View

I. LOCATION

i.	Geographical area	Western Asia Minor
ii.	Region	Ionia
iii.	Site	Teos

II. NAME

i.	Full name (original language)	τὸ κοινὸν τῶν περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνιτῶν τῶν ἐν Ἰωνίαι καὶ Ἑλλησπόντωι καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Καθηγεμόνα Διόνυσον (Aneziri 2003, D 11a l. 2-4)
ii.	Full name (transliterated)	to koinon ton peri ton Dionyson techniton ton en Ionia kai Hellesponti kai ton peri ton Kathegemona Dionyson

III. DATE

i.

Date(s)

237 (?) BC - 150 (?) AD

IV. NAME AND TERMINOLOGY

ii.

Name elements

Geographical:	Asia and the Hellespont
Professional:	technitai
Theophoric:	Dionysos Kathegemon

iii.

Descriptive terms

κοινόν, koinon
σύνοδος, synodos (Aneziri D11a, l. 7)

Note

The full name seems to be the result of two associations joining forces: The technitai of Asia and the Hellespont and the (younger) technitai of Dionysos Kathegemon, presumably an Attalid creation (Aneziri 2003: 71-76).

V. SOURCES

i.	Source(s)	Aneziri D1 (IG IX 1², 175) Aneziri D2 (SEG 2,580) Aneziri D3a-c (SEG 41,1003; 1005) Aneziri D4 (IG IX 1², 192) Aneziri D5 (CID IV 97) Aneziri D6 (SGDI II 2675) Aneziri D7 (Iscr. Cos ED 79) Aneziri D8 (I. Magn. 54) Aneziri D9 (I. Magn. 89) Aneziri D10 (IG XI 4,1136+1061) Aneziri D11 (CIG 3068) Aneziri D12 (I. Pergamon 163) Aneziri D13 (IK Iasos 152) Aneziri D15 (Iscr. Cos ED 141) Aneziri D16 (IMT Kaikos 818) Aneziri D17 (I. Lindos II 264) Aneziri D18 (Iscr. Cos ED 7) Aneziri D19 (IG XII 8, 163) CIG 3072 (?) CIG 3082 IK Tralles 50 IK Ephesos 1618 Strab. 14,1,29
	Note	Teos had already been the seat of the technitai of Asia and the Hellespont, and remained the seat of the new synodos, although Pergamon did not lose its importance at least for the Attalid branch. Strabo (14,1,29) tells how at some time in the late Attalid period, the technitai left Teos due to a sedition, and settled – after short stays in Ephesos and Myonnesos – in Lebedos. This information is supplemented by Aneziri D16, which shows that the Pergamene branch had moved from Pergamon to Elaia after 133 (the reasons are debated: contrast Rigsby 1988: 128-130 and Aneziri 2003: 84-86). The inscriptions are mainly from the Hellenistic period, Aneziri D1 being the oldest (ca. 237/6 BCE). The bulk of the evidence comes from the Seleucid and Attalid periods. From the imperial Era, only three inscriptions are known (CIG 3082; IK Tralles 50; IK Ephesos 1618); the association had apparently been reduced to a local branch of the world-wide synodos of technitai.
	Online Resources	Aneziri D1 (IG IX 1², 175) Aneziri D2 (SEG 2,580) Aneziri D3a-b (SEG 41,1003) Aneziri D4 (IG IX 1², 192) Aneziri D5 (CID IV 97) Aneziri D6 (SGDI II 2675) Aneziri D7 (Iscr. Cos ED 79) Aneziri D8 (I. Magn. 54) Aneziri D9 (I. Magn. 89) Aneziri D10 (IG XI 4,1136+IG XI 4,1061) Aneziri D11 (CIG 3068) Aneziri D12 (I. Pergamon 163) Aneziri D13 (IK Iasos 152) Aneziri D15 (Iscr. Cos ED 141) Aneziri D16 (IMT Kaikos 818) Aneziri D17 (I. Lindos II 264) Aneziri D18 (Iscr. Cos ED 7) Aneziri D19 (IG XII 8, 163) CIG 3082 IK Tralles 50 IK Ephesos 1618
i.a.	Source type(s)	Epigraphic source(s) Literary source(s)
i.b.	Document(s) typology & language/script	All in Greek.
ii.	Source(s) provenance	Aneziri D2, D3, D11 and CIG 3082 are from Teos; D1, D4, D5 and D6 are from Delphi (but for D4 and D6, a Teian copy exists as well); D7, D15 and D18 are from Kos; D8 and D9 are from Magnesia; D10 is from Delos; D12 is from Pergamon; D13 is from Iasos; D16 is from Kopazedes between Pitane and Elaia; D 17 is from Lindos; D19 is from Samothrake; IK Tralles 50 is from Tralleis; IK Ephesos 1618 is from Ephesos

VII. ORGANIZATION

iv.	Officials	ἱερεύς, hiereus (Aneziri D11a, l. 1; 14,2): A priest was the nominal head and eponymous magistrate of the association. ἀγωνοθέτης, agonothetes (Aneziri D11a, l. 1; D10, l. 27-28): The second text shows that the agonothetes was responsible for “the festival of the association” (ἡ τοῦ κοινοῦ πανήγυρις), a designation presumably used here to distinguish this festival from the civic Dionysia (Aneziri 2003: 89). It was possible, but unusual to be priest and agonothetes at the same time: Aneziri D10, l. 9. ἱερεὺς βασιλέως Εὐμένου, hiereus basileos Eumenou (Aneziri D11a, l. 1 and 16; D14, l. 3): This priest, to be distinguished from the priest of Dionysos, was apparently responsible for the association’s ruler cult under Eumenes II. In both inscriptions, the priesthood is connected to an agonothesia which is not identical to the regular agonothesia; the ruler cult seems to have been institutionally separated from the association’s other activities. μερισταί, meristai (Aneziri D8, l. 36): Subordinate officials who were responsible for providing the theoroi sent to Magnesia with money for the sacrifices.
	Eponymous officials	The priest was the eponymous official of the association

VIII. PROPERTY AND POSSESSIONS

i.	Treasury/Funds	The association was wealthy enough to mint its own coinage at some time between 155 and 145 BCE (Lorber/Hoover 2003).
ii.	Realty	In one of the earliest attestations, the city of Teos decides to buy an estate “either in the city or in the chora” and to give it to the koinon (Aneziri D2; on the question whether or not this was the site where the temple of Dionysos stood, cf. Aneziri 2003: 174-179, with negative results).
iii.	Income	Membership fees, contributions by magistrates and donations or even payments by the organizers of festivals can be surmised, but none of this is securely attested for the Asian koinon. Another source of income seems to have been the organization of the association’s panegyris. The fragmentary dossier of correspondence with Eumenes II (Aneziri D12) shows that the association tried to control the income from this festival even in the chora via its panegyriarcheis (cf. Aneziri 2003: 98-99), but was unsuccessful; this nevertheless points to income generated from the festival, although it was not as high as the association wished.

X. ACTIVITIES

ii.	Meetings and events	Aneziri D10, l. 27-28 mentions ἡ τοῦ κοινοῦ πανήγυρις, to be distinguished from the civic Dionysia.
iii.	Worship	The association sent theoroi and performers to various festivals in Asia Minor. It worshipped Dionysos and the Attalid kings.
	Deities worshipped	Dionysos (Kathegemon) Attalid rulers
iv.	Honours/Other activities	The association honours Kraton (Aneziri D11), who had been both priest and agonothetes (on him, cf. CAPInv. 1692)

XI. INTERACTION

i.	Local interaction	The main partner of local interaction was the city of Teos. There normally seems to have been close cooperation, as when the city bough an estate for the technitai (Aneziri D2). Teos could profit from its famous artists' association: The Delphic and Aitolian asylia-decrees for Teos refer to the technitai as a precedent (Aneziri D4-D6). Aneziri D12 nevertheless points to conflicts under Eumenes II about the extent of autonomous jurisdiction and the income generated from the association's panegyris.
ii.	Interaction abroad	The association acted as if it was a separate state, and was treated as such by others. It received asylia and other privileges from several major institutions of the Hellenistic world (the Delphic amphictyony Aneziri D1; Antiochos III D3; the Aitolians D4). It sent theoroi to festivals, and when Eumenes II proposed a synoikismos with Teos, he treated the association as a separate state at least on a terminological level (Aneziri 2003: 100-104). Beside this maintenance of truly international relations, the association entertained relations to the Isthmian koinon of technitai and to its own branch, the koinon of synagonistai. D15 and D18 also point to rather early relations with the Romans.

XII. NOTES

ii.	Poland concordance	Δ 11-21
iii.	Bibliography	Aneziri, S (2003), Die Vereine der dionysischen Techniten im Kontext der hellenistischen Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte, Organisation und Wirkung der hellenistischen Technitenvereine, Stuttgart. Lorber, K./Hoover, O. (2003), 'An Unpublished Tetradrachm Issued by the Artists of Dionysus', Numismatic Chronicle 163, 59-68. Rigsby, K. (1988), 'Provincia Asia', TAPA 118, 123-153.

XIII. EVALUATION

i.	Private association	Certain
	Note	The Dionysiac artists largely surpass the social and legal framework that normally governed the life of private associations. They can nevertheless be regarded as an essentially private network that had made itself indispensable for the religious ceremonies organized by both rulers and cities.
ii.	Historical authenticity	Certain

CAPInv. 1801: to koinon ton peri ton Dionyson techniton ton en Ionia kai Hellesponti kai ton peri ton Kathegemona Dionyson