Stable URL: as PDF
Last Updated on 20 May 2019

Author: Benedikt Eckhardt

CAPInv. 1692: to koinon ton Attaliston


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


i. Full name (original language) τὸ κοινὸν τῶν Ἀτταλιστῶν (OGIS 326, l. 2)
ii. Full name (transliterated) to koinon ton Attaliston


i. Date(s) 159 (?) - 130 (?) BC


i. Name in other forms ἡ σύνοδος τῶν Ἀτταλιστῶν, he synodos ton Attaliston (OGIS 326, ll. 32-33)
οἱ σὺν Κράτωνι Ζωτίχου Ἀτταλισταί, hoi syn Kratoni Zotichou Attalistai (BCH 4: 164, no. 21, ll. 7.3-5; SEG 32: 491(1), l. 13)
ii. Name elements
iii. Descriptive terms σύνοδος, synodos (OGIS 326, l. 3)
συναγωγή, synagoge (OGIS 326, l. 12)
αἵρεσις, hairesis (OGIS 326, l. 12)]
Note synodos: OGIS 326, l. 3 et passim
synagoge: OGIS 326, l. 12
hairesis: OGIS 326, l. 12


i. Source(s) OGIS 325 (159 BC)
OGIS 326 (159 (?) - 130 (?) BC)
CIG 3071 (159 (?) - 130 (?) BC)
BCH 4: 164, no. 21 (159 (?) - 130 (?) BC)
SEG 32: 491(1) (159 (?) - 130 (?) BC)
Note See also:
GRA II 141
OGIS 325:
CIG 3070
CIG 3069:
CIG 3069

If the foundation of the Attalistai took place under Attalos II (Le Guen 2007: 261-2), 159 BCE would be the earliest possibility. But Müller and Wörrle 2002: 200-1 have argued for a date under Eumenes II. The association should have survived Kraton’s death due to his generous provisions (see “income”), but the surviving inscriptions apart from OGIS 326 (recording these provisions) seem to have been set up during his lifetime, as is implied by σὺν Κράτωνι, syn Kratoni. This is especially interesting in the case of the letter of Lucius Mummius as restored by Roesch 1982: 198–202 (SEG 32: 491(1), on IG VII 2414), for this letter cannot be dated prior to 146. We do not know when Kraton died. OGIS 326 proves that he died under a king Attalos, most likely Attalos II (159-138 BCE). He was alive in 152 BCE, for this is the date of his letter to the Attalistai (OGIS 325). OGIS 326 explicitly mentions a letter by Kraton that was made known to the association only after his death – if OGIS 325 was that letter, this could suggest that Kraton died in the same year, which would make Roesch’s restorations of IG VII 2414 difficult to accept (as οἱ σύν, hoi syn certainly indicates current leadership). But clearly matters have to remain insecure here.
Online Resources CIG 3069
CIG 3070
CIG 3071
BCH 4: 164, no. 21
SEG 32: 491(1)
i.a. Source type(s) Epigraphic source(s)
i.b. Document(s) typology & language/script BCH 4: 164, no. 21 is a funerary inscription.
OGIS 326 is a posthumous honorific decree by the association for Kraton.
CIG 3071 is the reverse of the same inscription, an inventory of items dedicated by Kraton to the association.
OGIS 325 is the beginning of a letter by Kraton to the Attalistai, dated to 152 BCE. This may be the letter that contained his will, mentioned in OGIS 326 and sent to the association by king Attalos himself.
SEG 32: 491(1) is a letter by Lucius Mummius to the association.

All in Greek.
ii. Source(s) provenance SEG 32: 491(1) is from Boeotian Thebes, the other documents are from Teos.


ii. References to buildings/objects Ἀτταλεῖον, Attaleion (OGIS 326, l. 20). The “Attaleion near the theatre” was the sanctuary of the Attalists, dedicated to them by their founder and benefactor Kraton. He also bequeathed to them “the house (συνοικία, synoikia) near the royal palace, formerly owned by Mikrias” (ll. 21-23); this building was presumably to be used as a source of income. The τέμενος, temenos mentioned in l. 30 is presumably the Attaleion.

The location of this Attaleion (and hence the seat of the association) is debated. Schwarzer 1999: 265-72 argues that it was in Teos, while Le Guen 2007: 254-9 prefers Pergamon, where Kraton received citizenship; the fact that the inscriptions were found at Teos may be explained by the fact that they were part of the archive of the Dionysiac technitai. OGIS 326, ll. 15-16 seems to point to Teos when Attalos is explicitly said to have died "at Pergamon". In addition, the close collaboration with other Teian groups in BCH 4: 164, no. 21 follows the model known from Teian associations.


i. Founder(s) Kraton son of Zotichos. On this famous aulos-player and his network of associations that participated in the cult of the Attalid rulers, cf. Le Guen 2007.
Gender Male
ii. Leadership No other leader apart from Kraton is known.
iii. Members The members were regularly referred to as οἱ ὑφ’ αὐτοῦ (i.e. Kraton) συνήγμενοι καὶ κείμενοι, hoi hyp’ autou synegmenoi kai keimenoi (OGIS 325, ll. 4-5; 326, ll. 6-7), underlining the strong position of Kraton and the personal efforts he put into the association.

It is plausible to assume that many members (if not all) were actors or musicians like Kraton; they may also have belonged to the association of Dionysiac technitai with its seat at Teos (Müller and Wörrle 2002: 200-1).
iv. Officials <ἱ>ε<ρεύ>ς, <hi>e<reu>s (OGIS 326, l. 2): Kraton had been priest, presumably for lifetime, of the synodos.

χωρηγός, choregos (OGIS 326, l. 14): Kraton “continually served as choregos”, an office that was obviously expensive. Presumably the choregos was responsible for organizing and financing all cultic activities and the necessary equipment. Kraton’s will was applauded by the synodos not least because it seems to have rendered the existence of a choregos unnecessary (ll. 30-32: παραλῦσαι ... χορηγίας τοὺς Ἀτταλιστάς, paralysai ... choregias tous Attalistas).


ii. Realty The association possessed the Attaleion and another building; see "income" and "endowments".
iii. Income The finances of the association seem to have been problematic at times, notwithstanding the ἀγαθὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπα, agatha kai philanthropa that Kraton managed to obtain from the kings (OGIS 326, l. 9). During his lifetime, Kraton seems to have financed most of the expenses himself, mainly in his function as choregos. When he died, he not only left to the association 10,500 Drachmae, so that sacrifices could be financed from the interest, but also left them the “appropriate χρηστήρια, chresteria” for the proper maintenance of the sanctuary, in order “to free the Attalists from these expenses and from the choregia”. This presumably refers to equipment that would normally have to be provided by the choregos; the reverse side of the stone (CIG 3071) carries a list of items that are likely to be the χρηστήρια, chresteria (cf. Rigsby 1996).
iv. Endowments Kraton’s will left the association in a comfortable position, as it received not only a large sum of money, but also the Attaleion, another building near the royal palace, and several slaves (OGIS 326, ll. 21-28).


i. Assemblies
Known voting practice OGIS 326 shows that the association distinguished a proposal (γνώμη, gnome) from the actual decision (ψήφισμα, psephisma).
iii. Worship OGIS 326, l. 25 refers to “sacrifices and meetings”, financed through Kraton’s endowment. L. 36 stipulates that “days named after Kraton” should be celebrated in the future.

In general, the name suggests that the association worshipped the members of the Attalid dynasty. Given the close connection between the Attalid ruler cult and the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon (Michels 2011), the assumption that the cult included Dionysiac elements (Le Guen 2007: 274) is certainly plausible.
Deities worshipped Attalid dynasty
iv. Honours/Other activities See "worship"


i. Local interaction BCH 4: 164, no. 21 attests to a collaboration of 9 different groups. Of these, 2 are boards of magistrates, 5 may be legitimately labeled private associations, and 2 may be either, as their names are only fragmentarily preserved (οἱ σὺν ..., hoi syn ...). The Attalistai were thus part of a broader network in Teos (cf. on this aspect in general Boulay 2013).
ii. Interaction abroad Assuming that the Attalistai had their seat in Teos, they had close connections to Pergamon via Kraton, who played a significant role in the general context of the Dionysiac technitai and their relations to the Attalid rulers.


