Martin HALLMANNSECKER News from the Xenoi Tekmoreioi

Home , Aizanoi, Olympus (Lycia), William Mitchell Ramsay

Philia 4 (2018) 67–73

Martin HALLMANNSECKER

News from the Xenoi Tekmoreioi

Abstract: In this article I provide a new edition and line-by-line commentary of one of the texts inscribed by the cultic association of the Xenoi Tekmoreioi in the Pisidian-Phrygian border region in the 3rd c. AD. The edition is based on an unpublished entry in one of the diaries in which Sir William Mitchell Ramsay took notes and recorded inscriptions during his extensive travels through Asia Minor in the late 19th and early 20th centuries AD. Parts of the text under discussion have already been published, but the entry in the notebook from 1912–13 allows the emendation of names in ll. 9–10 and 12 and adds ten hitherto unknown lines at the bottom of the inscription continuing the list of personal names followed by patronymic, ethnikon, and sometimes a sum of money. Keywords: Xenoi Tekmoreioi; William Mitchell Ramsay; dedication; anthroponyms; Tyche; emperors.

This article presents a new edition and commentary of one of the texts inscribed by the cultic association of the Xenoi Tekmoreioi in the Pisidian-Phrygian border region in the 3rd c. AD.1 It is based on an unpublished entry in the diary of Sir William Mitchell Ramsay from 1912–13 (25v-26r, see fig. 1) in which he recorded inscriptions in the area of Antioch by Pisidia (modern Yalvaç).2 This text is inscribed on a panel on a fluted Ionic column found in a garden wall in Sağırköy ca. 20 km north-west of Yalvaç, which in antiquity was part of the territory of Antioch.3 As most of the other texts produced by the Xenoi Tekmoreioi were found here as well, it seems safe to assume that they had their central meeting place here, but despite intensive surveys no archaeological remains have been found to date.4 They seem

