View

I. LOCATION

i.	Geographical area	Eastern Asia Minor
ii.	Region	Cilicia
iii.	Site	Lamos

II. NAME

i.	Full name (original language)	τὸ κοινόν (Hagel-Tomaschitz, Repertorium Dir 10)
ii.	Full name (transliterated)	to koinon

III. DATE

i.

Date(s)

s. i - ii AD

IV. NAME AND TERMINOLOGY

i.	Name in other forms	Ῥόδων Κυδιμασου Σελγεὺς καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ (Rhodon Kydimasou Selgeus kai hoi met' autou, Hagel-Tomaschitz, Repertorium Dir 10, l. 1-3). οἱ ἀδελφοί (hoi adelphoi, Hagel-Tomaschitz, Repertorium Dir 10, ll. 25, 28, 29)
iii.	Descriptive terms	κοινόν, koinon
	Note	koinon: Hagel-Tomaschitz, Repertorium Dir 10, ll. 22-3, 33.

V. SOURCES

i.	Source(s)	Hagel-Tomaschitz, Repertorium Dir 10 (i - ii AD)
	Note	See also: AGRW 215 Bean-Mitford, Journeys – Rough Cilicia, 1964-1968: 180-2, no. 201.
	Online Resources	Bean-Mitford, Journeys – Rough Cilicia, 1964-1968: 180-2, no. 201 AGRW 215 ID# 1534
i.a.	Source type(s)	Epigraphic source(s)
i.b.	Document(s) typology & language/script	Funerary inscription in Greek with regulations about the use of the tomb.
i.c.	Physical format(s)	Rock-cut tomb with a sarcophagus lid. In the pediment of the lid is the relief of a head, the background is dotted. The front has a false door-way decorated with busts and pilasters on the right and left side. The inscription of the koinon is to the left of the left-hand pilaster, below the left bust and below the right bust.
ii.	Source(s) provenance	Direvli (territory of ancient Lamos)

VI. BUILT AND VISUAL SPACE

ii.

References to buildings/objects

The tomb is the common grave (μνῆμα, mnema) of the association.

VII. ORGANIZATION

ii.	Leadership	The group is formed around an individual, from whom it also takes one of its name forms: ‘Rhodon, son of Kydimasas, Selgian, and those with him’ (lines 1-3), followed by a list of these men. We can assume from this that Rhodon is the leader of the group. He is a Selgian stonemason, known from his signature on the sarcophagus lid of a rock-cut tomb in Direvli (Bean-Mitford, Journeys -- Rough Cilicia, 1964-1968: 179 no. 199).
iii.	Members	The mention of the group is followed by a list of its members (9 men): Pyramos, son of Pyramo(a)s, Selgian, Mindyberas, son of Arestes, Selgian, Aetomeros, son of Maneis, Lylous, son of Menos, Selgian, Ketomaneis, son of Kibrios, Zezis, son of Oubramys, Kendeis, son of Zenon, Aigylis, son of Oubramys Dinneon, son of Pigemis, Selgian
vi.	Laws and rules	The initial regulation is unproblematic from line 12 on, that nobody of a non-member should be buried in the grave and the fine for non-compliance: a monetary payment to the demos and money and animals to the sanctuaries of Zeus and Apollo. Starting from line 18, there follow regulations on how to proceed if a member would like to sell his share of the grave. While the sale of a share is expressly forbidden in the associations CAPInv. 1795 and CAPInv. 1791, this inscription provides exceptions as to how a member can sell his share. The text here is, to an extent, no longer legible; almost all of line 20 is missing, for example. The reconstruction proposed by Bean and Mitford may describe the situation correctly (Bean-Mitford, Journeys -- Rough Cilicia, 1964-1968: 182). The reading of the lines 18/19 is unclear after τις, tis: Bean and Mitford corrected the letters after τις: ἐὰν δέ τις ἀν<ίῃ>(?) καὶ κοινωνε[ί]αν ἑ[αυτοῦ θέλῃ π]ωλῆσαι, κτλ. (tis: ean de tis an <iei>(?) kai koinone[i]an he[autou thelei p]olesai, ktl.) Thus they have applied the first sentence beginning on line 18, “But if anyone should go up and wish to sell his common ownership” to the association members from Selge. From a topographical point of view, these would, in the case of a member returning to his native city, Selge, “go up”. Indeed, Selge is located approximately 1,000 metre above sea level. The sentence would thus describe a withdrawal from the association in the case of a member returning to his native city. This interpretation is not convincing since a situation of this type would be worded differently. Nevertheless, Bean and Mitford do not comment on their correction in line 18, with the result that it is not clear what was actually written on the stone. In any case, the sale of a member’s own share seems not to be permitted here. This seems to have been repeated once more in lines 20/21, emphasising that a sale to someone who is not one of the members of the grave association named at the beginning is not permitted. Rather, the owner willing to sell should receive 30 staters from the common fund and leave the association. Thereby, his share remains in the association’s possession. There follows a provision according to which the share of an ἀδελφός, ‘brother’, should he want to sell it, is to be purchased by the other ‘brothers’. There is some disagreement among researchers concerning the identity of these brothers. Bean and Mitford still had biological brothers in mind; the list of members, however, only features one pair of brothers. The regulation, then, which assumes several brothers, does not make sense. Instead, Onno van Nijf (1997: 47) and Philipp Harland (2005: 496-8) saw a description for the association members among themselves in the brothers. The members of ancient associations certainly use terms from the familial sphere in the inscriptions from time to time in order to underline their close bonds with one another. The regulation cited seems to regulate the case where a member is not content with the 30 staters on leaving the association, but insists on the sale of his share. In this case, the other brothers should purchase this share. The otherwise incomprehensible τινος in line 25 should be viewed as a genitivus pretii and would refer to the price named by the member wanting to leave the association. It is to be supposed that this ‘brother’ is trying to specify a price that might be well above 30 staters. This interpretation assumes that the share on joining the association was assessed at more than 30 staters, so the member had bought entry into the association for a higher financial contribution. The following regulation remains difficult to understand: If the brothers do not want to buy the share of their brother, they should retain the sum of money referred to, 30 staters, and leave the association. Since this provision would amount to a dissolution of the association and a loss-making bargain for all concerned, in my view it should only be seen as a threat. It is intended to prompt the association members, if necessary, to pay a higher amount than the 30 staters in order to secure the association’s ownership of all shares in the grave.

VIII. PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS

ii.

Realty

common burial space

IX. MEMBERSHIP

i.	Number	10 members are named.
ii.	Gender	Men
v.	Relations	Five of the ten members are Selgians. Therefore some scholars suggested the association to be a group of Selgian traders and stonemasons, that is, that the members, who are named with no ethnikon, also come from Selge (van Nijf 1997: 47. Nollé, I.Selge T40). But this assumption is not compelling.

X. ACTIVITIES

iii.	Worship	The funerary fines go to deities, namely to Zeus and Apollo. It may be assumed that the association had a particular affiliation with these gods.
	Deities worshipped	Zeus and Apollo?

XI. INTERACTION

i.

Local interaction

The funerary fines go to the demos and to deities, namely to Zeus and Apollo. It may be assumed that the association had a particular affiliation with these gods.

XII. NOTES

iii.

Bibliography

Harland, P. (2005), ‘Familial dimensions of group identity: “Brothers” (ἀδελφοί) in associations of the Greek East’, JBL 124.3: 491-513.
Van Nijf, O. (1997), The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East. Leiden.

XIII. EVALUATION

i.	Private association	Certain
	Note	The names of the association and the documented activity suggest a private association.
ii.	Historical authenticity	Certain

CAPInv. 1797: to koinon