14

Between the Local and the

Global: Intersectional Elites
at Antiochia ad Cragum in
Roman Rough Cilicia
t i m othy how e

Taking its cue from studies such as those collected in Pitts and Versluys 2015,
this chapter seeks to move the conversation about ruler/ruled beyond the
current “Romanization binary” of acculturation or resistance.1 By analysing
some of the public spaces at Antiochia ad Cragum in Roman “Rough Cili-
cia” (Kilikia Tracheia), and the honorary inscriptions associated with them,
I will explore the ways in which local and imperial public building and hon-
orific decrees developed and nurtured shared practices between local and
international elites. Over the course of 300 years, an intersectional identity
developed, neither wholly local nor global, that articulated both engagement
with imperial family and with local leadership and traditions. It is my hope
that this exploration of material culture from the Roman period will under-
score the spectrum of ways in which the glocalized behaviours of the eastern
Mediterranean region that were nurtured in the Classical and Hellenistic
periods persisted and evolved under Roman rule.2
Antiochia had a long history, as an independent polis, as a royal capital of
the expanded Kommagenean kingdom, and as an administrative centre for
the Roman province of Rough Cilicia. After the withdrawal of the Seleukid
kingdom from Asia Minor, and the contraction of the powerful Seleukid
navy around 100 BCE, the community later known as Antiochia, like many
of the coastal population centres along the southern perimeter of Asia Minor,
became a haven for piracy.3 So successful were the Rough Cilicians as pirates
that they orchestrated the famous capture of Julius Caesar in 75 BCE.4 After
 352 Timothy Howe

Pompey’s pirate war of 66 BCE,5 Antiochia, like much of Rough Cilicia,

exchanged piracy for trade, becoming the primary producer of both Passum
wine – a sweet rich wine much in demand around the eastern Mediterranean –
and the locally produced amphorae that held it, which later came to bear the
ANT-brand stamp denoting Antiochia as the city of origin.6 Unfortunately,
not much is known about individual elites during this early period in the
city’s history, for little of the Hellenistic community has been located and
excavated, apart from the necropolis, yet what remains shows a persistent
localism sustained by long-distance trade.7 In the necropoleis, for example,
we see a number of house- and temple-style tombs, which, although in a
very ruined state and bereft of their dedicatory inscriptions, suggest a close
cultural connection between the Antiochians and their Luwian relatives to
the west in Lykia and Karia.8 Indeed, better-preserved tombs from neigh-
bouring Rough Cilician towns such as Lamos and Kestros show that local,
Luwian names, local architectural styles, and local, traditional artistic imag-
ery (such as the Cilician-style eagle) were significant characteristics of the
region’s elite.9 Given the prevalence of house- and temple-style tombs at
Antiochia, and the prevalence of eagle symbolism among its coins and later
public monuments, I see no reason to suggest anything different transpired
there during the Roman Republican period.
In the early first century CE, the city on the Kragos cliffs acquired the
name Antiochia, when it became the capital of the expanded kingdom of
Kommagene.10 In 37 CE, the Emperor Caligula officially annexed the area
and gave it to his friend Antiochos IV of Kommagene, who renamed the
community after himself – hence, Antiochia. Two years later, the ever-fickle
Caligula ejected Antiochos and returned the city to local rule, though the
name persisted. Then, a few years later, in 41 CE, the new emperor Claudius
restored Antiochos to his throne.11 At this time, nothing seems to have
changed on the ground, architecturally, epigraphically, or economically,
though no inscriptions survive to document the rapid governmental shifts.
And so, we see Passum wine and amphorae moving around the Mediter-
ranean world in large quantities without any noticeable disruption.12 But
beginning in the reign of Vespasian, after Antiochos’ death, the kingdom of
Kommagene became officially Roman territory and Antiochia the capital of
the new Roman province of Kilikia Tracheia.13 Thus, in the space of 100 years
the Antiochians had been invaded by Pompey and forced to give up piracy,
shifted from raiding to trading and growing a specialty wine, experienced
independence and the rule of a client king of Rome, were liberated from the
same client king, and then quickly given back to him again, only to finally
become an official part of the Roman Empire and have their city elevated to
the status of provincial capital. Throughout these changes, Passum wine and
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 353

