THE RELIGION OF EMPIRE:

The 250 year history of Galatia, a realm in central Anatolia ruled by a Celtic elite and a recent client kingdom of Rome, came to a sudden end in 25 BCE. Its last king, Amyntas, died suddenly while on campaign in Cilicia, and the newly christened Augustus took the surprising step to annex the province to the Roman Empire.1 The new province was speedily incorporated; a governor was put in place, legionary garrisons were installed, and colonies for Augustus' legionary veterans were established. The province would remain under virtually uninterrupted Roman control for almost 1100 years until central Anatolia was lost to the Seljuk Turks in the aftermath of the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. Galatia functioned much as any other Roman province in Asia Minor, with a combination of Roman officials, the Greek and Phrygian-speaking peoples, Roman colonists, and the former ruling Celtic elite intermingling and cooperating in the daily governance of Galatia.

Alongside colonization and the construction of civic infrastructure, there emerged institutions of emperor worship, the imperial cult, which soon became an essential fixture of provincial civic life.2 The imperial cult and its pattern of emperor worship were institutionalized, permanent rituals performed for the emperor that associated him and/or his family with divine authority and power.3 Cassius Dio explains:

[Octavian] Caesar, meanwhile, besides attending to the general business, gave permission for the dedication of sacred precincts in Ephesus and in Nicaea to Rome and to Caesar…the hero Julius. These cities had at that time attained chief place in Asia and in Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the Romans resident in these cities should pay honour to these two divinities; but he permitted the…Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians to have theirs in Pergamum and the Bithynians theirs in Nicomedia.4

Alongside the improvements to infrastructure and the direct presence of instruments of Roman control, such as the legions and the governor, the practice of emperor worship was a part of the process of Romanization, the supposed process by which Roman rule universalized the provinces.4 Romanization is often framed as a more deliberate, top-down policy of imperialism in the uncivilized western provinces. It had little lasting impact in the already-civilized Greek and Egyptian provinces.5 Applying this dichotomy of Roman control and Greek culture to Galatia substantially oversimplifies the diversity found in the province. It is clear that efforts were made to further tie Galatia to the Roman world, but scholars continue to debate how much of this stemmed from a deliberate policy of the Romans, decisions by the governors, or the work of provincial elites. The imperial cult of Galatia, emerging from several different sources, taking on different forms, but sharing several common features, is a particularly illuminating case study for the ambiguities of Romanization as a historical concept. The Galatian imperial cults served as important cornerstones of political and social organization in Roman Galatia. Still, many of the rituals, their function, and the reasoning behind their creation remain obscure. Despite all this, it is clear that the imperial cult in Galatia served as a key aspect of the province’s integration into the Roman Empire, as shown by the prominence of the temple in physical spaces, the prominence of the temple hierarchy in Galatian governance, and the importance of the rituals of the cult to political life. The importance of the cult can also be attributed to the importance of Augustus’ reorganization of the province into its recognizable form.

Evidence of the imperial cult in its specific forms comes from three temples: one at Ancyra, one at Apollonia, and the last at Pisidian Antioch, three of the key cities of the new province. Ancyra’s origins are unclear; it might have been the location of King Deiotarus’ nea polis founded around 54 BCE, or it might have been one of the Galatians’ characteristic fortified hilltop settlements, known as phounaria; whatever its origin, it was assigned as the center of the Tectosage tribe.6 In addition, it served as the capital of the province, the seat of the Roman governor and garrison established there as part of the initial organization of the province.7 Apollonia was a Greek settlement annexed into Galatia by Amyntas, with some additional colonists from Augustus’ era.8 Pisidian Antioch was originally a Greek polis, but had been re-founded as a Roman colonia by Augustus, who settled around 3,000 of his Italian legionary veterans there.9 Quickly after each city’s foundation, temples devoted to the imperial cult were established with prominent members of the local communities serving as priests which contributed to the construction and improvement of the temple structures.10 As might be expected, the physical spaces of the temples were important places for the organization of urban centers in the provinces and served as bases for the physical Romanization of these urban spaces. The temple at Ancyra, for instance, is the earliest known Classical style building in the settlement, with construction beginning around the midpoint of Augustus’ reign and its completion dated nearly to the start of Tiberius’.11 A similar pattern is seen in the other two cities and is reflected in the architectural styles of all three temples.

The temple at Ancyra was a Hellenistic design, an apparently anachronistic architectural design that initially suggested a construction date of the early second-century BCE.12 This might be explained by the temple originally serving as one devoted to an Anatolian goddess, Meter Theon, and then being converted into one devoted to the imperial cult in a deliberate act of synthesis; by binding the cult to Meter Theon and Augustus together, a shared patrimony was established in the physical temple space.13 However, this approach veers closely to the functionalist school of the imperial cult and so should be taken with some caution, and this specific association has been highly disputed by scholars who believe these features are likely the result of its non-Italic origin.14 The temple also featured both a Latin and Greek reproduction of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti prominently displayed, with the former text displayed on the inner anta walls and the latter on the south exterior cella wall.15 Furthermore, the inscriptions were brought out in now-faded red paint, making them vibrant in public, an impressive display, even if the text itself could not be read by most who saw it.16 By implication, the Res Gestae was a later addition to the temple, as the text was composed near the end of Augustus’ life and the temple was under construction long before his death, let alone the probable composition of the Greek translation, and this fact is generally supported by archeological examinations.17 Several statues dominated the temple, such as those to Augustus, the goddess Roma, and the goddess Victory, associating the temple and the emperor to whom it was devoted, with military victory. This made the temple a potent symbol of Roman power and its self-appointed “civilizing” project.18

The temple of Augustus at Pisidian Antioch was of a Corinthian prostyle design.19 Before the temple itself was a large, marble triumphal arch set in the town plaza, the Platea Augusta, with the temple looming over this display of Roman urban planning and military might.20 Here, too, is a copy of the Res Gestae, but Pisidian Antioch had become thoroughly Italicized, and most of the political elite were settled veterans of Augustus’ legions, so only a Latin copy of the text was found, though this means that the text must also have been a later addition after the foundation of the colonia.21 Several statues adorned the temple and the propylon at the archway, including the god Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the goddess Victory, and the imperial family of Augustus, Livia, and Tiberius.22 Alongside the monolingual display of the Res Gestae, the statues of Victory, Jupiter, and the imperial family, as well as the triumphal arches showing defeated enemies and the bounties of the Pax Augusta, such as depictions of fruits and nuts on a frieze, common symbols of the peace Augustus proclaimed, and similar to the Ara Pacis the emperor raised at Rome.23 As a colonia of Italian veterans, Pisidian Antioch often fancied itself a simulacrum of Rome proper, boasting of its own seven hills and naming locations after landmarks in the Eternal City, and so reproduction of Roman motifs is to be expected.24 The message of the temple architecture at Antioch was a more openly imperialist one than its counterpart in the Hellenizing capital at Ancyra. Here, in a colonia under ius italicum, could the truth of Roman domination be more openly displayed, drawing on architectural motifs on display in Rome?

Pisidian Antioch's status as a colonia settled by Romans has caused some scholars to question its nature as an imperial cult temple. Barbara Burrell notes that the temple at Pisidian Antioch was not the center of the Galatian koinon nor of one of the Galatian tribes. There are no records of a colonia having a cult to the living emperor during Augustus' lifetime at this location, and most importantly, as a city whose elite and population was mostly Italian, they were supposed to pay homage to the Divine Julius and the goddess Roma while aliens—that is, non-Romans—were allowed to venerate Augustus himself, as Cassius Dio suggests.25 Burrell is apparently the lone dissenter here, and the temple is usually associated with Augustus, but Burrell's points merit a response.26 Firstly, Ancyra's status as a center for a Galatian tribe did not give it a unique right to a temple center, as seen by the temple at Apollonia; if at Apollonia, then why not another city? Secondly, while the lack of documents from coloniae raises questions, Ittai Gradel points out that epigraphic evidence shows emperor worship occurring in Italy —during Augustus' lifetime, meaning that worship at Pisidian Antioch is not implausible.27 Thirdly, and with this last point in mind, the date given by Burrell for the completion of the temple—around 2 BCE—was almost thirty years after the imperial cult was first allowed to be organized by then—Octavian; a full generation had passed since this intended gulf between Roman, and alien had been prescribed. It may simply have been forgotten or no longer enforced stringently. Indeed, based on Gradel's examination of temple epigraphy in Italy itself, enforcement of this distinction may barely have existed at all. It is, therefore, likely that the temple at Pisidian Antioch was indeed devoted to the living emperor Augustus.