 Martin Hallmannsecker, New College; University of Oxford; Holywell St; Oxford OX1 3BN (martin.hallmanns- [email protected]). 1 I am not going to discuss the nature of this association nor the chronology of the extant Xenoi Tekmoreioi texts, for which see the excellent analysis in Blanco-Pérez 2016 and Labarre 2010; the first systematic treatment was Ruge 1934; Arena 2013, 41–42 fn. 3 provides an exhaustive bibliographic overview. 2 I would like to thank Peter Thonemann for initiating engagement with the Ramsay notebooks as well as Charles Crowther from the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents at the University of Oxford, where most of the notebooks are held, for the permission to publish this text. It had also been copied by Ramsay in his notebook from 1911, where the readings are generally inferior to and differ from the 1912–13 entry only in a few cases (see commentary). 3 Sterrett 1888: ‘Saghir. Fluted column with a panel, which bears the inscription, and rests, as it were, on the arris- es. Copy’; Ramsay 1906: ‘At Saghir’; Ramsay 1912: ‘We had the stone taken out of a garden wall, and thus un- covered a number of lines, which were hitherto concealed and uncopied. … the letters are so worn… The stone ought to be tried once more before it is completely published; … On B, an adjoining face of the stone, only a few letters are engraved. In A there remain a good many lines which might probably be read with time and patience, if the stone were put in a good position’; Notebook 1912–13: ‘Saghir. On fluted Ionic column roughly squared two sides’. No indications of the measurements of the monument or the letters are given in any case. 4 Wallner 2016, 158 fn. 8 who published a new fragment of a Xenoi Tekmoreioi list of unknown provenance found in the depot of the excavations of Antioch. More hitherto unknown fragments from other notebooks of Ramsay were published by Byrne and Labarre (eds) 2006, n. 14–26, who seem to have excluded our text from their corpus because parts of it had been published already. All in all, we now possess ca. 45 texts pertaining to the Xenoi Tek- moreioi found in Sağırköy and Kumdanli ca. 10 km to the south. 68 Martin Hallmannsecker to have formed an association of fairly wealthy men mostly from rural areas which were apparently not directly connected to the famous sanctuary of Mên Askaenos on the Karakuyu mountain just outside of Antioch by Pisidia, the only other place where a word from the *tekmor- root is attested in several dedications.5 Our text commemorates the erection of a bronze statue of Tyche for the good fortune of the emperors, their victory and eternal continuity as well as the safety of their household (A ll. 1–5). After this dedicatory part the magistrates of the association are listed (1 ἀναγραφεύς, 2 πρωτανακλῖται,6 3 βραβευταί, in the form ἐπὶ + genitive), some of them with the sum of money they contributed (A ll. 6– 15). The rest of the extant inscription mentions the members of the association without an office who contributed to this project, in the form of a list of exclusively male names in the nominative followed by a patronymic, an ethnikon/demotikon,7 and (in some cases) a sum of money. In most of the surviving Xenoi Tekmoreioi lists, which are of very similar nature, almost all of the individuals bear the pseudo- praenomen Aurelius, firmly establishing the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 AD as terminus post quem. The mention of emperors in the plural together with the comparatively higher sums of money make a date after AD 238 most likely for our text.8 Parts of this text have been published by J. R. S. Sterrett in 1888 and by Ramsay himself in 1906 and 1912. The entry in the notebook from 1912–13 allows the emendation of names in ll. 9–10 and 12 and renders ten hitherto unknown lines at the bottom of the inscription. Editions: Sterrett 1888, 238 n. 369 [ll. 1–8]; Ramsay 1906, 333–334 n. 12 [ll. 1–8] (IGRR III 298); Ramsay 1912, 158 n. 12 [ll. 1–16]. Letter forms: Ε, Σ, and Ω are lunate throughout; Υ sometimes takes the shape of a V; the middle bars of Μ are curved; ligatures occur with Η or Ν. Text: Face A Face B [ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν κυ]ρίων τύχης καὶ [ν]- |ἐ]π- [εί]κης καὶ αἰωνίου διαμονῆς |ὶ ἀνα- καὶ τοῦ σύνπαντος αὐτῶν οἴκου |[γρα]φέ- σωτηρίας ἀνέστησαν Ξένοι |ως Αὐ[ρ.] 5 Τεκμορεῖοι Τύχην χάλκεον ἐπ[ὶ] |Ὀπτ- [ἀν]αγραφέος Αὐρ. Παπᾶ δὶς Ἀ̣σ̣τ[ιβιηνοῦ(?)] |[ί]μο[υ] [δ]οὺς ἐπίδοσιν Ş ͵ΓΦΑ̣ʹ |[Δι]ογ[έ-] [ἐ]πὶ [πρω]τανα{υ}κλίτ[ου] Μεν͜νεᾶδ[ος] |[ν]ους [Οὐ]ιτέ̣λιου Πε̣σκεν͜νιάτου Ş Β̣[…] |ΩΝ 10 Αὐρ. Ἴμενο̣[ς] Δ̣ιοφάνου Πταγι̣[αν(οῦ)] |Εʹ [δ]όντος ἐ[πί]δ̣οσι̣ν. ἐπὶ βραβευτῶ̣[ν] [Α]ὐρ. Ἀ̣λεξ̣άνδρ[ο]υ δὶς Πεσ[κ]εν͜νιάτ[ου] |Λ [κ]αὶ Αὐ[ρ]. Μαξιμιανοῦ Ναξίου Τα[λι-] | Ş

5 As all their extant dedications are made to Artemis or the emperors, Blanco-Pérez 2016, 134 points out that we cannot automatically assume that the Xenoi Tekmoreioi were worshippers of Mên Askaenos, as has been done by nearly all scholars working with this material; Labarre and Özsait 2008, 156–158 n. 2 published a new text from the sanctuary at Karakuyu which mentions the Tekmoreioi of Pheinnaskome, a village in the territory of Antioch; judging from the provenance of the inscription and the dating by the colony’s duoviri, this association, unlike the Xenoi Tekmoreioi, seems to have been closely attached to the sanctuary. 6 See commentary on l. 10. 7 Most of these villages are still unlocated, Blanco-Pérez 2016, 140. 8 Blanco-Pérez 2016, 137–138 notes that this must not necessarily lead to a date as late as 253–268 AD, as previ- ously held, but that it could also fall closer to AD 238. News from the Xenoi Tekmoreioi 69

[μ]ε[τ]τηνοῦ καὶ Μάρκου [Ἴ]μ̣ενος Πε- 15 [σκε]ν͜νιάτου, Αὐρ. Δάμας Τειμοθέου [Αὐρ. Ἀ]λέξανδρος Καρικοῦ{ς} Ἀρασιζε[ύς]. [Αὐρ.] Διόπαν͜τος Τειμολέωνος ΝΑ̣[…] |ΟΣ Ş Γ […c.5…]ο̣ς Μαμ̣ου[τ]η͜νὸς δοὺς ἐ̣πί(δοσιν) Ş Α […c.4…]οα̣το̣ ς̣ Τ̣α̣τ̣ασσεὺς Ἀλεκᾶδος 20 [Αὐρ. Μ]α̣[κεδὼ]ν Ἀθη͜ναίου Ἀ̣[σκαρ]η͜νὸς [4-5]ΝΕΡΟΥΑΣΥΠΟΛΕ?Ω̣ΝΟΣ[…] [4-5]ΕΛΣΛΑΣ Ἀσκλᾶ̣δ̣ος Ὀουνιάτ͜ης […c.10…]ΟΣΤΙΒ̣ΙΑ[1-2]Υ[…c.3…]ΝΑ̣Σ[…c.3…] […c.8-9…]ΝΚΑΣΠ̣Ο̣Γ̣ΕΙΔΗ͜Σ δοὺς ἐπί(δοσιν) | Ş ‘B 25 […c8…]ΤΕΙΜΕΗΣ Σιμικκεὺς […c.4…] short lost short lost Μεν]νέου Τυιτη͜ν[ὸ] |ς Ş ‘A four lines lost

35 …]μπηνὸς

Figure 1: Notebook of William Mitchell Ramsay from 1912–13, page 25v and 26r. 70 Martin Hallmannsecker

Translation (Face A): «For the fortune, victory and eternal continuity of the Lords as well as for the safety of their entire household the Xenoi Tekmoreioi erected the bronze (statue of) Tyche under the anagrapheus Aur. Papas son of Papas from Ast[ibia?] who made a contribution of 3,501 denarii, under the protanaklites Menneas son of Vitelius from Peskennia, 2[…] denarii, Aur. Imen son of Diophanes from Ptagia who made a contribution, under the brabeutai Aur. Alexandros son of Alexandros from Peskennia and Aur. Maximianos son of Naxios (?) from Talimetta and Marcus son of Imen from Peskennia. Aur. Damas son of Teimotheos, Aur. Alexandros son of Karikos from Arasiza, Aur. Di- opantos son of Teimoleon from Na[…], [..]os from Mamouta who made a contribution of 1,000 denarii, […]oatos from Tataion son of Alekas, Aur. Makedon son of Athenaios from Askara, … son of Asklas from Oounia … who made a contribution of 2,000 denarii … from Simikka … son of Menne- as from Tyita 1,000 denarii …». (Face B): «Under the anagrapheus Aur. Optimus son of Diogenes …».

Commentary Face A l. 2: Final ς not read by Sterrett. l. 3: Sterrett σύμπαντος. l. 6: Ramsay 1906 suggests Ἀστ[ιπρειζηνοῦ; Ramsay 1912 has Ἀστ[or Λετ.; my conjecture is based on the mention of the village Astibia in Ramsay 1906 n. 4 ll. 16–17 ([Αὐρ. Καρικ(?)]ὸς Ἀλεξάνδρου Συνναδεὺς |[οἰκῶν] ἐν Ἀστιβίᾳ). l. 7: The participles δούς and especially δόντος are often used with incorrect cases in the lists. l. 8: Notebook 1912–13 ΠΙΠΡΩΤΑΝΑΥΚΛΙΤΟΥ, with the intrusive Υ written in ligature, possibly it was not even that, but merely a crack in the stone; Sterrett and Ramsay 1906 have Μ]εννέας. l. 9: Clearly legible in the notebook; traces of the Β at the end of the line are visible in the 1911 notebook only; Ramsay 1912 had [ος –]σ[– –]ο[ν]ος Κεν[ν]άτου [δην?]; [Οὐ]ι̣τέ̣λιου my conjecture; attestations of Vitellii in Asia Minor include a Οὐετελίῳ from Laodikeia Katakekaumene (MAMA I 71, ll. 4– 5) and five individuals from Ionia (I.Ephesos 20, l. 55; I.Ephesos 739A, l. 2; I.Tralles 215B, l. 1; I.Didyma 255, ll. 1–2, 5–6; all imperial); the remarkable presence of Visellii around Pisidian Antioch (see Salomies 2001, 173–174) might suggest that this is actually a mere orthographic variant; note especially that one of them is recorded as τεκμορεύσας at the sanctuary of Men Askaenos (CMRDM IV 9, n. 31) and that from Laodikeia Katakekaumene we know both a Οὐετελίῳ (MAMA I 71, ll. 4–5) and a Οὐισελλία (SEG 34-1365, l. 1); individuals from Pesken(n)ia are well attested among the Xenoi Tek- moreioi (Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 106, 116; n. 4 ll. 11, 24, 33; n. 15 ll. 39, 51; n. 18 l. 40); the village has been located, Ramsay 1906, 369. l. 10: Ramsay 1912 has Αὐρ. Ἴμαν Ζωτικοῦ Διοφάνους Πτα|[γιανοῦ] (possibly on analogy with Ram- say 1906 n. 15 l. 35: [Αὐ]ρ. Ἴμαν Ζωτικοῦ Διοφάνου Πταγιανός) but the Ε after the Μ is clear in the 1912–13 notebook and there does not seem to be enough space for Ζωτικοῦ if the dimensions in the drawing are even closely correct (this is corroborated by the secure restoration of ἐπίδοσις in l. 11); in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 40 there is a Αὐρ. Διοφάνης Ἴμενος Πταγιανός who might well have been the son or father of our individual here. For the chronologically close relation between Ramsay 1906 n. 2 and our list, see Blanco-Pérez 2016, 137–138. Given the same village name and the similarities of the personal name, the individual from Ramsay 1906 n. 15 l. 35 is likely to have been an ancestor of the two people from our list and Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 4; this also fits well with the chronology established by Blanco-Pérez 2016, 137. For Διοφάνης, genitive forms both in -ου and -ους are attested in the lists (Ramsay 1906 n. 15 l. 35 and n. 2 l. 100). It is most likely that he was mentioned here between the πρωτανακλίτης and the βραβευταί, as γενόμενος πρωτανακλίτης (as in Ramsay 1906 n. 26 ll. 7, 8, 12). l. 11: This is the only instance in the lists where ἐπίδοσις is not followed by a sum of money. News from the Xenoi Tekmoreioi 71 l. 12: The last letter of Ἀ̣λεξ̣άνδρ[ο]υ in the 1911 notebook only; Ramsay 1912 has [Α]ὐ. Ἀλεξάνδρ[ο]υ Αἰπ[ολο(?)]νιάτ[ου|δην.. ε-, but the 1912–13 notebook leaves no doubt about the ethnic. l. 13: ΜΑΞΙΜΙΑΝΟΥ in the 1911 notebook, ΑΙΑΥ Μ ΞΙΜΙΑΝ Υ in the 1912–13 one; Ramsay 1912 Ναξιου(?); Naxios as a personal name is only attested three times and never in Asia Minor: LGPN II s.v. (360–350 BC from Melite); LGPN I s.v. (3rd c. BC from Cyprus; AD 242 from Amorgos); however there are two attestations of a Ναξείτης from Herakleia Salbake (1st–2nd c. AD): LGPN VB s.v. l. 14: Ramsay 1912 has -[με]τηνοῦ and [Ἴμ]ενος; a Ταλιμεττηνός is attested in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 69. l. 15: Ramsay 1912 has [σκε]νιάτου (but second ν is clearly legible in notebook 1912–13) and Τιμοθέου. l. 16: The last two letters of Ἀρασιζεύς are not in notebook 1912–13, so -εῖς referring to the two afore- mentioned individuals would be possible as well. l. 17: On π instead of φ in the Tekmoreioi lists cf. Μηνοπάντου in Ramsay 1912 n. 26 l. 6; Διοπάνης and Διοπάνους in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 35 and n. 2 l. 100; the village ethnic possibly Να[ζουλην]ος, cf. Ναζουλεύς in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 27, 28; n. 17 l. 28. l. 18: Μαμουτηνός also in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 71, 73, and 76; Κ̣αλουηνός̣ as in Ramsay 1906 n. 15 l. 37 would be possible as well; the absence of a patronymic is rare, but not entirely unattested (e.g. Ram- say 1906 n. 2 ll. 78 and 80). l. 19: Perhaps Τερκ]ο<υ>ᾶτος, which is attested in Phrygia (Aizanoi (MAMA IX 187, l. 2, 2nd–3rd c. AD); Akmoneia (IG XII (6) 809, l. 2, 2nd–3rd c. AD; MAMA XI 116, l. 1, 2nd–3rd c. AD); Laodikeia on Lycus (father and son, Ferrary 2014, n. 105, l. 8, AD 148)) and in Latin in Pisidian Antioch (Byrne and Labarre (eds) 2006, n. 168 l. 2; n. 187, l. 3); ο for ου can occur in Roman Asia Minor (Brixhe 1984, 56) and should not be too surprising in the transliteration of a Roman name; notebook 1912–13 ΙΛΙΑΣΣΕΥΣ; Τατασσεύς as a variant for Ταταεύς in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 41 and Ταταηνός in Ramsay 1906 n. 4 l. 29, n. 15 l. 13, and n. 16 l. 10; on the village name see Ramsay 1906, 370; the genitive vari- ants Ἀλε(κ)κᾶς and Ἀλεκκᾶ in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 109; n. 15 l. 50; Ramsay 1911/12, 63 l. 68; the nominative Ἀλεκκᾶς in Ramsay 1906 n. 4 l. 32. Analogous ‘Hellenized’ genitive forms of indigenous names are attested e.g. for Παπᾶς (Παπᾶ Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 35, 66, Παπᾶδος Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 72) and Ἀππᾶς (Ἀππᾶ Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 58, 103, Ἀππᾶδος Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 97, 117). That the ethnic stands before the patronymic is not very common, but occurs occasionally (Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 29 and 72). l. 20: Attestations of Ἀθήναιος/-εος in Pisidia are rather rare (5 entries in LGPN VC, all 2nd–3rd c. AD); it might be tempting to identify the individual here with Α[ὐ]ρ. Μακεδὼν Ἀθηνέου Ἀσκαρηνός (Ram- say 1906 n. 2, l. 30), which fits the letter traces perfectly. That our list is very close to Ramsay 1906 n. 2 has already been suggested through the family relationship in l. 10, see also Blanco-Pérez 2016, 137– 138. The name Μακεδών is well attested among the Xenoi Tekmoreioi (Ramsay 1906 n. 2, l. 30; n. 18, l. 2). l. 21: Notebook 1911 has ΩΝΟΣ at the end of the line; with the apparently clear letters ΠΟΛΕ one could tentatively restore the patronymic as Πολέμωνος, but that would make it rather difficult to make sense of the letters before, as an ethnic or personal name in the nominative (in LGPN VC there are 19 central Anatolian names attested ending in -ου, none of which fits here though); if one follows the 1912–13 notebook and reads -ηνος at the end of the line, the first Ν could be seen as the ending of the personal name in the nominative, the following letters as ΕΡΟΥΑΣ, the genitive of an unknown native name as patronymic and the following as the ethnic ΥΠΟΛΕ?ΗΝΟΣ. A third possibility would be to divide it Φα(?)]νερου ΑΣΥΠΟΛΕ?ΗΝΟΣ which would require a rather short personal name like Αὐρ. Ἴμαν at the beginning. 72 Martin Hallmannsecker l. 22: Ἀσκλᾶς in many inscriptions from Phrygia (e.g. MAMA IV 119; 178; V SCH 1; KB 13; IX 279; 360); Ὀου(ε)ινιάτης, Οὐεινιάτης, Ὀ(ε)ινιάτης, Ὠεινιάτης in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 53, 61, 90, 92–94, 105, 114; n. 15 l. 40; Ramsay 1912 n. 26 ll. 7, 8, 13, 17. l. 24: …]Ν possibly the nominative ending of a personal name (patronymic would then be missing again, s. l. 18); the following ethnic appears to be Κασω̣ν̣ειά̣της as in Ramsay 1906 n. 18 l. 2 with -της written in ligature. l. 25: ΤΕΙΜΕΗΣ possibly Ἀρ]τειμ{ε}ης which is attested seven times in central Anatolia (s. LGPN VC s.v.); the variant Ἀρτειμας was very popular especially in Pisidia (138 attestations in LGPN VC s.v.); Σιμικκεύς also in Ramsay 1906 n. 15 l. 45; n. 16 l. 50; Ramsay 1912, 162 n. 26 l. 14. l. 28: Clearly ΝΕΟΥ Τυιτην[ό]│ς in the 1911 notebook, in the 1912–13 one it looks more like ΝΙΘΟΥ ΤΥΓΗΝΟ; a son of Menneas from Ty(i)ta (probably a small settlement in the vicinity of Antioch and not the city of Tityassos as Ramsay 1906, 362 conjectured) is attested in Ramsay 1906 n. 17 l. 26; fur- ther Τυιτηνός also in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 84; n. 15 ll. 44, 53; Τυτηνός in Ramsay 1906 n. 2 l. 39. l. 35: Only in notebook 1911; possibly Ὀλυ]μπηνός? Based on the attestations of Ὀλυν/μποκωμῆται (Ramsay 1906 n. 2 ll. 26, 31; n. 18 l. 7), Ramsay conjectures the existence of a Mount Olympus in the vicinity of Antioch and Limnai (Ramsay 1906, 368–369); another possible reconstruction could be Πα]<π>πηνός (cf. MAMA VIII 388; 331; 332; IGRR III 1469; 309), Pap(p)a has been located 35 miles ‘west of Iconium on the road to Antioch’ (Ramsay 1906, 362). Face B Ramsay 1906: ‘These words (seen only by St.) are probably an addition inscribed later in the blank space at the top corner’. ll. 1–13: The alignment of the letters on face B is given as in the notebooks, which differs from Ramsay 1912. As one would expect a village ethnic after the patronymic, it is conceivable that ll. 9–13 are still part of this separate entry and should not be read as continuations of face A.

Abbreviated Literature Arena 2013 G. Arena, Il dies natalis augusteo nell’Anatolia romana: Permanenza di un evangelio nel III secolo d.c., Annali della Facoltà di Scienze della Formazio- ne, Università degli studi di Catania 12, 2013, 41–58. Blanco-Pérez 2016 A. Blanco-Pérez, Mên Askaenos and the native cults of Antioch by Pisidia, in M.-P. de Hoz – J. P. Sánchez Hernández – C. Molina Valero (eds), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus. Cultural Crossroads in the Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia, Leuven – Paris – Bristol 2016 (Colloquia Antiqua 17), 117–150. Brixhe 1984 C. Brixhe, Essai sur le grec anatolien au début de notre ère, Nancy 1984. Byrne – Labarre 2006 M. A. Byrne – G. Labarre (eds), Nouvelles inscriptions d’Antioche de Pisidie d’après les Note-books de W. M. Ramsay, Bonn 2006 (Inschriften griechi- scher Städte aus Kleinasien 67). Ferrary 2014 J.-L. Ferrary, Les mémoriaux de délégations du sanctuaire oraculaire de Cla- ros, d’après la documentation conservé dans le Fonds Louis Robert, 2 vols, Paris 2014 (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 49). Labarre 2010 G. Labarre, Le dieu Mèn et son sanctuaire à Antioche de Piside, Bruxelles 2010. Labarre – Özsait 2008 G. Labarre – M. Özsait, Nouveaux duoviri d’Antioche de Pisidie et dédicaces au dieu Men, Anatolia Antiqua 16, 2008, 153–163. Ramsay 1906 W. M. Ramsay, Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire, Aberdeen 1906. Ramsay 1911/12 W. M. Ramsay, Sketches in the Religious Antiquities of Asia Minor, The Annual of the British School at Athens 18, 1911/12, 37–79. News from the Xenoi Tekmoreioi 73

Ramsay 1912 W. M. Ramsay, The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends, JHS 32, 1912, 151–170. Ruge 1934 W. Ruge, Xenoi Tekmoreioi, RE Va, 1934, 158–169. Salomies 2001 O. Salomies, Roman Nomina in the Greek East. Observations on some re- cently published Inscriptions, Arctos 35, 2001, 139–174. Sterrett 1888 J. R. S. Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor 1884–1885, Boston 1888 (Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens III). Wallner 2016 C. Wallner, Xenoi Tekmoreioi. Ein neues Fragment, EA 49, 2016, 157–175.

Özet Xenoi Tekmoreioi’dan Yeni Haberler Pisidya Antiokheiası kırsal kesiminde İS 3. yy.da Xenoi Tekmoreioi adında bir dernek faaliyet göster- miştir. Varlıklı şahıslardan oluşan bu dernek ile ilgili günümüze kadar 45 civarında epigrafik belge ulaşmıştır. Bu belgelerin arasında yer alan önemli bir yazıt daha önce Sterrett ve Ramsay tarafından ek- sik yayımlanmış. Yazar; Ramsay’in 1911 ve 1912/13 yıllarında tuttuğu arazi notlarını dikkate alarak bu yazıtı tekrar yayımlamakta ve yazıt ile ilgili yeni yorumlar sunmaktadır. Sağırköy’de bulunan, yivli bir İon sütununun üzerine kazılmış bu yazıta önceden yayımlanmayan 10 satır eklenmiş ve satır 9–10 ile 12’de düzeltmeler sunulmuştur. Yazıttan; Xenoi Tekmoreioi derneğinin imparatorların tahili, zaferi ve de imparatorluğun kalıcılığı/sürekliliği için tanrıça Tykhe’nin bronz bir heykelini adamaya karar verdiği öğrenilmektedir. Bu giriş bölümünden sonra derneğin yöneticileri ile dernek üyelerinin isimleri, baba isimleri ve ethnikonlarıyla listelenmiştir. Bazı üyelerin isimlerin sonuna heykelin maaliyetini karşıla- mak için sundukları bağıs miktarları eklenmiştir. Çalışmada özellikle şahıs isimlerine ve ethnikonlara odaklanılmıştır. Anahtar Sözcükler: Xenoi Tekmoreioi; William Mitchell Ramsay; Adak; Şahıs isimleri; Tykhe; Roma imparatorları.