amphorae still moved around the Mediterranean world and the Antiochi-
ans continued to bury their elites in traditional house-style tombs. Clearly,
the Antiochian elite were survivors and like many peoples of the ancient
Mediterranean world, remarkably resilient by modern standards. And just as
clearly, the Antiochians were savvy enough to find a way to collaborate with
global elites who could affect their lives, whether they be Hellenistic Seleu-
kid, Republican Roman, Royal Kommagenean, or imperial Roman. The local
leaders and their families were not eradicated, relocated, or otherwise purged
or displaced. The Passum-export economy of Antiochia and local dedications
seem blithely unaffected by any such shifts in global elites, and the Antio-
chian tombs show evidence for multiple burials in what seem to have been
“family”-style interments.
It seems fair to say that even though we have little literary or epigraphic
testimonia, the Antiochian elites had successfully weathered the social and
political vagaries of Rome’s eastern empire during the shift from republic
to principate and, as their tombs, Luwian personal names, and local symbols
attest, retained important elements of their distinctive local identity. And
once Antiochia became an imperial Roman capital, we can see the Antio-
chians begin to map their new relationships with the imperial rulers of
Rome onto the city’s existing physical space. In this effort, the Antiochians
had a well-paved path: the region and the city itself had a long tradition of
locally valued prestige symbols and systems that helped signal and define
rank and power, such as the Cilician eagle and the monumental house- and
temple-style tombs.14 Moreover, traditions of locally orientated euergetism
distinguished the Rough Cilician elite from their less elite fellow citizens and
assisted in local negotiations of status and positions of leadership, as elites
competed to give, and thus be recognized as givers, through honorary statues
and inscriptions on tombs and other public buildings.15 Embracing their new
imperial identities, the Antiochians adapted these local symbols not only to
underscore their new status, but also to signal Antiochia’s new relationships
to powerful individuals beyond the city boundaries. As did many cities of
the empire, the Antiochians integrated Roman emperors and their families
into the local hierarchies and systems of honour, gift, and display.16 And the
imperial family seems to have eagerly encouraged such practices through
financial gifts, visits, and public works of their own.
Unfortunately, much of the initial stages of these negotiations between
local and imperial Roman elites at Antiochia are lost from the epigraphic
and architectural record, though they are attested at neighbouring sites.17
Not until the reign of Hadrian, in the first half of the second century CE,
do we get a glimpse of the Antiochian reception of the intersection of the
local and the global. At this time, we begin to see the boulē and the dēmos
 354 Timothy Howe

of Antiochia setting up honorific inscriptions for local elites that anchored

(and highlighted) not only their leadership in local matters and their finan-
cial generosity, but also reference Hadrian and his father, Trajan – that is the
Antiochians were conscious of the need to link the local with the global, the
Antiochian and the imperial Roman. For example, a statue base found in the
agora honours Hadrian for his generosity to the universe (and presumably
the city of Antiochia).18

Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρ[α, θεοῦ]

[Τρα]ιαν[οῦ Παρθικοῦ υἱόν,]
[θεοῦ Νέρουα υἱωνόν,]
Τ[ραιανὸν Ἁδριανὸν]
5 [Σεβαστόν, τὸν κύριον καὶ] ?
[εὐεργέ]τ[ην τῆς οἰκουμένης,]
[ὁ δῆμος].

The Emperor Caesar, son

of the god Trajan the victor of Parthia,
who was son of the god Nerva
Trajan Hadrian
Augustus, the lord and
benefactor of the world,
the dēmos (honours).

Though no imperial cult centre has yet been found at Antiochia, and only
this honorific statue base that attests to Hadrian’s role at Antiochia survive,
similar inscriptions and structures from public spaces in nearby Kestros and
Lamos, and a dedication to Hadrian’s wife Sabina (discussed below) from
Antiochia, allow us to get some sense of the connections between Antiochia
and the imperial visit by the emperor and his wife, Sabina, in the year 131
CE.19
Imperial visits to provincial cities were often the catalyst for various sorts
of reciprocal dedications such as these, part of the infrastructure of euerget-
ism throughout the Roman world.20 With respect to Hadrian, the Historia
Augusta (13.6–7) mentions that he dedicated temples and altars in his trav-
els in the east; and Cassius Dio reports (69.5.2–3) that cities Hadrian visited
likewise received imperial benefaction. It is well known that this peripatetic
emperor toured most of the provinces of the empire and much has been writ-
ten about his itineraries.21 Although the literary sources are silent regarding
a visit to Cilicia during his third itinerary, we know one must have occurred –
or was expected to have occurred – as coins commemorating it (Adventus)
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 355