There is little remaining information about Apollonia and its temple, but some important details survive. Apollonia remained a primarily Hellenophonic city with a Greek-speaking, elite population, and so its temple was of a different design. On a large statue base, possibly within a larger sanctuary or temple, stood five statues devoted to the imperial figures of Augustus, Livia, Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus. This base featured the Greek translation of the Res Gestae.28 The base also featured a statement of dedication from the “Apollonian, Lycian, and Thracian colonists,” with this last descriptor possibly indicating a rivalry with the actual colonia of Pisidian Antioch nearby.29 Regardless, the presence of the Greek inscription and absence of the Latin original indicates the desire to emphasize the Roman Empire as a benevolent project which directly benefited the people, or at least the elites of Apollonia. While the absence of other common features seen in Ancyra and Antioch could be explained by poor luck, the lack of imposing triumphal arches, statues of Victory, or the more blatantly imperialistic Latin text of the Res Gestae, indicates that the temple at Apollonia was probably intended to convey different messages than the other two surviving temples in the province.

All of these temples displayed common architectural features, such as statues of the imperial family and inscriptions of the Res Gestae. In addition, these temples included inscriptions of priests and the benefactions they provided to the temple and community. Alongside this, at least in Pisidian Antioch, evidence suggests that the materials used to construct the temple there were locally produced by Anatolian masons rather than imported from far away.30 Temples to the emperor were also locally funded by elites who served on the priesthood, much like other Romanizing physical projects like aqueducts, meaning that the design naturally varied depending on the needs of the local government, which commissioned, built, and used them.31 Each was of a distinctly classical style, often incorporating Corinthian-style designs, which served both to Hellenize and Romanize the new urban landscape, depending on the composition of the city. Apollonia, with its traditional structures of a typical Greek polis, decorated and constructed its cult temple according to traditional Greek styles while incorporating a softer image of the imperial family. The Roman colonists at Pisidian Antioch deliberately cultivated their image as a miniature Rome in the middle of Galatia. The urban elite of Italian-born colonists wished to emphasize their connection with Augustus by using Roman-style triumphal arches before the cult sanctuary, which included statues of Augustus, the imperial family, and Jupiter, the supreme deity of their native city, to celebrate the imperial victory he brought about. Ancyra, however, was the new center of an entire tribe of Galatians, the Tectosagi, and was meant to serve as the new, Hellenic-style urban center for a people that had not fully embraced the classical polis of their Hellenistic neighbors while also serving as the center of Roman administration. Thus, the construction of the temple may have served as a foundation for this new polis (hence its apparently anachronistic design) as well as a symbol of Roman power, explaining the adornment of the temple with the Latin Res Gestae and the statues of Augustus, Roma, and Victory.

The study of religion in the Roman Empire is complicated by those who take a functionalist approach to Roman religion, particularly with the imperial cult. Historians often view the establishment of Roman religion and its ties to political life as a deliberate ploy by Roman elites, a clever ruse meant to trick the masses into accepting the imperial order. Edward Gibbon is often quoted as saying, "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful."32 This view was not just taken by modern scholars either; Polybius, who died almost a century before Galatia was annexed and decades before Augustus was even born, commented:

I fancy that the power of the Romans is sustained by the factor which the rest of mankind criticize so strongly…their religiosity. It has been dramatized and introduced into public and private life to a most powerful extent. Many find this inexplicable. My view is that it was done because of the man in the street. A state composed of philosophers might be able to do without this expedient. But the commons everywhere are unstable…Nothing is left but to hold them under control by fears of the unseen and dramatic touches of that sort.33

The original construction of this theory also places the Romans in a civilizing role, and so saw the imperial cult as a genuinely religious institution in its Greek context.34

Simon Price, a seminal scholar on the imperial cult, maintained that they emerged from a Greek cultural phenomenon: the ruler-cults of the Hellenistic kings.35 These emerged from a careful negotiation of power between the Hellenistic rulers, whose economic and political base was in the countryside, and the Hellenic poleis, whose "civic traditions provided no ready-made position for the king."36 Thus, religious cults served as a pre-existing institution by which kings could be integrated into the paradigm of allegiance within the city.37 Cults to "Roman power" and those to individuals, both Greek and Roman, which gave rise to the cults to the emperors, evolved from the traditional religious cults. Price views this relationship outside of the framework of deliberate, central imposition. However, this approach interprets the cult and its rituals as a predominantly Greek phenomenon rather than one which resulted from the wider array of cultures present in Asia Minor, especially in Galatia.38 More recent scholarship of the cult practices across the empire, including at Galatia, realizes that they emerged from more sources than Hellenic culture.

Just as the construction of temples for the imperial cult fell to local elites in each city, so too did the ceremonies and festivals practiced by the imperial cult of each city. Examples of a centrally imposed cult or cult center are rare throughout the Roman Empire and are practically unheard of in Asia Minor.39 While this essay has spoken of an imperial cult, it should be noted that there was no central cult apparatus that dictated the activities of each provincial cult and its priesthood. It is, therefore, technically more accurate to speak of imperial cults to reflect the multiplicity of practices even throughout Galatia. On a provincial level, however, there was some degree of administration for the provincial cult; the koinon of the Galatians was tasked with administering it and had several offices associated with its function. The exact details of the koinon's duties are unclear, but offices associated with the body include the hierophantes (later the archierus), the Galatarchon, and the sebastophantes, of which the first two are occasionally recorded as belonging to the same people simultaneously.40 While their exact function is hard to discern, the titles assigned to them as well as the evidence about the temple priesthoods, suggest that they were formed from the provincial elite, especially considering the implications of a title such as Galatarchon, meaning approximately "leader of the Galatians." Since the koinon was composed of the provincial elite and centered in the provincial capital, it is likely that the koinon made decisions with the input of local dignitaries involved with the cults of individual cities.41 The koinon was consequently an alliance of sorts between the various temple priesthoods, meaning that while commonalities existed between the individual cults, they were mostly autonomous and acted on their own initiative.

Who, exactly, served as priests in the temples of the imperial cult(s)? A list recovered from the temple of Augustus at Ancyra gives some insight into the social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds of the very early priests of Augustus. The first person mentioned was an unnamed42 "son of King Brigatus," who "gave a public feast and provided olive oil for four months."43 The third person mentioned on the priest list was "Pylaemenes, son of King Amyntas," who "twice gave a public feast and twice presented spectacles and presented games with athletes, chariots, and race-horses."44 These first two parts of the inscription provide a key insight into the types of people who served as priests in the cult at Ancyra. First, they were the sons of Galatian kings, forming part of the pre-annexation political elite, now incorporated into the classicizing institution built after the loss of their kingdom. Second, they were almost certainly men of substantial wealth and prestige. Just as aediles in Rome itself traditionally paid for games and festivals out of their own pocket, the implication is that these benefactions were put on by the priests from their own resources. The remains of similar inscriptions at Pisidian Antioch and Apollonia are fragmentary at best (though intact enough to suggest that a sacerdos to Augustus existed around 2 BCE).45 But the example of Ancyra serves to demonstrate that priests of the cult, much like other priesthoods, tended to come from elite backgrounds, and the ethnic background of both Apollonia and Pisidian Antioch suggest that their respective priesthoods came from different sources than the main cult center at Ancyra.

The religious benefactions included in the priest list of Ancyra include twelve public feasts at different points, four mentions of spectacles, around a total of eighty gladiators, four bull-fights and/or beast-hunts, two statues (one of Caesar and the other of Julia Augusta), four different provisions of olive oil ranging from four months' worth to a year's worth, and a mention of corn rations provided at the temple, in addition to sacrifices of animals.46 The variety of benefactions here reflects the variety of cultures found at Ancyra, as they were a mixture of Hellenic, Roman, and Celtic practices, such as the presence of gladiators and the use of venationes, a Roman tradition, the distribution of olive oil, a Greek tradition, and the arrangement of feasts, both a Greek and Celtic tradition, each of which emerged from religious festivals of their respective cultures, displaying spiritual importance.47 These festivals also associated the imperial cult with the benefactions of its priests in the form of games, feasts, and provisions of food and olive oil, especially when positioned near the Res Gestae, in which Augustus repeatedly mentions the expenses he undertook for the Roman people in the form of games, food, and the establishment of colonies. These festivals, placed near the temple to Augustus, adorned with text describing the benefactions he gave to the people of Rome, placed the priests in more direct association with the emperor and invited comparisons between Augustus and his priests.48 This interpretation does have the flaw of potentially relying on the ability of people to read the text, but one of the hypothesized functions of the sebastophantes at Pisidian Antioch was to recite the text of the Res Gestae, and so it is possible that the sebastophantes at Ancyra served a similar purpose.49 The festivals given served to demonstrate the magnanimity of the priests, associating prominent members of the community with lavish displays given for the people.50 Considering the importance of the koinon in Galatian provincial life, it is possible that these festivals, intentionally or otherwise, helped set the koinon and the cult as important cultural, political, and religious institutions in the eyes of the people for the material benefits and social cohesion they provided.

The rituals practiced by the imperial cult(s) of Galatia show the diversity of the province's leaders and the potential idiosyncrasies of the cults on a city-by-city basis. The festivals given by the koinon come from a wide swathe of cultural influences, each stemming from cultural and religious traditions of their own, while also providing material benefit to the people through the form of subsidized food, olive oil, and entertainment, and also political capital for the elite priests putting on these performances. It is hard to draw the line between what rituals were opportunistic cynicism, which were motivated by genuine religiosity, and which fall somewhere in between. Thus, the complex practices and origins of the cult demonstrate how it is hard to subscribe to the functionalist school of the imperial cult and instead suggest a more ambiguous, bilateral process between the emperor who gave permission for the establishment of these temples and the provincial leaders who established and ran them.

The imperial cult was a phenomenon that existed across the empire and Asia Minor, spreading rapidly across the empire following the initial establishment of cults by the emperor in 29 BCE.51 This phenomenon was already widespread in Augustus' lifetime, even emerging in Italy.52 However, Augustus, in particular, was important in shaping the development of Galatia into its form as a Roman province. It was, after all, during his reign in which Galatia was annexed that he consequently came to be closely associated with the new, Romanized Galatia.

Galatia, as an independent kingdom was distinct from its Hellenistic counterparts in that it had retained aspects of its Celtic tribal structure; it was governed by a Council of three hundred men and an assembly of tetrarchs from each tribe. These bodies, when assembled, dealt with murder cases by the former and other disputes by the latter.53 The Galatians were divided into three separate tribes, the Trocmi, the Tolistobogii, and the Tectosages, each of which was united by a common language and culture but ruled separate portions of the land.54 This situation, however, appears to have changed in the final century of Galatian independence; Strabo claims Galatia had become a monarchy, with its last king Amyntas having "united them [the Galatians] into one province."55 Even before the annexation, the monarchical government of Galatia had begun to emulate the Romans; King Deiotarus, for instance, had organized the Galatian army along Roman lines, raising thirty cohorts of Roman-style infantry by the early 40s BCE.56 A line from Cassius Dio regarding the restoration of Pamphylian lands following Amyntas' death and Rome's provincialization of Galatia indicates that Amyntas expanded his patrimony through territorial conquests of his own.57 The military reform and conquests suggest that the nascent Galatian kingdom was already beginning to centralize into a polity akin to its client neighbors. However, the subsequent reorganization of the province and the presence of Celtic names on the Ancyra priest list indicate that the tribal Celtic elite of the pre-monarchical period still existed in some form.

