Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:42:32.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rome, Pamphylia and Cilicia, 133–70 B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. N. Sherwin-White
A. N. Sherwin-White
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has been much debate about the nature and purpose of the Roman intervention in Pamphylia between 102 and 70 B.C., to which a new edge has been given by the discovery of the extensive new fragments of the ‘Piracy Law’ of 101–100. Any solution needs a clear understanding of the strategic geography of the region and its political role within the kingdom of Pergamum that became the province of Asia. This fertile though narrow coastal plain, hemmed in by the western prolongation of the Taurus mountains, between the high massif of Cilicia Aspera in the east and the lower block of Lycia in the west, with the Pisidian chains to the north, is the coastal face of the isolated and difficult country of Pisidia. The deltas of the Pisidian rivers, notably Cestros and Eurymedon, enrich the narrow plain of Pamphylia. Practicable access to the interior for large forces dependant on wheeled transport for supplies is provided by three difficult routes leading through the Pisidian mountains from the coastal harbours: the first goes north-west from Attaleia past Termessus into and through the mountainous Milyas region that lies behind Lycia to Cibyra, and thence to Laodicea on the upper Maeander (Lycus) in Carian Asia. The second and easiest goes northwards from Attaleia to Sagalassus in the heart of Pisidia, and thence to Apamea on the Phrygian plateau—with a difficult branch north-east to Pisidian Antioch and Philomelium—and the third goes north and north-east from Side through the highest section of the Pisidian mountains, passing between the great Lake Caralis and the northern end of the High Taurus into the elevated plateau of Lycaonia: thence, from the communication centre of Iconium, there is easy access to Cappadocia by the central highway that links Apamea, Iconium and Mazaca. Pamphylia thus forms the southern gateway to Pergamene and Roman Asia, and to the Cappadocian kingdom behind the main chains of the Taurus. Hence it was of strategic interest to the Hellenistic kingdoms, which in the past had sought to control it and to found cities in it, and most notably after the Treaty of Apamea, to the kings of Pergamum.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 66 , November 1976 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © A. N. Sherwin-White 1976. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

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

References

1 Hassall, M., Crawford, M., Reynolds, J., ‘Rome and the Eastern Provinces at die End of the Second Century B.C.’, JRS 64 (1974), 195 ffGoogle Scholar. Produced for the benefit of historians with commendable speed and acumen, cf. below, n. 21.

2 For the geography of Pamphylia and the routes thence through Pisidia see Levick, B. M., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967), ch. 2Google Scholar; Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), i, 259–66Google Scholar and ii, 1140, n. 18, with Bean, G. E., Mitford, T. B., Journeys in Rough Cilicia 1964–8 (Vienna, 1970)Google Scholar, and Bean, G. E., Turkey's Southern Shore (London, 1968)Google Scholar, for local topography. Cf. also Jones, A. H. M., Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces2 (Oxford, 1971), ch. v.Google Scholar The volume Turkey I, fig. 32 (pp. 142–3) (B.R. 507 Geographical Handbook Series, 1942), and the text, ibid. 95 f., 147 f., illustrate clearly the physical controls limiting communications. Bean, , Journeys (1970), 23 and 71Google Scholar, dismisses other eastward tracks as impassable to wheeled traffic in ancient or mediaeval times, except for the route from Cilician Corocaesium across the Taurus to Iconium. Cf. the map on p. 2, prepared by the kindness of Mr. S. Mitchell.

3 Pol. 21. 46 (48). 10–11; Livy 38. 37. 9–10; 39. 17. Livy's statement that part of Pamphylia was cis Taurum and part ultra seems based on a misunderstanding of Polybius. Cf. Liebmann-Frankfort, Th., La frontière orientale dans la politique extérieure de la république romaine (Brussels, 1969), 71 ffGoogle Scholar. McDonald, A. H., ‘The Treaty of Apamea,’ JRS 57 (1967), 1 ff.Google Scholar, does not discuss the Pamphylian settlement. Strabo 13. 4. 17 (631) defines Milyas as the highlands between Isinda-Termessus in the south and Sagalassus-Apamea in the north. This fits Polybius and Livy here, and the use of Cicero, Verr. 11. 1. 95 (below, n. 18), and of Pliny, NH 5. 147. For the controversy over Ptolemy 5. 3. 4 see Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 775, n. 79; 1133, n. 4.

4 Livy 44. 14. 3. For Attaleia and another foundation at Pamphylian Corycus by Attalus II Philadelphus see Strabo 14.4.1 (667); Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 774, n. 77; 775, n. 79. Hansen, E. V., The Attalids of Pergamum2 (1971), 182Google Scholar, adds nothing.

5 Pisidia, omitted in the texts of the donations of 189–8 (above, n. 3) is included in the Rhodian speech (Livy 37. 54. 11). For Amlada, OGIS 751. For Termessus, Magie op cit. (n. 2) ii, 1136, n. 12. For Selge, Strabo 12. 7. 3 (571); Trogus, Prol. 34; Pol. 31. 1 (9). 3; Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 750–1. The counter-alliance of Termessus and Adada, TAM 3. 1. 2, suggests that not all Pisidia was Pergamene: cf. the freedom of ‘Pisidian’ Antioch since 189, Strabo 12. 8. 14 (577). For the topography of Selge cf. Bean op. cit. (1968) in n. 1, 138 ff., supported by Pol. 5. 72–3, where Garsyeris enters Pamphylia from Milyas to attack Selge from the south.

6 There is no evidence for the current belief that western Caria was included in Asia from the first, e.g. A. H. M. Jones, op. cit. (n. 2), 59. Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 1044, n. 30 (following Brandis, RE ii, 1538 f.) argued from die Sullan s.c. about Tabae and Stratonicea (OGIS 441–2; Sherk, Roman Documents, nos. 17–18; M.Crawford, J. Reynolds, ‘Rome and Tabae’, GRBS 15 (1974), 289 ff.) that these cities had always been under proconsular government. But these documents, like the later Lex Antonia about Termessus (below, p. 11), restore the former freedom of the cities after the turmoil of the Mithridatic war at a time when the rest of Caria was doubtless under Roman rule. H. v. Gaertringen, Inschr. Priene (1906), n. 121, 33, implies that Alabanda had free status c. 100. Le Bas, P., Waddington, W. H., Voyages archéologiques etc., Inscr. grecques et latines iii, n. 409Google Scholar, may indicate provincial status for Mylasa c. 78–7. Further east the tetrapolis of Cibyra survived as independent to c. 82; below, n. 51. Not much is left for a pre-Sullan conventus of Caria: why should the Senate add Caria to the new province when it was abandoning so much of the Attalid inheritance to the kings?

7 Contra, Levick op. cit. (n. 2), 20; Will, E., Histoire politique du monde hellénistique (Nancy, 1967) ii, 354Google Scholar, without argument. But a Roman quaestor was connected with Prostanna in western Pisidia in c. 112, Inscr. Délos 4. 1. 1603; Val. Max. 3. 7. 9; and Aquilius' highway reached at least Tacina on the Pisidian border, cf. Magie, op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 1048, n. 39. For Lycaonia see Justin 37. 1. 2, and below p. 6f. Justin's garbled text couples Lycaonia with Lycia, emended to Cilicia. But Seleucid Cilicia could not be given to Ariarathes in 129. Possibly the text means that the area of the later Roman province, i.e. Pamphylia and Pisidia, was given with Lycaonia, cf. also Jones op. cit. (n. 2), 131, and restored to the Roman province before 102, if the credit of the author extends so far.

8 For Rhodian control of Cretan piracy c. 200 see Ormerod, H. A., Piracy in the Ancient World (Liverpool, 1924), 137 ffGoogle Scholar. For a clash c. 150, cf. Diod. 31. 38. 43–5; Pol. 33. 16–17. For the Rhodian fleet in 88–7 and 67, App., Mithr. 24–6; Diod. 37. 28; Florus 1. 41. 8, and roughly contemporary inscriptions cited by Segré, M., Clara Rhodos 8. 227Google Scholar; cf. Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1164, n. 40.

9 Pol. 33. 13. 1–3; Strabo 14. 1. 38 (646).

10 For a summary of modern opinions see Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1161, n. 12; Badian, E., Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964), 161Google Scholar. Livy, Ep. 68: ‘in Ciliciam maritimos praedones, id est piratas, persecutes est’. Obsequens 44 (104) less carefully speaks of pirates being slain in Cilicia (where Mss. read in Sicilia). Cic., de Or. 1. 82: ‘Cum proconsule in Ciliciam proficiscens venissem Athenas complures ibi tum dies … commoratus’; cf. Brutus 168, ‘in Cilicia’. Trogus, Prol. 39 has ‘bellum mari…in Cilicia Romani per M. Antonium gesserunt’, but the statement ib. 39. 5. 3 about Crete and Cilicia becoming provinces does not refer to the war of the elder Antonius.

11 IGGR iv, 1116. The inscription was set up by the city or a private admirer in honour of a Rhodian sea-captain. Hence Cilicia must have its proper Greek significance: it cannot at Rhodes mean Pamphylia. Reinach, , Rev. Et. Gr. 17 (1904), 210Google Scholar, identified the Romans with the later Antonius and the tribune of 67, not unreasonably.

12 ILLRP i, 342: ‘auspicio (……….)i proconsule classis Isthmum traductast missaque per pelagus. Ipse iter eire profectus Sidam, classem Hirrus Atheneis propraetore anni e tempore constituit; lucibus haec pauc(ei)s parvo perfecta tumultu’. For the identification cf. ibid. nn., and Dow, S., Harvard Stud. Cl. Phil. 60 (1951), 90Google Scholar, who claimed that squeezes revealed traces of five or six of the missing letters, and restored: ‘(Ant)oni (M)arci.’

13 cf. Thiel, J. H., Studies on the History of Roman Sea Power in Republican Times (Amsterdam, 1946 414–5Google Scholar. For Sulla, cf. n. 15 below. For praetores proconsule see Jashemski, W. F., Origins and History of the Proconsular and the Propraetorian Imperium to 27 B.C. (Chicago, 1950)Google Scholar.

14 IGRR iv, 1116, cf. n. 11. above. For Byzantine ships, Tac., Ann. 12. 62. For the Lycian squadron, possibly serving with Servilius in 78, OGIS 552–4. For Antonius at Rhodes cf. Cic., de Or. 2. 3.

15 Appian, Mithr. 17, 19, 33, for the fleet in Asia; Plut., Luc. 2. 4; 3. 2–3, where there is no mention of Pamphylia: the coastal cities are those of Syria, not yet under Tigranes' control. Appian, Mithr. 56 names Cyprus, Phoenicia, Rhodes, Pamphylia in non-geographical order. The absence of Lycia is striking.

16 Cic., Verr. II 1. 89 f. Cf. Magie, op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1121, n. 27. Cf. Appian, BC 1, 79.

17 Sall., B.J. 27. 3–5; 35, 3; 43. 1; 62. 10; 84. 1, for the designation of the province as Numidia. Actual operations in Africa are carefully distinguished from those in Numidia, ibid. 25. 1; 28. 6–7; 36. 1; 39. 4; 44. 1 with 46. 5; 86. 4.

18 Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1161, n. 12, followed by Badian op. cit. (n. 10), 161, wrote as if Antonius could dispense with any territorial base by using the port of Rhodes. But a free state could not be assigned as a province, however much it could be expected to help. Besides, Rhodes had no large natural harbour to serve a great force.

19 Cic., Verr. I. 11: ‘Asiae et Pamphyliae’; II. 1. 95: ‘quomodo iste commune Milyadum vexarit … Lyciam Pamphyliam Pisidiam Phrygiamque totam ’; ibid. 53, ‘Pamphylia’; 154: ‘in ultima Phrygia … in extremis Pamphyliae partibus’. But II. 1. 44: ‘Cn. Dolabellae provincia Cilicia constitute est’. Cf. below p. 10. For earlier views cf. Levick, op. cit. (n. 2), 21.

20 cf. Verr. II. 4. 21: ‘Phaselis ilia … non fuerat urbs antea Cilicum atque praedonum … Lycii incolebant … sed exeuntes e Cilicia praedones … adsciverunt sibi illud oppidum’.

21 M. Hassall, M. Crawford, J. Reynolds, op. cit. (n. 1), 195 ff., publish and edit the Cnidian text with a revised text of the Delphian document (FIRA 2 i, no. 9). The two texts supplement one another, and though the Greek translations differ markedly in places they clearly form a single Roman law, passed after the consular elections of 101, i.e. after August 101, and probably before the beginning of 100. But the very hypothetical argument (ibid. 215, n. 16; 218) for dating the law, i.e. its final draft, before December 10, 101 is not compelling. Besides, this is based in part on the identification of the ἔπαρχοι, who with the tribunes of the current year are freed from the compulsory oath-taking, with the provincial governors in office. But Delphi C. 9–10 requires the proconsuls of Macedonia and Asia already in office to take the oath within ten days of news of its passage. The translator had no need to replace his regular term οἰ τὰς ἐπαρχείας κατέχοντες (n. 24, below) which recurs in e.g. the Sullan SC. de Stratonicensibus (OGIS 441 = Sherk, Roman Documents, no. 18, lines 75, 109, 114) by a new term. Hence the ἔπαρχοι should be other junior magistrates at Rome associated with the tribunes; cf. the usage in Lex Repetundarum 13 and 16 (FIRA 2 i. no. 7) and the law from Bantia, (ibid. no. 6. 3). So this law may still be one of the first promulgations of the tribunes of 100. For earlier bibliography see Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 1163 n. 13.

22 Delphi B. 5–12, Cnidos II. 6–11, combined.

23 Cnidos III. 35–37 now complete Delphi B. 7–8.

24 Cnidos IV. 12–13: ταύτην τε τὴν ἐπαρχείαν (sc. Chersonesus) ἄμα με[τὰ τῆς] Μακεδονίας διακατεχέτω; III. 22–25: ὁ〈ς〉 τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐπαρχείαν διακατέχων … Λυκαονίαν διακατέχηι … τούτου ἠ ἐπαρχεία Λυκαονία καθὼς … ὕπηρχεν …

25 Cnidos IV. 32–42. The paragraph contains general rules concerning the powers of proconsuls and quaestors who give up their provinces before the arrival of their successors. Hence all the provinces in the East, to which this law limits itself, should be named. Delphi C. 7–9 lists only Macedonia and Asia for proconsuls in office in 101–100 who were required to take the oath of allegiance. Delphi B. 20 names only the proconsul of Asia for the year 100 as required to secure the publication of the law by the cities. There is clearly no separate proconsul of ‘Cilicia’ at this time, neither in the person of Antonius, who returned to Rome in the course of 100 (Cic., Rab. Post. 26), nor of his successor.

26 Hassall et al., op. cit. (n. 1), 211, on Cnidos III. 22–7 and 35–7.

27 Cnidos III. 1–27: Lex Porcia, 4–15. This is introduced by the words Μᾶρκος !!…κάτων στρατηγὸς ἐκ̣ύρω̣σε̣. This verb is used elsewhere in this section in its common meaning for legislative action with or without reference to the People (C. III. 17, 26. Cf. Delphi C 11); and the context requires a law rather than an edict. For external rights, Cnidos III. 16–21. For Lycaonia, ibid. 22–7. Cf. FIRA 2 i, no. 11, ii, 15–17: ‘neive … magis iei dent praebeant … nisei quod eos lege Porcia dare praebere oportet’.

28 For these events see Magie op. cit. (n. 2), i, 201 ff.; ii, 1097–8, nn. 10–12. The chronology of the narrative derived from Pompeius Trogus and Appian depends upon the regnal dates given by the coinage of the Ariarathids. Mithridates and Nicomedes in turn controlled the rulers of Cappadocia between c. 100 and 100. For the mission to Rome, Diod. 36. 15.

29 e.g. Cnidos II. 13–15: τὸν στρατηγὸν [ἤ ἀ]ντι[σ]τράτηγον ἢ ἀνθύπατον τὸν τῆν Μ[ακε]δονίας ἐπαρχείαν διακατέχοντα. Cf. ibid. III. 22; IV. 6–8, 26. Delphi B. 20, 27; C. 8. For example, Macedonia, praetorian in 119 and 102, is consular from 114 to 112; Africa, normally praetorian, becomes consular for the Numidian war, 111–5; cf. MRR 2 i, sub annis. Provinciae praetoriae in Ciceronian and Livian usage refers to the annual designation of provinces (Forcellini, TLL s.v.). Strabo 14. 6. 6 (685), speaking of the annexation of Cyprus in 58, says ἐξ ἐκείνου δ᾿ ἐγένετο ἐπαρχία ἡ νῆσος καθάπερ καὶ νῦν ἐστει στρατηγική. He writes correctly from his contemporary knowledge of the imperial system of consular and praetorian provinces which emerged during the principate of Augustus, by which army commands were reserved for legates of consular status, while all the proconsulships except Asia and Africa were allotted to praetorian senators, as he explains very clearly, using the terms in question, in the last page of his last book, 16. 3. 25 (840).

30 Cnidos IV. 12–28. The proconsul of Macedonia is instructed to organize the taxation, boundaries, and internal security, as well as the defence, of the annexed district of Chersonesos Caenice and to spend at least two months of his time there.

31 cf. Ormerod, H. A., JRS 12 (1922), 44 ff.Google Scholar; Magie op. cit. (n. 2) i, 270.

32 Cnidos IV. 31–25.

33 Sulla ‘had few troops of his own but had eager allies’, Plut., Sulla 5. 7. Likewise in 89–8 the propraetors Cassius and Oppius levy large numbers of Asian, Bithynian, Galatian and Cappadocian troops, Appian, Mithr. 17, 19, 20; Memnon, FGrH 434 F. 22. Cassius has a ‘force of his own’ and a ‘few Romans’, but Oppius has only ‘mercenaries’. There is no distinct reference to a single Roman legion, the minimal army for a praetor in a military province. (I have taken for granted that no sane man can believe that Delphi B. 20–2 or any other section of this law is concerned with the setting up of a grand military command for Marius.)

34 Delphi B. 12–19.

35 Appian, B.C. 1. 77, in two words; Mithr. 57 in a passage containing notable inaccuracies; neither is historical narrative. Auctor de Vir. Ill. 75 is the most explicit: ‘praetor Ciliciam provinciam habuit’.

36 Plut., , Sulla 5. 6Google Scholar; εἰς τὴν Καππαδοκίαν ἀποστέλλεται. Cf. Livy, Ep. 70: ‘Ariobarzanes in regnum Cappadociae…reductus est’. Velleius 2. 24. 3 names no region.

37 So Badian op. cit. (n. 10), 161 and n. 26, improving on Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1163 ff., who doubted the combination of Cappadocia and Cilicia.

38 Eutropius 6. 3; Orosius, , Hist. adv. Pag. 5. 23. 22Google Scholar.

39 By the nineties the six annual praetors and two consuls serviced at least nine territorial provinces and three or more spheres of urban jurisdiction. The judicial praetors might, but need not, serve both at Rome and propraetore in a province, but consuls proceeded straight to their provinces; hence only five or six annual magistrates were certainly available in each year.

40 Appian, Mithr. 17.

41 ibid.: ἕτερος στρατηγὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ὅρων [or ὀρῶν] τῶν Καππαδοκίας; and 20, at Laodicea. Livy, Ep. 78: ‘Q. Oppium proconsulem, item Aquillium legatum’. For Posidonius στρατηγὸς Παμφυλίας (Jacoby, FGrH 87 F. 36 (50) = Edelstein and Kidd F. 253) clearly means praetor, since it is linked with a mention of Aquillius as a consular and triumphator. An unpublished inscription from Aphrodisias, as Miss J. Reynolds informs me, proves that he was propraetore.

42 Sail., B.J. 104. 1.

43 Above, n. 19.

44 Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1165, n. 15, followed indirectly by Hassall et al., op. cit. (n. 1), 209, on Cnidos A. 6, against S. Jameson, RE Suppl. xiii, 277.

45 Verr. II. 1. 44, 51, legatus en route; 53, thefts at Aspendus; 63, 69, special envoy. Then in 95: ‘proquaestore vero … commune Milyadum … Lyciam Pamphyliam Pisidiam Phrygiam totam frumento imperando aestimando … adflixerit’. It is absurd to suggest with Magie loc. cit. that Verres took grain as quaestor from another man's province.

46 ibid. 96, ‘per omnis partis provinciae,’ takes up the list in 95. Note that the offending totam in 95 is not limited to the last member of the phrase.

47 Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1165, n. 15. For the confirmation of the freedom of Lycia by Sulla, cf. Appian, Mithr. 61.

48 Verr. II. 1. 154. Strabo 12. 8. 13–14 (576–7). For Servilius cf. below n. 54. For Phaselis, cf. n. 20.

49 Cic. Verr. II. 1. 76.

50 Cf. Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1111–15, nn. 3–14.

51 Strabo 13. 4. 17 (631). There is no reason to doubt either the identification of Strabo's Murena with the famous legate of Sulla, or the survival of the dynasty of Cibyra from 190 down to this period, despite the lack of mention of ‘tyrants’ in the text of the treaty of the populus Cibyratis with Rome (OGIS 762, c. 160–50), since Strabo asserts its continuity, and the dossier from Araxa, , JHS 68 (1948), 46 ff.Google Scholar = SEG 18, no. 570, now proves occasional interruptions. For the earlier tyrants see Livy 38. 14. 3; 45. 25. 13; Pol. 21. 34. 1; 30. 5. 14.

52 Cic. Verr. 11. 1. 44. The meaning is shown by Bell. Alex. 65.1: ‘provincias…ita constitutes ut… iura legesque acciperent’. The basic meaning of constituere as to ‘set up’ or to ‘establish’ is not in doubt, as a careful study of the material in Thes. L. L. s.v. makes clear, though the use with provincia is naturally rare. It can hardly mean allot in the strict sense (as Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v., without convincing instances), and is not a synonym for attribuere. Cicero here has good reason to prefer constituta to the normal technical decreta, which has no nuance of arrangement.

53 Cic., Verr. II. 1. 73 and 154.

54 For the campaigns of Servilius Isauricus the researches of Ormerod, H. A., JRS 12 (1912), 44 ff.Google Scholar, and the comments of Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1169–76, nn. 21–6 are basic. It is clear from the consensus of Florus i. 41. 5–6, Oros. 5. 23, 21 ff., and Eutropius 6. 3, that the naval campaign comes first and the Isaurian campaign last, though the briefer Livy, Ep. 93, reverses die order.

55 Sall., Hist. ii fr. 47. 7. R. Syme, ‘Observations on the Province of Cilicia,’ Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler (1939), 299 ff., discussing the strategic function of the post-Sullan province, manages to ignore completely its role against Mithridates, and limits it to the control of the routes into Cilicia and Syria. But it was only after 63 that Roman Cilicia ‘covers Asia completely from the eastern side … and spares the need of a garrison in Asia’.

56 Plut., Luc. 6. 1.

57 Memnon, FGrH 434 F. 27 (37); Vell. Pat. 2. 33. 1.

58 Cic., Mur. 33: ‘ad quod bellum duobus consulibus ita missis ut alter Mithridatem persequeretur alter Bithyniam tueretur’; cf. Plut., Luc. 8.

59 Memnon loc. cit. (n. 57); Appian, Mithr. 75.

60 Plut., Luc. 23. 7.

61 Dio 36. 14. 2; 15. 3; 17. 1, for the movements of Lucullus in 67. Plut., Luc. 35. 3–6 tells the same story, of which Appian, Mithr. 90–1 has a garbled version. For Marcius in Lycaonia, Sall., Hist. v, fr. 14; he may have been invading Cilicia proper, cf. Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 1179, n. 40.

62 FIRA 2 i, no. 11. Whether the date is 71–70 or 68 is here unimportant; for that cf. MRR 2, 130 n. 4. For the site cf. Magie op. cit. (n. 2) i, 263–4; G. E. Bean, Turkey's Southern Shore, 119 f., and plates 55, 64; for a sketch-map, RE Suppl. Va, 735.

63 cf. FIRA 2 i, p. 135, and for the unrestored text CIL 1. 22, 589. The doubtful restorations are due to M. Accursio (s. xv–xvi) who claimed to read them on the tablet on which they no longer appear, and on which other Renaissance scholars failed to find them, though the only discrepancy is between his ac in col. I. 21 and the hac which now appears on the bronze: , E. Bormann, Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfeld (1903). 434 ffGoogle Scholar.

64 col. I. 2–35.

65 col. II. 1–5.

66 col. I. 12–27, omitting the disputed clause, and some uncontentious phrases, reads: ‘Quei agrei quae loca … Thermensium … sunt fueruntve L. Marcio Sex. Iulio cos … quae de ieis rebus locata non s[unt] … [e]a omnia Ther[meses … habean]t possideant ieisque … [fr]uantur ita utei ant[e Mitridatis bellum quod p]reimum fuit habueru[nt possederunt usei fruct]eique sunt’.

67 Mommsen's version of the modifying clause, based on Accursio, is: ‘q]uaeque de ieis rebu[s agreis loceis aedificieis locata su]nt ac ne locentur [sancitum est sanctione q]uae facta est e[x] l[ege rogata L. Gellio Cn. Lentulo cos. e]a omnia Ther[meses … habean]t possideant’. Bormann rejects all the supplements down to the consular names. But he tentatively offers an alternative which has much the same effect, substituting with probability a lex locationis for a statute law: ‘q]uaeque de ieis rebu[s… post]hac ne locentur [cautum est in locatione q]uae facta est e[x] l[ege..… e]a omnia Ther[meses.… habean]t possideant’. The lex might well be a consular lex dicta, as in Lex Agraria 89. Apart from this clause there is little room for manoeuvre in the restoration of this document; but cf. n. 71.

68 FIRA 2 i, no. 8, ll. 85–9; note ibid 85: ‘[quei ager] locus populorum leiberorum, perfugarum non fuerit, pro eo agro aedificio locoque ex l(ege) dicta q[uam L. Caecilius Cn. Domitius cen]s(ores) agri aedificii loci vectigalibusve publiceis fruendeis locandeis vendundeis legem deixerunt’.

69 col. I. 28–36.

70 col. II. 18–31, while restoring local jurisdiction, including that between Romans and Termessians, excludes the same categories of alienated property, while the following section, col. II. 32–6, grants extraterritorial privileges to Roman publicani; cf. n. 72 below.

71 The suggestion of Bormann op. cit. (n. 63), 439 that the purpose of the third section was to give the Termessians complete ‘ownership’ of mobilia, while the second section grants only ‘possession’ of real estate, is not valid—apart from ignoring the issue of alienation—because in both sections the right of property is defined in the same terms: habere, possidere, uti, frui, cf. col. I, ll. 18, 24, 27, with 31–2, 35, 36. The only noun appearing in the third section, res, is used in the second section col. I. 19, 20, as a collective noun for agri, loca, aedificia. Cf. FIRA 2 i, no. 35, 15–20; 38. 15, for these terms.

72 The sixth clause, col. II. 18–32, is bipartite. Lines 18–22 restore judicial usages between Romans and Termessians under local law. This is linked by quodque … iuris to lines 22–31, which restore the civil law of Termessus for Termessians with the same exceptions as in the third section. With Mommsen's emendation this makes sense as meaning that local law is not to apply to the two forms of alienated land. Roman publicani and others—who are likely to be other Roman financiers—gain a privileged position over the lands which they control or have acquired. As it stands, the text with praeter loca involves strange obscurities and contradictions, which need not be discussed here.

73 col. I. 28–31, above n. 66; col. II. 23–8.

74 cf. the similar arrangements made in this decade for Romans at Chios, also a free state, SIG 3 785, ll. 15–20; on which see A. J. Marshall, GRBS 10 (1969), 255 ff.

75 cf. Sherwin-White, A. N., The Roman Citizenship2 (1973). 175 ff.Google Scholar

76 The Fasti of the proconsuls operating in Asia between 100 and 90 are too incomplete and too imprecise to settle the issue by producing two proconsuls in a single year before 89–8. Even the lists presented by Magie op. cit. (n. 2), ii, 1579 and in MRR under each year are speculative. Only five proconsuls are known, and for none is his year definitive. Even Q. Mucius Scaevola alternates between c. 97, as propraetore, and 94, as proconsule (MRR, Suppl. s.v.). L. Cornelius Sulla is attributed on indirect evidence to 96 by Badian, op. cit. (n. 10), 157–78 rather than to the traditional 92, supported ambiguously by Vell. Pat. 2. 15. 3; 17. 3. L. Valerius Flaccus, aedile in 99, may have been praetor of Asia in any year from 96 to 90, (Cic., , pro Flacco 55–61, 77Google Scholar). C. Iulius Caesar and L. Lucilius, known from Inschr. Priene, III (ll. 14, 21, 136, 147) as successive proconsuls, can be attributed only approximately to c. 92–90, although Caesar is also documented in Inscr. Délos, 1712, 1847, and in his elogium (Inscr. It. xiii. 3. 75). There is no evidence at all for the date or province of Cn. Octavius, honoured as praetor in Inscr. Délos, 4. 1, 1782 (MRR Suppl. s.v.). L. Gellius Poplicola, who visited Greece and Athens after his praetorship in 94 (Cic., Leg. 1. 53, SIG 3, 732) is connected with no other province, though he may like Antonius (above n. 10) have been en route elsewhere. Of the known proconsuls, four are associated variously with Sardis, Ephesus, Tralles, Priene, and possibly Magnesia-on-Maeander, all within the old province. Even if Scaevola and Sulla are both dated after 95, there are at most five known proconsuls for the Asian region from 94 to 90 inclusive. See further MRR, pp. 7, 15, 18, 22, 27; Magie op. cit. (n. 2) ii, 1064, 1242; Badian, , Athenaeum 34 (1956), 120 ffGoogle Scholar.

77 col. II. 5–17; 31–5.