were issued, probably in Tarsus, with Hadrian on the obverse and the per-
sonification of Cilicia on the reverse.22 The date when Hadrian appeared in
Cilicia has been open to question, but recent scholarship appears to have
settled on 131, during his westward journey from Egypt.23 If the date of the
trip is generally accepted, the exact itinerary is not.24 The only sure signposts
are that Hadrian spent the winters of 130/131 in Alexandria and 131/132 in
Athens. This time frame therefore gave him just over six months of optimum
weather to make the journey. As for stops en route, dedications found in the
cities of Cilicia and elsewhere provide evidence of the imperial entourage as
it proceeded along the coastline, first in the Levant and then along southern
Asia Minor to the Aegean.25 All indications are that Sabina accompanied
Hadrian. There is no doubt Sabina was in Egypt with her husband, as she left
behind a graffito carved on one of the “statues of Memnon” in the necropolis
of Thebes as testimony to her presence.26 Scholars who claim Sabina’s pres-
ence in the entourage point to dedications in Asia Minor, in both single or
joint dedications along with Hadrian, including Kestros, Magydos in Pam-
phylia; Rhodiapolis, Patara and Tlos in Lykia; Tralles in Karia; Hierapolis in
Phrygia; Pisidian Antioch; and Magnesia in Ionia.27 At Antiochia the remains
of a fine white marble monument sponsored by Sabina can be seen among
the spolia of later Christian structures on the Antiochian acropolis.28
Accompanying the imperial couple was Julia Balbilla, an acclaimed poet
and a member of the Roman elite and, most importantly for our purposes,
the granddaughter of Antiochos IV, the eponymous founder of Antiochia.29
We know Julia Balbilla was present along with Hadrian and Sabina in Egypt
because she too left her mark on the Colossi of Memnon with verse graffiti
that have long been known and studied.30 Julia Balbilla had long been a friend
of Hadrian and Sabina, along with her brother, C. Iulius Antiochus Epiph-
anes Philopappos,31 and since the entourage was headed to Athens, it seems
reasonable to assume that Balbilla, like her brother a resident of that city,
would have accompanied Hadrian and Sabina. Moreover, Balbilla would
have had a familial interest in visiting Antiochia and a special resonance
for the local elites, given her blood relationship to the founder. There is no
evidence that Balbilla had ever visited the region previously, and thus we can
imagine the citizens of Antiochia as excited to greet Balbilla as they were to
celebrate Hadrian and Sabina in the city. In a sense, Balbilla represents the
high point that a local elite person could reach in imperial Rome, the epitome
of intersectional glocal identity: scion of the city’s royal family and close
personal friend and confidante of the empress.
The effect Hadrian’s visit in 131 had on the region, and the concomitant
intersectionality of the local with the global, may be dramatically seen on
Antiochia’s coinage. Although the mechanism that provides the privilege of
 356 Timothy Howe

minting coins by provincial cities is not well understood, in the case of at

least some of the cities of western Rough Cilicia, it may be that the emperor
himself granted this right.32 Prior to Hadrian, the only cities in the region
who minted coins were Anemurion and Selinos. Beginning with Hadrian,
however, the cities of Antiochia, Iotape, Kestros, and Lamos minted coins.33
The use of a single coinage throughout the empire provided a sense of cohe-
sion for its inhabitants and largely contributed to their conception of what it
meant to be a part of the global Roman Empire. Although minting was not
unique among the cities of Asia Minor, the fact that Antiochia was granted
the right to mint by Hadrian legitimated the city’s position as a provincial
capital and its elites’ personal connections with the emperor and his impe-
rial authority. In producing coins with imperial obverses, that is, the head of
the emperor,34 the city of Antiochia ad Cragum signalled its position within,
and commitment to, the Roman imperial system. By allowing Antiochia to
mint, the emperor reinforced for Antiochia the nature of that position. And
yet, the reverse images on Antiochian coins, featuring the eagle of Antio-
chia, served to legitimize and underscore the city’s local identity. In other
words, by producing a coinage with imperial obverses and local reverses, the
Antiochian elite were positioning themselves within the hierarchy of the
empire while also asserting the importance and continuity of local culture
and leadership. In a tangible sense, these coins clearly and precisely pro-
claimed Antiochia’s place in the Roman hierarchy.
Located nearby the Hadrian decree discussed above are several texts from
a heroon that provide an opportunity to view the nuances of Antiochian glo-
cal intersectionality. Three honorific inscriptions survive honouring a local
notable, Toubon Komdios.35 The longer and more complete inscription gives
us some details:

[ἡ βουλὴ] καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐτίμησ[αν]

Τουβων Κομδιος, τὸν φιλόπατ[ριν],
νεανίαν εὐσχήμονα καὶ ε[ὐγενῆ].

The boulē and the dēmos honour

Toubon Komdios for his love of his fatherland,
a respectable and well-born young man.

Notice that Toubon was praised by the boulē and dēmos for his love of
the fatherland (φιλόπατρια) and for his elite status (νεανίαν εὐσχήμονα καὶ
εὐγενῆ). The Toubon family was a respected (and long-standing) member
of the local ruling elite – the εὐγενῆ listed here shows that. It is important
to note, though, that Toubon has not been “Romanized” to any real degree.
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 357

He is using his Luwian name without any Greek or Roman additions. In a

style not uncommon to the region, we see both his patro- and matronym-
ics – Toubon Komdios, son of Nana and Toubon Komdios. This inscription is
one of several connected to the heroon that Antiochia set up to Toubon in the
agora, alongside a dedication to Hadrian.36 Might Toubon’s local fame come
from his links to Hadrian and the emperor’s patronage? This man did some-
thing pretty spectacular in the first half of the 100s CE to warrant a heroon.
What better act than to facilitate Hadrian’s visit and the rights of Antiochia
to issue its own coinage?
In the 190s and early 200s CE, during the reign of Septimius Severus, the
epigraphic record again shows us a moment of the local alongside the global.
As with Hadrian in the 130s, an imperial visit seems to anchor the relation-
ships. In 194 CE, much of Asia Minor had allied with Septimius Severus
instead of his imperial rival Pescennius Niger.37 In return for this sup-
port, and probably also for pragmatic reasons having nothing to do with it,
Severus engaged in a massive road-building project, beginning in 195, when
he campaigned against the Parthians and annexed Osroene, and again in 197,
when he was audacious and successful enough to sack Ctesiphon and fix the
Roman frontier at the Tigris River.38 Mile markers at Antiochia39 and a flurry
of public works attest to his roadbuilding in the region and the new wealth
and opportunity it brought. The most significant of the new structures was
a locally sponsored monumental temple dedicated to the Divine Severus and
his son Commodus.40 Built of local marble on a grand scale, the Severan cult
temple signalled Antiochia’s support for the Severan family. And yet, like the
coinage first produced under Hadrian, this impressive imperial cult temple
also highlighted Antiochian identity, for Antiochian eagles were both placed
on the pediment and located internally.41 By funding a temple to the Severan
cult, but then decorating it with local elite symbols such as the Antiochian
crouching eagle, the Antiochians had negotiated a way to engage Roman cul-
ture that not only acknowledged the legitimacy and prestige of the imperial
family, but also underscored (at least to a local audience) the leadership role
taken by the Antiochians in creating and maintaining Severan legitimacy
and power. To put it another way, the Antiochian elite devised an Antiochian
way to honour Severus. In the past they had erected statues and a small-scale
precinct to the imperial family of Hadrian and Sabina. They did not have to
build a monumental temple to the Severans and place within it, and upon it,
the Antiochian-style eagle. They chose to do so, most likely because Severus’
road opened up economic opportunities that dwarfed the efforts of previous
emperors and warranted special attention.
As with Toubon in the time of Hadrian, another local family appears in the
epigraphic record under the Severans that allows us a glimpse of local elite
 358 Timothy Howe

conceptions of identity. In the early 200s CE, a certain Sourbis, a member

of the local Asklepian priesthood, is allowed to put up a statue to the god in
the remodelled Great Bath complex.42 What is curious is that, unlike other
inscriptions of the time, Sourbis is honoured under his full Roman name: M.
Aurelius Sourbis. Although every provincial was enfranchised under Cara-
calla in 212 CE, it is possible that Sourbis, or his father, who was also named
Sourbis, gained citizenship directly from Severus or Caracalla (in connec-
tion with the road construction of 195?). For our purposes, it is significant
that the boulē and dēmos (which control public dedications) have chosen
to include Sourbis’ (new?) Roman name – Marcus Aurelius – alongside his
Luwian name – Sourbis. Here, the Antiochians seem to be acknowledging
and legitimizing his relationships with the imperial family – in this case
Sourbis “adoption” as a Marcus Aurelius. And the family remaining promi-
nent – in the next generation, Sourbis’ daughter is honoured with a public
statue.43