Upon Amyntas' death, Augustus dispatched a man named M. Lollius, who might have served at the Battle of Actium on Octavian's side. In combination with his selection as governor, indicating he had to have at least been a praetor, this likely made him a part of the Augustan inner circle.58 Augustus probably supplied him with written instructions, mandata, ordering him to secure Roman interests and begin the process of incorporating Galatia into the Roman Empire. In addition to assessing Amyntas' properties, dealing with the Celtic elite and Amyntas' heirs, and deciding what to do with the Galatian army, Lollius' governorship can potentially be traced to the beginnings of Galatian urbanization, as the cities of Ancyra, Tavium, and Pessinus were all founded at around the time of Lollius' governorship, ranging from 25 to 21 BCE.59 Each of these three cities was assigned as the center of a Galatian tribe, and each of the three tribes was given a new name as part of their reorganization: the Sebasteni Tolistobogii Pessinuntii, the Sebasteni Trocmi Taviani, and the Sebasteni Tectosagi Ancyrani.60 The first part of their name comes from sebastos, the Greek rendering of Augustus, reflecting not just an imperial origin, but referring to Augustus himself. The second part of the name refers to their respective tribal names, while the third refers to the urban center assigned to each tribe. It bears repeating that Galatia had not been particularly urbanized prior to the annexation, therefore this combination of an anchoring urban center, where at least at Ancyra, the imperial cult temple is the earliest extant structure, with a designation of imperial origin indicates that Augustus, likely acting through Lollius, sought to portray himself as a founding figure for the provincial Galatians.61

Pisidian Antioch also reflects how Augustus' policy shaped the province. As a colonia of legionary veterans, the new elite of the city owed its existence and position to the policy of Augustus and so sought to keep in close contact with the authorities in Rome.62 The settlement of veterans for Augustus was, in fact, one of his highest priorities, as the demobilization of the legions was necessary to keep the peace in the wake of Lepidus' sidelining and Antony's death and as part of his consolidation of the province.63 Augustus considered the settlement of his veterans as one of his grandest accomplishments and chose to highlight this feat (and the generous rewards he gave the discharged veterans) in the Res Gestae.64 This establishment of coloniae also further urbanized the province, making it easier to exert influence and provide a shared space for the population to organize within and create a broader Roman identity for both colonists and provincials.65 Augustus' mention of settling his soldiers, and his subsequent military reforms, indicate that his intention was to find a way to retire his veterans peaceably, but his actions also had the effect of binding the province together.

The three temples in Galatia devoted to their respective imperial cults each featured the text of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, with at least either a Greek or Latin version of the text. The original context of the Res Gestae was as a monument to Augustus, with the text inscribed in bronze and positioned outside his Mausoleum on the Campus Martius.66 It was, therefore, not an overtly religious text, yet our surviving intact copies come from temples in the province of Galatia. If the text had been critical to emperor worship in other provinces, then it is likely that at least one copy would survive elsewhere, in Bithynia or Asia, for instance. It has also been pointed out that a potential motive for annexation was Amyntas' connection to Antony in the collapse of the Second Triumvirate.67 Following this logic, the leftover elite of Galatia may have wished to demonstrate loyalty to the new regime. However, this seems doubtful; the Res Gestae would have arrived at the temples in Galatia years after Augustus' death, almost fifty years after the Battle of Actium; by then, the political mistake of Amyntas would likely have been a faded memory. Moreover, even if it had not, Amyntas was far from the only client king to pick the losing side at Actium, while the Res Gestae still only appears in Galatia. A more likely answer is that Galatia had been institutionally tied to Augustus; his name appeared on the names of the tribes, and the cities they resided in were founded by his governors' actions or reorganized by his veteran settlement program. The imperial cults in Galatia, centerpieces of Galatian political life, were therefore strongly ideologically tied to Augustus and the Julio-Claudians, and so this association was a beneficial one to cultivate by local elites. Thus, the cult served to tie the people of Galatia to their founder, Augustus, through temples to him and his family, displaying reproductions of the monumental inscription which stood by his tomb in Rome.

The imperial cults of Galatia served to Romanize the province in the sense that it helped foster an urban, classical-style way of life in the formerly very rural province through its physical spaces in the temples, its institutions, its rituals, and its ideological connection to Augustus. Nevertheless, the cult also highlights the ethnic and cultural diversity of Asia Minor that has often gone ignored in favor of a simplistic Roman vs. Greek dichotomy. The cults were local, dominated by local elites, and so reflected their idiosyncrasies and differences as a matter of course. It is unclear where exactly the line between intentional design or happenstance can be drawn, if at all, and who was the driving force behind the rituals and the establishment of the cults. It is nonetheless clear that the cults helped tie the province of Galatia to the empire and helped bind the cities in the province to one another by creating a shared space for ritual based on an imperial ideology that fostered a shared Roman identity.

Cassius Dio 53.26.3; Julian Bennett, “The Annexation of Galatia Reviewed,” in Adalya 22, no. 22 (2019), 224.
Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor Volume I: The Celts and the Impact of Roman Rule, (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1993), 112.
S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. (Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 1.
Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7. This passage dates to 29 BCE, before Octavian's assumption of the title "Augustus" and the formal organization of the principate.
Benjamin B. Rubin, “(Re)presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC–AD 68”, ( ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2008), 20-21.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 21.
Julian Bennett,. “The Political and Physical Topography of Early Imperial Graeco-Roman Ancyra.” Anatolica 32 (2006), 191-192.
Augustus Caesar, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary, trans. Alison E. Cooley (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009), 37.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 48-49.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 28-29.
Barbara Burrell, "Neokoroi," Greek Cities and Roman Emperors (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 167.
Julian Bennett,. “The Political and Physical Topography,” 206.
Barbara Burrell, "Neokoroi," 166-167.
Suna Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae of Augustus: A Monument of Imperial Image for All,” in Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 57, no. 1 (1998): 37.
Julian Bennett,. “The Political and Physical Topography,” 208.
Suna Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae,” 34.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 42-43.
Barbara Burrell, "Neokoroi," 166-167; Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae,” 36.
Barbara Burrell, "Neokoroi," 167; Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae,” 40.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 30.
Suna Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae,” 33-34.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 29-31.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 44-48; Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 42-43.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 57.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 45.
Barbara Burrell, "Neokoroi," 170.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 60. Footnote 117.
Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 77.
Suna Güven, “Displaying the Res Gestae,” 33.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 50.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 30.
Saskia Kerschbaum, “Romanization and Beyond: Aqueducts and Their Multilayered Impact on Political and Urban Landscapes in Roman Asia Minor,” in The Impact of the Roman Empire on Landscapes: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Mainz, June 12-15, 2019), ed. Marietta Horster and Nikolas Hächler (Brill, 2022), 161-162; Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 12.
Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume I, ed. David Womersley (London, England: Penguin Classics, 1995), 56-57.
John Ferguson "Polybius 6, 56" in Greek and Roman Religion: A Source Book (Park Ridge, New Jersey: Noyes Press, 1980), 74.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 21-22.
S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. (Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 25.
Ibid.
S. R. F. Price, The Roman Imperial Cult, 28-30.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 21-22.
Ibid., 12-13.
Julian Bennett, “The Political and Physical Topography,” 201.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 138.
The inscription is damaged and the name before the reference to "of King Brigatus" is missing. Mitchell identifies the name as "Castor," but there remains skepticism. See Mitchell 107 for further details.
David C. Braund, "EJ 109" in Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68. London: Routledge, 1985, 67.
Ibid., 67.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 61.
David C. Braund, "EJ 109," 67-68.
Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, 109-110.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 44.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 31.
Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, 112.
Ibid, 100.
Ittai Gradel, Emperor Worship, 77.
Strabo, 12.5.1.
Strabo, 12.5.1-2.
Strabo, 12.5.1.
Julian Bennett, “The Annexation of Galatia,” 232.
Julian Cassius Dio 53.26.3.
Julian Bennett, “The Annexation of Galatia," 231.
Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, 86-87.
Stephen Mitchell, Anatolia, 86-87.
Julian Bennett, “The Political and Physical Topography,” 206.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 45.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 28-29.
Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti 3.3.
Benjamin B. Rubin, (Re)presenting Empire, 31-32.
Alison E. Cooley, Res Gestae, 31.
Julian Bennett, “The Annexation of Galatia," 225.