi stands over an unwritten space, viz. the blank latter part of the last line of the paragraph. This implies a different arrangement of the lines in Ant. from Ancient. The other fragment occupied a corresponding place in the line (assured by containing a scrap of the first line of paragraph 16).

16. The arrangement of the lines is given by the first fragment: the lines are shorter by about five letters than in Ancient.; and this number seems to suit generally in the earlier part of Ant. (not, however, in par. 8 f). The other fragments in this paragraph fix the arrangement of lines throughout almost perfectly. The spelling milliens occurs twice, not miliens.

17. One fragment runs through the last two lines of 16 and all lines of 17 but the last. Notice consulibus in full, where Ancient. has cos. The lines in this paragraph must have agree d nearly with Ancient. in length.

20. The only fragment fixs the first four lines, which are shorter than Ancient. in the usual ratio: AQV might read MQV and come four letters lrr; but this would not suit the arrangement of lines. Rivum, not rivom, in Ancient.

21. The arrangements of lines is assured from the fifth onwards by one large fragment, containing the ends of lines in 21 and 22, and also the end of a pagina. After consacravi, Ancient. has a punctuation stop (indicated in this and other printed texts by §), but Ant. has only a dot indicating the end of a word. The I of consacravi is taller than the surrounding letters, which is equivalent to an accent (as Mommsen says); sestertium must have been written in full in Ant.: HS Ancient.

22. The arrangement of the lines is assured throughout. Notice
quinquiens Ant.JJJ quinquens Ancient.
spectaculum "JJJ spectaclum " (restoration)
XV or quindecim "JJJ quindecim " (restoration)

In line 4 there is a considerable gap and a punctuation mark. After l. 7 there is a broad unwritten space, and l. 8 begins on a new stone. This marks the end of a column (pagina). In l. 9 there is abundant room for one or more words, which have nothing clearly corresponding with them in the Greek. Editions of Ancient. leave a gap here.

The fragment containing MEO and PO seemed at first to suit the third and second lines from the end of the paragraph; but in transcribing the paragraph I found that PO could not be brought under ME without the impossible supposition that filiorum was abbreviated to FIL'M: subsequently the proper place for this fragment was found in the end of par. 24. The end of a column is clearly marked at l. 7, and the beginning of a new column is also indicated at l. 8. This also is the only case in which one fragment continues another without the loss of any letter.

23. The length of lines 8 and 9 (68 and 63 letters) makes it probable that some of the numbers were denoted by symbols (or at least that et was omitted in each). In that case est should be transferred from 1 to 2. The relation of this paragraph to the last line of 22 and the first of 24 is determined by two fragments.

Page updated: 6 Nov 12