Conclusions

The Antiochian elite devised a way to acknowledge and participate in the

social, political, and economic world of Roman imperialism while at the same
time preserving their local cultural integrity and power. Despite the fact that
Rome came as a conqueror, and imposed its own global infrastructure, again
and again at places like Antiochia we see a reassertion of the local, a piecemeal
set of appropriations, adaptions, and modifications that allowed the ruling
elites to maintain their local systems of power and thrive in an imperial mar-
ketplace of goods and ideas. This is most clearly seen in coinage and through
honorific decrees and dedications. On both, the Antiochians simply added
in the Roman emperor and members of his family, as and when necessary.
Indeed, rather than showing a marked shift in the nature of the Cilician epi-
graphic landscape in the first century CE, when the city of Antiochia became
a Roman possession, public monuments instead emphasized the continu-
ation of sacred and political space within the new imperial Roman milieu.
There is no Romanization or resistance but rather a continuation of practice
that simply makes room for Roman elites and maps them into existing struc-
tures. The Roman imperial system seems to have functioned alongside (and
on top of) local forms of leadership (and its negotiation) at Antiochia with
those local elites manifesting a uniquely intersectional identity.
In the time-honoured manner, the Antiochians deployed inscribed dedi-
cations to stress the relationship between two (or more) parties in a fashion
that served both to honour the donor – whether imperial Roman or Antio-
chian – and to assert the honouring body’s right to determine leadership
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 359

and honour within a given political context.44 The fundamental act of set-
ting up an inscription in the imperial period, then, should be understood
much as it always has been: as a rhetorically charged moment in which
the communicative act of writing is paramount to setting the dedication
into its proper reciprocal context for the local audience.45 By recording
the recipient’s name (and family connections) as well as the name of the
granting body and the context of the relationship, the inscription pub-
licly affirmed the local by stressing the important connections between
the parties within the greater political landscape. Put into this context, the
dedicatory inscriptions to members of the imperial family and local lead-
ers at Antiochia can serve as windows on the intersectional socio-political
relationships forged by the local elites. Indeed, dedicatory acts tell us much
about local identity and values while at the same time offer little depth
or insight into the rulers beyond the need to garner local support. And
because of the local context (since inscriptions were placed on or near the
gifts they commemorated) the emphasis is thus placed on the bottom-up
direction of such honours.
I find it significant that Antiochian material and epigraphic culture was
remarkably unchanged during the 500 years of Roman rule and my hope is
that this survey of inscriptions and public space from a rather minor Roman
provincial capital gives some sense of the rich vocabulary of the local Medi-
terranean elites as they found ways to legitimate their elite status and make
use of global structures for their own purposes. As Woolf (2021: 27) has
recently observed, “in each case the local re-asserted itself.”

NOTES

1 Also useful for framing the discussion are Cecconi 2006; Van Oyen 2015; 2017;
Wolf 2014; 2017; 2021; and Versluys 2021. As is the recent back-and-forth
discussions in vol. 94 of Antiquity about the role of archaeology, material
culture, and object agency in the Romanization and globalization-localization
debates: Fernández-Götz, Maschek, and Roymans 2020; Versluys 2020; Garner
2020; and Jiménez 2020.
2 For a recent discussion of glocalization and periphery-metropole interaction
as a dialectic between local and global in Classical and Hellenistic periods, with
relevant bibliography, see, e.g., the essays in Hodos 2017; Beck 2020; and the
Introduction in this volume. See Barrett et al. 2018 for a framing discussion
on how glocalization theory can facilitate new approaches to archaeological
evidence. See Woolf 2021: 26–7 for a recent plea to see the longue durée of
local-global interactions when considering the Roman Imperial experience.
 360 Timothy Howe

3 De Souza 2013; Rauh, Dillon, and Rothaus 2013. For a history of Antiochia see
Hoff et al. 2015a: 201–5 and Hoff, Howe and Townsend 2021: 4–8.
4 Plut. Caes. 2; De Souza 2013.
5 Plut. Pomp. 24.7-8; App. Mith. 96.
6 Rauh and Will 2002; Rauh, Autret, Lund 2013; Dodd 2020: 27–30, 59–67.
7 Rauh et al. 2009: 293–8, 304.
8 Hoff et al. 2005. See Sofia and Nováková 2014 for a discussion of tomb styles
among the elites of Asia Minor. See Cubas Díaz 2021 for the continuation of
these traditions into the Byzantine period.
9 Rauh et al. 2009.
10 Cass. Dio 54.9.2; Tac. Ann. 6.41. See Hoff and Howe 2020 and Hoff, Howe, and
Townsend 2021 for the historical development of the city name.
11 OGI 411; Cass. Dio 60.8.1; Joseph. AJ 19.276. Borgia 2013; Hoff et al. 2015.
12 Rauh and Will 2002; Dodd 2020: 67–70.
13 Suet. Vesp. 8; Joseph. BJ 7.219–43, esp. 238; Borgia 2013: 90.
14 Hoff et al. 2008a and 2008b; Hoff et al. 2015. See Cubas Díaz 2021 for the
continuation of these traditions into the Byzantine period.
15 Wandsnider 2013; Argyriou-Casmeridis 2019.
16 For the dynamic connection between local elite and monuments of the imperial
cult in Asia Minor see Kantirea 2019. Cf. Millett 2021.
17 E.g., at Kestros: Bean and Mitford 1970: 155–60, nos. 158–64. See Rauh et al.
2009: 290–4, for discussion of the region under the Flavians and Good Emperors.
18 Antiochia Inscriptions 18.06. For commentary see Hoff, Howe, and Townsend
2021: 11.
19 Kestros: Bean and Mitford 1970: 159, 163. Lamos: AÉpigr 2005 (2008) 1549;
SEG 55.1518; Rauh et al. 2009: 288 (table 5) and 292.
20 Magie 1950: 620–1. Euergetism has long been studied; for a recent cogent
analysis from an anthropological viewpoint relating to the region in question
here, see Wandsnider 2013: 176–88.
21 E.g., Henderson 1923: 283–94; Magie 1950: 620–1; Halfmann 1986; Syme 1988:
159–70; Birley 1997; Boatwright 2000. For a contrary opinion regarding the
dedication of bases as an indicator of imperial visits, see Højte 2000: 221–35.
22 Struck 1933, Pl. 3, 16; Toynbee 1934: 69; BMCRE III, 490; Birley 2003: 432 n.
57. On Hadrian’s journeys see n. 53.
23 So argue Hoff, Howe, and Townsend 2021. For Hadrian’s journeys and their
dates, see Henderson 1923: 294; Magie 1950: 620–1; Halfmann 1986: 208; Syme
1988: 164–5; cf. Bean and Mitford 1970: 160; Brennan 2018: 138.
24 Brennan 2018: 131–41; H. Halfmann 1986; von Mosch and Klostermeyer 2015:
285–326.
25 For evidence regarding this itinerary see Halfmann 1986: 208 and Brennan
2018: 138–44.
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 361