i. Comments OGIS 326, ll. 11–12 is difficult and needs to be read in context (ll. 8-13):

καὶ πολλὰ μὲ{ι}ν [ἀγαθ]ὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπα τῆι συνόδωι παρὰ τῶν βασιλέων ἐποίησεν, ἀποδεχομένων αὐτῶν τήν τε ἐκείνου ἅπαντα τρόπον πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς εὔνοιαν καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν αἵρεσιν καὶ συναγωγὴν ἀξίαν οὖσαν τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἐπωνυμίας.

kai polla me{i}n [agath]a kai philanthropa tei synodoi para ton basileon epoiesen, apodechimenon auton ten te ekeinou hapanta tropon pros heautous eunoian kai ten hemeteran hiaresin kai synagogen axian ousan tes heatou eponymias

Harland 2014: 326 translates:

“he [Kraton] arranged many good things and gifts for the synod from the king, receiving them in accordance with the king’s goodwill towards them in every respect and being worthy of our group’s and gathering’s name (i.e. he was devoted to the Attalids) [comment by Harland]”.

This cannot be correct for several obvious reasons (βασιλέων, basileon is in the plural, as is ἀποδεχομένων, apodechomenon, which cannot therefore refer to Kraton; αὐτῶν, auton is a genitive and cannot be the object of ἀποδεχομένων, apodechomenon; οὖσαν, ousan is feminine and must refer to συναγωγήν, synagogen, not to Kraton; ἑαυτῶν, heauton is in the plural and cannot refer to the group itself). A translation more in line with Greek grammar should read:

“he obtained many good things and gifts for the synod from the kings, who acknowledged (two things: 1.) his loyalty towards them (which he had shown) in every way and (2.) our purpose and gathering, which is worthy of their name”.

Hairesis should probably not be taken as a corporate designation, although it can have that meaning (LSJ s.v. αἵρεσις ΙΙ.3). The line of thought seems to refer to both the purpose of the association and to the organizational aspects that follow from it (the synagoge; note that ἀξίαν, axian is in the singular and refers more naturally to συναγωγήν, synagogen alone, but admittedly, a hendiadys is also possible).

Synodos is used both as a designation for the group’s corporate identity (l. 3, 32) and as a term for meetings (l. 25).
ii. Poland concordance Poland B 340 (BCH 4: 164, no. 21)
Poland B 341a (OGIS 326)
Poland B 341b (CIG 3071)

iii. Bibliography Boulay, Th. (2013), ‘Les « groupes de référence » au sein du corps civique de Téos’, in P. Fröhlich, and P. Hamon (eds.), Groupes et associations dans les cités grecques (IIIe siècle av. J.-C. – IIe siècle apr. J.-C.), Genève: 251-75.
Harland, P.A. (2014), Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentaries. II. North Coast of the Black Sea, Asia Minor. Berlin, Boston.
Le Guen, B. (2007), ‘Kraton, Son of Zotichos: Artists' Associations and Monarchic Power in the Hellenistic Period’, in P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals. Documentary Studies, Oxford: 246-78.
Michels, Chr. (2011), ‘Dionysos Kathegemon und der attalidische Herrscherkult. Überlegungen zur Herrschaftsrepräsentation der Könige von Pergamon’, in L.-M. Günther, and S. Plischke (eds.), Studien zum vorhellenistischen und hellenistischen Herrscherkult, Berlin: 114-40.
Müller, H., and Wörrle, M. (2002), ‘Ein Verein aus dem Hinterland Pergamons zur Zeit Eumenes’ II.’, Chiron 32: 191-235.
Rigsby, K. (1996), ‘Craton's Legacy’, EA 26: 137-9.
Roesch, P. (1982), Études béotiennes. Paris.
Schwarzer, H. (1999), ‘Untersuchungen zum hellenistischen Herrscherkult in Pergamon’, MDAI(I) 49: 249-300.


i. Private association Probable
Note The group was acknowledged in some way by the kings (OGIS 326, ll. 11-12), and Kraton certainly used it as a tool to show his loyalty in both official and unofficial contexts. But the financial problems the group had to deal with are those of a private association.
ii. Historical authenticity Certain