Stable URL: as PDF
Last Updated on 01 Jul 2019

Author: Aitor Blanco Perez

CAPInv. 462: Xenoi Tekmoreioi


i. Geographical area Western Asia Minor
ii. Region Phrygia / Pisidia
iii. Site Sağir and Kumdanlı


i. Full name (original language) Ξένοι Τεκμορεῖοι
ii. Full name (transliterated) Xenoi Tekmoreioi


i. Date(s) l. ii (?) - iv (?) AD


ii. Name elements
Cultic:tekmoreioi ?
Geographical:xenoi ?
Note A possible root, *τεκμορ, *tekmor, appears in one fragmentary and untranslatable Old Phrygian sequence (Brixhe and Lejeune 1984: 235-8). This appearance might be coincidental, although there are some points allowing the establishment of plausible connections with the significant Phrygian substratum of the Antiochean region.
As for xenoi, the multifarious provenance of the members of the association may have given origin to the term (cf. Labarre 2010: 127-8).


i. Source(s) Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 3-10, 12-25 (l. ii (?) - iv (?) AD)
Ramsay 1911/1912: 62-7 [=Ruge 1934: no. 32] (l. ii (?) - iv (?) AD)
Ramsay 1912: nos. 26-27 (l. ii (?) - iv (?) AD)
Byrne and Labarre 2006: nos. 14-26 (l. ii (?) - iv (?) AD)
Note The first inscription was discovered by Ramsay (1883) in Kumdanlı soon before Sterrett 1888: nos. 366, 369-388 found similar subscription lists in the nearby area of Sağir. The material was subsequently edited, supplemented and studied by Ramsay himself and this has led to the lack of a publication in a corpus that could be cited with the exception of IGR 296-8. For this reason, the most reliable way of citing the inscriptions is following the numeration provided by Ruge (1934) in his RE entry. This numeration essentially follows Ramsay’s (1906) where the texts can be found, plus the revised readings and three inscriptions added by Ramsay (1911/1912) and (1912). Drew-Bear 1976: 263, no. 62, promised a new corpus of these lists, including new identifications and a detailed study. However, that publication never happened.
A series of new fragments of the lists of Xenoi Tekmoreioi has come to light after Byrne and Labarre's publication of Ramsay’s notebooks stored at Oxford.
i.a. Source type(s) Epigraphic source(s)
i.b. Document(s) typology & language/script Subscription lists. Greek
i.c. Physical format(s) Large elliptical blocks. They were all found in reused contexts, for example, at the cemetery of Sağir. Some of them can nowadays been found in the Archaeological Museum of Yalvaç.
ii. Source(s) provenance Various locations around Sağir and Kumdanlı (c. 20 km away from Yalvaç, Antioch by Pisidia)


ii. References to buildings/objects Ramsay 1906: no. 2: φιάλη, phiale (l. 2), λιβανωτρίς, libanotris (l. 5), ἀνδριάς, andrias (l. 3), χάλκωμα, Chalkoma (l. 3).
Ramsay 1906: no. 3: ἔφιππος Ἥλιος, ephippos Helios (l. 3).
Ramsay 1906: no. 6: βωμός, bomos (l. 2).
Ramsay 1906: no. 17: [χ]ακ[ώ]ματ̣α?, [ch]ak[o]mata? (l. 1).
Ramsay 1912: no. 26: δάος, daos (l. 2), εἰ[κών?], ei[kon?] (l. 3).


ii. Leadership πρωτανακλίτης, protanaklites: The exact meaning of this elsewhere unattested word cannot be determined, although it has been suggested that it would refer to the man who occupied the first position in a sort of table or ritual meal. Therefore, it would correspond to the president of the association (cf. Ramsay 1912: 153-4 and Levick 1971: 83).
This position was temporary, it granted a distinctive status and easier access to the position of βραβευτής, brabeutes (see Ramsay 1912: no. 26)
iv. Officials βραβευταί, brabeutai: As the original meaning of the term βραβεύς, Brabeus is “judge” or “arbitrator” (cf. Chantraine 1968: 189-90 and Robert 1982: 263-6), it might be possible that these men had the responsibility of determining the suitability of new members of the association. Normally, there are two brabeutai (Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 17, 20; 1912: no. 26; Byrne and Labarre 2006: nos. 16, 21) although three (Ramsay 1906: no. 14) and one (Ramsay 1906: no. 12) are also recorded.

ἀναγραφεύς, anagrapheus: It always appears on the top position of the most complete lists and is always held by a single individual (Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 7, 12, 14, 17; 1912: no. 26). He was most likely in charge of the production of the lists as a sort of secretary.


i. Treasury/Funds In Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 3, 6?; 1912: 26, the association paid the objects dedicated ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀναλωμάτων, ek ton idion analomaton which presumes the existence of a private treasury.
iii. Income The names and demotics of the people included in the lists are almost always followed by the amount of denarii which they gave (δούς, dous) to the association, probably for the the preparation of the dedicated objects. These contributions (ἐπίδοσις, epidosis) are listed from top to bottom, except for the officers who always occupy the top positions regardless of the amount.
The sums given vary considerably from the earlier lists with the lowest contribution at 161 denarii to the later in which 6001 are reached (see Ruge 1934: 163).


i. Number At least 110 members are attested in the longest and most complete list of Xenoi Tekmoreioi (Ramsay 1906: no. 2). The next bigger concentrations occur in the already fragmentary Ramsay no. 5 and no. 3 with 54 and 42 respectively.
ii. Gender Men
iv. Status Most of the members of the association did not possess Roman citizenship before AD 212 and lived in rural communities where they would have worked medium to large estates according to the sums of denarii given (cf. Mitchell 1993a: 239-40 and Zuiderhoek 2009: 50). Correspondingly, there are only three certain attestations of βουλευταί, bouleutai (Ramsay 1906: no. 16 (l. 1), no. 18 (ll. 2, 15)) in the lists.
v. Relations There are exceptional cases in which father and son, brothers and even the same man are recorded in two different lists. In this regard, Ramsay 1906: nos. 15 and 16 are remarkable, as at least 19 names are attested in both lists. The full account of possible prosopographical connections – including very dubious ones – is given by Ramsay 1906: 350-4. The most certain examples were also cited by Ruge 1934: 162-3.


ii. Meetings and events Since members described as γενόμενος πρωτανα[κλίτης], genomenos protana[klites] do not appear elsewhere in the available evidence, it must be inferred that some of the lists have been lost or, simply, that this association did not always inscribe such documents. In this sense, it is difficult to establish an exact chronology for the Xenoi Tekmoreioi and, in fact, the regularity of their meetings cannot be determined.
iii. Worship Despite the general opinion also sustained by Labarre (2010: 126-7) in his recent studies on the cults of Antioch by Pisidia, there is absolutely no indication that the Xenoi Tekmoreioi were worshippers of Mên Askaenos. None of the surviving lists mention the name of the lunar god or include the distinctive crescents that decorate most of the material from his most important sanctuary at Karakuyu near Antioch. By contrast, there is strong evidence to suggest the existence of a cultic centre of Artemis (Diana) according to the attestation of a priest of the goddess exactly in the area between Sağir and Kumdanlı (Ramsay 1906: no. 24). Furthermore, a relief also discovered at this location depicts one Artemis with clear Anatolian elements (Ramsay 1911/1912: 67-70), and the occurrence of names derived from the root Ἀρτεμ-, Artem-, in the lists is also very significant and clearly outnumbers Μην-, Men-. According to Ramsay 1906: no. 22 the theonym of this Artemis would be Σατιπ[ρ]ειζηνή, Satip[r]eizene.

This Artemis appears as recipient of the dedications of the Xenoi Tekmoreioi in Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 6, 13. In nos. 2 and 13, she is accompanied by the emperors whose salvation (σωτηρία, soteria) is also mentioned alone in nos. 3 and 12.
Deities worshipped Artemis
iv. Honours/Other activities By analogy with the only other attestation of *τεκμορευειν, *tekmoreuein found exclusively at Karakuyu and the etymology of πρωτανακλίτης, an action involving a ritual meal and benches was probably performed by the association of Xenoi Tekmoreioi (cf. Blanco-Pérez (2015)).


i. Local interaction Thanks to references to the place of origin or habitation of the members included, it seems that the majority of Xenoi Tekmoreioi came from villages (κῶμαι, komai) surrounding Sağir and Kumdanlı, even if the exact location of some of these settlements remains obscure (cf. Ramsay 1906: 361-71; Ruge 1934: 165; Mitchell 1993b: 16).
Despite the proximity of Antioch by Pisidia, there are only two members whose provenance from the Roman colony is recorded and the absence of Italian names is also remarkable for this area.
ii. Interaction abroad The trans-regional influence of the association was also considerable and reached areas such as north-western Pisidia, the Tembris valley and Phrygia Paroreios including citizens – among others – from Malos, Adada, Synnada, Prusias, Metropolis, Prymnessos, Philomelium and Apollonia and other communities within the transhumance patterns of Pisidia (cf. Bru 2009: 279).


i. Comments Only one of the lists (Ramsay 1911/1912: 62-7 (=Ruge 1934: no. 32) includes a possible consular date in AD 236. The remaining inscriptions have to be dated using indirect methods such as the prosopography correspondences and monetary contributions mentioned above. Thanks to this information and the occurrence of Aurelii, I have recently proposed a new chronology for the Xenoi Tekmoreioi divided into four groups:
-The first group A (Ramsay 1906: no. 7) would date to the years preceding the Constitutio Antoniniana in AD 212.
-Group B with Ramsay 1906: nos. 5, 14, 17; 1912: no. 27, would approximately belong to the second quarter of the 3rd century AD.
-Group C (Ramsay 1906: nos. 4, 15, 16, 20, 21; 1911/1912: 62-7 (= Ruge 1934: no. 32) dates to c. AD 236.
-Group D (Ramsay 1906: nos. 2, 12, 18) dates after AD 236 but the t.a.q. cannot exactly be determined despite the reference to joint emperors.

ii. Poland concordance Poland B 435a
iii. Bibliography Blanco-Pérez, A. (2015), ‘Mên Askaenos and the Native Cults of Antioch by Pisidia’, in M.P. de Hoz (ed.), Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in Temples and Cults of Graeco-Roman Anatolia, Peteers.
Brixhe, C., and Lejeune, M. (1984), Corpus des inscriptions Paléo-Phrygiennes II. Paris.
Bru, H. (2009), ‘L’origine des colons romains d’Antioche de Pisidie’, in H. Bru, F. Kirbihler and S. Lebreton (eds.), L’Asie mineure dans l’Antiquité: Échanges, populations et territoires, Rennes: 263-87.
Byrne, M.A., and Labarre, G. (2006), Nouvelles inscriptions d'Antioche de Pisidie d'après les notebooks de W.M. Ramsay. Bonn.
Chantraine, P. (1968), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots. Paris.
Drew-Bear, T. (1976), ‘Local Cults in Graeco-Roman Phrygia’, GRBS 17.3: 247-68.
Labarre, G. (2010), Le dieu Mèn et son sanctuaire à Antioche de Pisidie. Fernelmont.
Levick, B. (1971), ‘The Table of Mên’, JHS 91: 80-4.
Mitchell, S. (1993a), Anatolia: Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor I. Oxford.
Mitchell, S. (1993b), Anatolia: Men, Land and Gods in Asia Minor II. Oxford.
Ramsay, W.M. (1883), ‘The Graeco-Roman Civilisation in Pisidia’, JHS 4: 23-45.
Ramsay, W.M. (1906), ‘The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends: An Anti-Christian Society on the Imperial Estates at Pisidian Antioch’, in W.M. Ramsay (ed.), Studies in the history and art of the eastern provinces of the Roman empire, Aberdeen: 303-77.
Ramsay, W.M. (1911/1912), ‘Sketches in the Religious Antiquities of Asia Minor’, ABSA 18: 37-79.
Ramsay, W.M. (1912), ‘The Tekmoreian Guest-Friends’, JHS 32: 151-70.
Ruge, W. (1934), ‘Xenoi Tekmoreioi’, RE2 5.1: 158-69.
Sterrett, J.R.S. (1888), ‘The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor’, Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 3: 1-432.
Zuiderhoek, A. (2009), ‘Government Centralization in Late Second and Third Century A.D. Asia Minor: A Working Hypothesis’, Classical World 103.1: 39-51.


i. Private association Certain
Note This is one of the few cases in southern Anatolia in which the wealth of epigraphic evidence undoubtedly confirms the existence of a private association. The remarkably high number of surviving subscription lists records not only organisational aspects such as its internal structure or the name and contributions of the members, but also the purpose and content of their dedications. The certain evaluation of the Xenoi Tekmoreioi is based on all those factors.