26 Bernand and Bernand 1960, no. 32: [Σα]βεῖνα Σεβαστὴ/[Αὐτο]κράτορος

Καίσαρος/[Ἁδρια]ν̣οῦ, ἐντὸς ὥρας/[αʹ(?) τοῦ Μέμνονο]ς δὶς ἤκουσε/ vacat. See
also Cirio 2011; Brennan 2018: 125.
27 For a review of these dedications, see Brennan 2018: 139–41.
28 Antiochia Inscriptions 18.04; Hoff, Howe, and Townsend 2021: 12–13. In light of
Baker and Thériault 2020: 68–70 the O and serif we had restored as the phrase
ὁ δ̣[ῆμος] could also be Ὀλ̣[υμπεῖον] and refer to the title Hadrian acquired in
128/9, further strengthening the contemporaneity of the tour of 130/1 and the
dedication.
29 Bernard and Bernard 1960: no. 29, ll. 15–16: εὐσέβεες γὰρ ἔμοι γένεται πάπποι τ’
ἐγένο̣ντο, Βάλβιλλός τ’ ὀ σόφος κ’ Ἀντίοχος βασίλευς. Not much is known about
Julia Balbilla, but her pedigree has been reconstructed; see Sullivan 1977: 796–7;
Spawforth 1978: 252; Kleiner 1983: 17 and 95. See Hoff, Howe, and Townsend
2021: 17–19, for Balbilla’s presence on this imperial journey.
30 See Rosenmeyer 2008; Cirio 2011; and Rosenmeyer 2018 for Balbilla and the
Memnon inscription; cf. Brennan 2018: 127–37 for full references.
31 Kleiner 1983: 95 suggests that Balbilla may have been responsible for the
construction of her brother’s well-known tomb, the Philopappos Monument,
and possibly is herself interred within.
32 There have been recent attempts to address this issue: e.g., Weiss 2005: 57–68.
33 See Levante 1991: 205–12, which discusses coinage of Antiochia, Kestros,
and Iotape. Most recently see online Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC):
Antiochia: vol. III, nos. 3192–3 (https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/search/browse?
q=Antiochia+ad+cragum); Kestros: vol. III, nos. 3188–9 (https://rpc.ashmus.
ox.ac.uk/search/browse?city_id=382); Lamos: vol. III, nos. 3189A, 3190–1
(https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/search/browse?city_id=582); and Iotape: vol. III
nos. 3181–2 (https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/search/browse?city_id=552). Lamos’
coinage apparently did not extend beyond Hadrian. Curiously, no coin of
Hadrian survives from Kestros, but there is a single issue that features Sabina
with the inscription ΣΑΒΕΙΝΑ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗ, the same minimal titulature as
on the statue base from the city. Kestros: RPC vol. III: 3188. For the mint at
Antiochia see Hoff and Howe 2020: 166.
34 E.g., Alanya Museum inventory number AC 001. Full list in Levante 1991:
205–7.
35 Bean and Mitford 1970: 185, no. 204.
36 Antiochia Inscriptions 18.06. Hoff, Howe, and Townsend 2021: 11.
37 Hdn. 3.3.1–2, 6–8. Birley 1999: 108–20.
38 Gradoni 2013.
39 Hagel and Tomaschitz 1998: 37–8.
40 Hoff et al. 2008a; 2008b; 2009a; 2009b; 2010; 2012.
41 Hoff et al. 2008a; 2008b; 2009a; 2009b.
 362 Timothy Howe

42 Antiochia Inscriptions 13.01 (unpublished). During the excavation season

fragments from this statue were recovered.
43 SEG 20.97. See Destephen 2012 for further analysis of the role of women in
civic euergetism in the Imperial period.
44 See Ma 2013 for a discussion of this dynamic across the Greek-speaking eastern
Mediterranean.
45 So argues Culasso Gastaldi 2014.

REFERENCES

Argyriou-Casmeridis, A. 2019. “Aretē in a Religious Context: Eusebeia and Other

Virtues in Hellenistic Honorific Decrees.” In E. Koulakiotis and C. Dunn (eds.),
Political Religions: Discourses, Practices, and Images in the Graeco-Roman
World. Newcastle upon Tyne: 272–305.
Baker, P., and G. Thériault. 2020. “Les empereurs romains à Xanthos nouvel apport
épigraphique.” Epigraphica Anatolica 53: 59–74.
Barrett, J.H. et al. 2018. “Discussion: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on
Glocalization.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge 33.1: 11–32.
Bean, G.E., and T. Mitford. 1970. Journeys in Rough Cilicia, 1964–68. Wien.
Beck, H. 2020. Localism and the Ancient Greek City-State. Chicago.
Bernand, A., and É. Bernand. 1960. Les inscriptions grecques et latines du Colosse
de Memnon. Paris.
Birley, A.R. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London.
Birley, A.R. 1999. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. London and New
York.
Birley, A.R. 2003. “Hadrian’s Travels.” In P. Erdkamp et al. (eds.), The
Representation and Perception of Roman Imperial Power. Leiden: 425–38.
Boatwright, M. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton.
Borgia, E. 2013. “The Rule of Antiochus IV of Commagene in Cilicia: A
Reassessment.” In M. Hoff and R. Townsend (eds.), Rough Cilicia: New
Historical and Archaeological Approaches. Oxford and Philadelphia: 87–94.
Brennan, T.C. 2018. Sabina Augusta: An Imperial Journey. Oxford.
Cecconi, G.A. 2006. “Romanizzazione, diversita culturale, politicamente corretto.”
In S. Janniard and G. Traina (eds.), Sur le concept de ‘romanisation’: Paradigmes
historiographiques et perspectives de recherche, Mélanges de l’école française de
Rome 118.1: 81–94.
Cirio, A.M. 2011. Gli epigrammi di Giulia Balbilla: Ricordi di una dama di corte e
altri testi al femminile sul Colosso di Memnone. Lecce.
Cubas Díaz, J.C. 2021. