NEOKOROS:
CITY TITLES AND HIERARCHY IN ROMAN ASIA
Introduction
This page is about cities. Greek cities. Neighbouring cities. Competing cities. The cities of the Roman province of Asia were rivals in many areas. They also cooperated, within a union of cities called the koinon, which arguably made the rivalry worse. It gave the cities new things to be rivals over: influence and standing within the koinon, the right to have delegates speak before others in assemblies, the amount of votes a city had during votes, the position of city officials in processions of regional festivals, and, most importantly, the privilege to house a provincial temple of the imperial cult.
In due time, an unofficial city hierarchy was created by the creation and widespread use of titles, such as neokoros, 'temple warden'. This title designated (at least in its early years), that the neokoros city housed a provincial temple of the imperial cult, for which that city had received imperial permission. Generally this rivalry has been looked at from the perspective of 'Greek shortcomings' or a battle for 'mere names'[1], or from the perspective of the role of 'honour' and status in Roman and Greek politics[2]. I want to investigate this phenomenon from a perspective of networks, and evaluate whether the vocabulary network theory gives us, can help us understand Greek city rivalry as a rivalry for connectivity, centrality and social capital. What tangible, attested relationships did develop between cities and other entities as a consequence of city rivalry over the title neokoros?
This page is about cities. Greek cities. Neighbouring cities. Competing cities. The cities of the Roman province of Asia were rivals in many areas. They also cooperated, within a union of cities called the koinon, which arguably made the rivalry worse. It gave the cities new things to be rivals over: influence and standing within the koinon, the right to have delegates speak before others in assemblies, the amount of votes a city had during votes, the position of city officials in processions of regional festivals, and, most importantly, the privilege to house a provincial temple of the imperial cult.
In due time, an unofficial city hierarchy was created by the creation and widespread use of titles, such as neokoros, 'temple warden'. This title designated (at least in its early years), that the neokoros city housed a provincial temple of the imperial cult, for which that city had received imperial permission. Generally this rivalry has been looked at from the perspective of 'Greek shortcomings' or a battle for 'mere names'[1], or from the perspective of the role of 'honour' and status in Roman and Greek politics[2]. I want to investigate this phenomenon from a perspective of networks, and evaluate whether the vocabulary network theory gives us, can help us understand Greek city rivalry as a rivalry for connectivity, centrality and social capital. What tangible, attested relationships did develop between cities and other entities as a consequence of city rivalry over the title neokoros?
Clashing municipal ambition
One of the objects of those ambitions, was the privilege to accomodate once of the koinon's principal institutions: the imperial cult. Following a longstanding tradition of ruler cults, the koinon of Asia offered to build a temple to Augustus in Pergamum in 29 B.C., which he allowed[7]. This was to be the first of several provincial temples for emperor cult. The privilege to have such a temple, would soon cause a lot of rivalry between cities. The koinon of Asia again petitioned to build a temple for the imperial cult, this time for Tiberius, the Senate and Livia, in 23 A.D. Three years later however 11 cities had sent their own delegates to Rome to defend their respective claims to accomodate said temple; the Senate had to adjudicate and assigned the temple to Smyrna[8]. Seventy years or so later, when Ephesus got its temple, that city decided that this was worth proclaiming on inscriptions and coins. Therefore they institutionalized a possibly already popular saying of calling cities which housed an important cult neokoros, 'temple warden'[9]. It was not long before other cities followed this example, foremost Pergamum and Smyrna, which already had a temple for the imperial cult. The rivalry between cities thus shifted focus to wearing a title such as neokoros. At least, that's how it's portrayed in contemporary literature: as a rivarly merely 'about names', 'Greek shortcomings'[10]. In my investigation I look towards this title from another perspective, by mapping out relations that this title, or rather what this title stood for, brought with it. Using terms borrowed from network theory, I hope to provide a framework by means of which we can evaluate the rivalry of the Greek cities of Asia in a different way: not a rivarly about mere names, but a rivalry about centrality, connectivity and social capital. |
A short history of a Roman province
First a look at the setting of these conflicts. The Roman Republic and the later Roman Empire organized its territory outside of Italy in provinces. In 129 B.C. the province of Asia was added, a landmass in the northwestern part of Asia Minor, which was bequeathed to Rome by king Attalus III, who had died in 133 B.C. By the time of Augustus, who became the first Roman emperor (the princeps) in 27 B.C., the province was ruled by a Roman governor (the proconsul), who was in office for a year. He had his headquarters in the city of Ephesus, but travelled throughout the year to various cities, which were the court cities of judicial districts, to hold assizes[3]. Once he was there, he could also (be asked to) intervene in local politics and finances, if necessary. His job, and the job of the small amount of officials that worked for him, was to administer justice, to keep the peace and to make sure taxes flowed to Rome. Everything else was primarily the task of the cities of Asia themselves. These cities however did not do everything individually: they were organized in a so-called koinon, a union of cities[4]. Ambassadors of each city met once a year in an assembly, where they decided on matters which affected all the cities. It was, for example, in the name of the koinon, that they occasionally persecuted Roman officials or governors who were corrupt[5]. There was, however, also competition. And when you consider how many large cities were situated in Asia, all with their own claims to fame and pride, it's not hard to imagine opinions sometimes clashed in koinon assemblies. Pergamum, Ephesus, Miletus, Sardis, Smyrna, Cyzicus, Laodicea: contemporary literature speaks of 'the 500 cities of Asia'[6]. An exaggeration, for sure, but a telling one: this was a rich, prosperous and highly urbanized area, and with many cities come many ambitions. |
'Empire of honour': understanding ancient politics
The traditional perspective of looking at city rivalry has been the perspective of a dialogue of 'honour'[11]. I put honour between brackets, because it is a rather abstract term and I do not wish to suggest that any modern notion of honour equals the ancient notion of honour. Honour was very important in relations, not only of men, but also of cities. Cities could have honour, constituted by their history, beauty, size and other claims to fame: anything they could use to assert status. Receiving honour required reciprocity, having honour demanded deference. Cities could negotiate with each other about honour, but also with the emperor. From this perspective, receiving the right to build a temple for an emperor is receiving honour (in and of itself, but also because the emperor is a man of extremely high status): this required reciprocity, building a beautiful temple on a prime location and diligently carrying out the associated rituals. Having received this honour, however, demanded deference, which is where titulature came in: by publicly using titles to describe oneself, on coins (which would travel long distances) and inscriptions (in its own streets, but also in cities half a world away), a city could assert its status and demand deference. The question remains, whether they received any. |
Inscriptions in Ephesus: local and imperial relationships
The short answer is: yes. This is shown by thirteen inscriptions that accompanied dedications in honour of the new provincial temple of the imperial cult in Ephesus, during the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.)[12]. Each of these inscriptions was made on order of a city in Asia. Eleven of the thirteen inscriptions adhere to a short formula, which is the main reason some scholars have suggested that the cities responsible for these inscriptions might have been following protocol as instituted by the koinon. If this is indeed the case, these inscriptions show the official recognition of a new role of Ephesus, which had now become a place of province wide cult practice. With the temple of the imperial cult, came a provincial high priest, and presumably the occasional hosting of koinon assemblies under that high priest's presidency. Ephesus had already been an important harbour, seat of the Roman governor, court city of its judicial district, host of a famous temple for Artemis, and considering its influence in the koinon, one can see the acquiring of a provincial temple (presumably at the cost of several contenders) as self-strengthening centrality. Ephesus had been able to expand on a range of relationships they already had with neighbouring cities by obtaining a provincial institution, thus attracting visitors from far and wide: builders, delegates, antiquity's equivalent of pilgrims, et cetera. Two of the thirteen inscriptions did not adhere to that same formula, though they did share some ingredients. The cities responsible for these two inscriptions were Aphrodisias and Stratoniceia, and these were so-called 'free cities': they call themselves eleutheros and autonomos in their respective inscriptions, which was a status conferred to them in the past by the emperor and which meant that they were not held by certain provincial regulations nor by koinon prescriptions. These cities emphasize their relationship with the emperor, presumably to enhance their own status in an effort to at least match Ephesus in its newly acquired status as neokoros. This begs the question: did Ephesus, with the acquisition of a temple for the emperor, also expand its network across the Mediterranean towards Rome? Not substantially, it seems. What we know of the process of petitioning for a provincial temple for the imperial cult, implies that it was the koinon who sent delegates to Rome to make a proposal and (hopefully) receive permission. This institution formed the membrane, so to speak, through which contacts with the central Roman administration flowed – at least concerning province wide emperor worship. Anecdotes that tell us about emperor's dealing with requests for places of worship, suggest that he was rather more concerned with his own network in Rome than with any petitioning koinon or city: in Rome he was not to be worshipped as a god, that was a very sensitive matter, especially in the Senate[13]. Emperors were only deified after death (unless they had been exceptionally bad emperors). So while they were willing to give out favours to provinces, and to maintain a favourable image throughout the empire (which might have been another factor in the self-strengthening centrality of the already prominent cities: their splendour to add to the splendour of the emperor), the average emperor was keen to not transgress the precedent set by Augustus. This was especially apparent in Tiberius' and Trajan's (98-117 A.D.) case[14]. |
Developments of late antiquity: the 'cheapening' of a title
Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) however was the odd one out: travelling the provinces meant that he would get in personal contact with various cities, who would petition to him directly for favours: several cities in Asia received permission from Hadrian for provincial temples to him[15]. The personal touch of the emperor became an even more important factor in this once koinon regulated provincial rivalry, when Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) ascended the throne. Severus handed out the title neokoros as a political prize to those cities who had supported him in his claim to the throne, and took the title away from those who had opposed him[16]. This became a trend. By this time, several cities could already claim to be twice or even thrice neokoros, reducing the value of being once neokoros, which meant cities lower up the hierarchy could succesfully claim the title as well. This, without having to support a provincial temple or having to house a provincial high priest – an office which had been limited to five persons per year in Asia. This process has been described as a 'cheapening' of the title[17], and one can seriously wonder, whether this claim to fame would have had any impact on city relationships and connectivity, without the institutions to back it up. P.K. |
Notes
[1] Dio Chrys. Or. 38.24-38.
[2] Lendon (1997).
[3] Burton (1975).
[4] Deininger (1965), esp. 36 ff.
[5] E.g. Tac. Ann. 4.15.
[6] E.g. Joseph., BJ 2, 366.
[7] Dio Cass. 51.20.6-9.
[8] Tac. Ann. 4.55-6.
[9] For a discussion of the origins of this title, see Burrell (2004), 3-6 and/or Friesen (1993), 50-9.
[10] See note 1.
[11] Lendon (1997), esp. 73-89.
[12] Friesen (1993), 29-49.
[13] Price (1989), 65-77.
[14] Tac. Ann. 4.37; for Trajan, see the synopsis in Burrell (2004), 279-81.
[15] Burrell (2004), 281-4.
[16] Ibid. 286 ff.
[17] Ibid. 291.
[1] Dio Chrys. Or. 38.24-38.
[2] Lendon (1997).
[3] Burton (1975).
[4] Deininger (1965), esp. 36 ff.
[5] E.g. Tac. Ann. 4.15.
[6] E.g. Joseph., BJ 2, 366.
[7] Dio Cass. 51.20.6-9.
[8] Tac. Ann. 4.55-6.
[9] For a discussion of the origins of this title, see Burrell (2004), 3-6 and/or Friesen (1993), 50-9.
[10] See note 1.
[11] Lendon (1997), esp. 73-89.
[12] Friesen (1993), 29-49.
[13] Price (1989), 65-77.
[14] Tac. Ann. 4.37; for Trajan, see the synopsis in Burrell (2004), 279-81.
[15] Burrell (2004), 281-4.
[16] Ibid. 286 ff.
[17] Ibid. 291.
Sources
Images
Image 1 - taken from http://www.topoi.org/project/b-5-4-1/ (4-6-2015); original image presumably from Brandt, H. and Kolb, F. (2005), “Lycia et Pamphylia. Eine römische Provinz im Südwesten Kleinasiens”, Orbis Provinciarum, Mainz.
Image 2 - taken from http://www.ancient.eu/image/2420/ (4-6-2015).
Image 3 - taken from http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/b/bronze_coin_of_smyrna,_reign_o.aspx (4-6-2015).
Image 4 - taken from http://www.ancient.eu/image/2210/ (4-6-2015).
Primary literature
Aelius Aristides Or. = Aelius Aristides Orationes: Behr, C.A. (1981-6), Aelius Aristides, Rhetor, The Complete Works, vertaald door C.A. Behr, Leiden.
Dio Cass. = Dio Cassius: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1924), Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume VII: Books 56-60, vertaald door E. Cary, Loeb 175, Boston [MA].
Dio Chrys. Or. = Dio Chrysostomus Orationes: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1946), Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 37-60, vertaald door H. Lamar Crosby, Loeb 376, Boston [MA].
Joseph., BJ = Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1927), Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1-2, vertaald door H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb 203, Boston [MA].
Tac. Ann. = Tacitus Annales: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1931), Tacitus, Histories: Books 4-5. Annals: Books 1- 3, vertaald door J. Jackson, Loeb 249, Boston [MA].
Secondary literature (select bibliography)
Burrell, B. (2004), Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden.
Burton, G.P. (1975), 'Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire', JRS 65: 92-106.
Deininger, J. (1965), Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit : von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr., München.
Friesen, S.J. (1993), Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the cult of the Flavian imperial family, Leiden.
Heller, A. (2006), Les bêtises des grecs : conflits et rivalités entre cités d'Asie et de Bithynie à l'époque romaine, 129 a. C.-235 p. C, Paris.
Lendon, J.E. (1997), Empire of Honour, Oxford.
Magie, D. (1950), Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton.
Merkelbach, R. (1978), 'Der Rangstreit der Städte Asiens und die Rede des Aelius Aristides über die Eintracht', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32: 287-296.
Price, S.R.F. (1986), Rituals and Power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.
Images
Image 1 - taken from http://www.topoi.org/project/b-5-4-1/ (4-6-2015); original image presumably from Brandt, H. and Kolb, F. (2005), “Lycia et Pamphylia. Eine römische Provinz im Südwesten Kleinasiens”, Orbis Provinciarum, Mainz.
Image 2 - taken from http://www.ancient.eu/image/2420/ (4-6-2015).
Image 3 - taken from http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/b/bronze_coin_of_smyrna,_reign_o.aspx (4-6-2015).
Image 4 - taken from http://www.ancient.eu/image/2210/ (4-6-2015).
Primary literature
Aelius Aristides Or. = Aelius Aristides Orationes: Behr, C.A. (1981-6), Aelius Aristides, Rhetor, The Complete Works, vertaald door C.A. Behr, Leiden.
Dio Cass. = Dio Cassius: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1924), Dio Cassius, Roman History, Volume VII: Books 56-60, vertaald door E. Cary, Loeb 175, Boston [MA].
Dio Chrys. Or. = Dio Chrysostomus Orationes: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1946), Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 37-60, vertaald door H. Lamar Crosby, Loeb 376, Boston [MA].
Joseph., BJ = Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1927), Josephus, The Jewish War, Volume I: Books 1-2, vertaald door H. St. J. Thackeray, Loeb 203, Boston [MA].
Tac. Ann. = Tacitus Annales: Henderson, J. (ed.) (1931), Tacitus, Histories: Books 4-5. Annals: Books 1- 3, vertaald door J. Jackson, Loeb 249, Boston [MA].
Secondary literature (select bibliography)
Burrell, B. (2004), Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors, Leiden.
Burton, G.P. (1975), 'Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire', JRS 65: 92-106.
Deininger, J. (1965), Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit : von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr., München.
Friesen, S.J. (1993), Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the cult of the Flavian imperial family, Leiden.
Heller, A. (2006), Les bêtises des grecs : conflits et rivalités entre cités d'Asie et de Bithynie à l'époque romaine, 129 a. C.-235 p. C, Paris.
Lendon, J.E. (1997), Empire of Honour, Oxford.
Magie, D. (1950), Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Princeton.
Merkelbach, R. (1978), 'Der Rangstreit der Städte Asiens und die Rede des Aelius Aristides über die Eintracht', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32: 287-296.
Price, S.R.F. (1986), Rituals and Power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge.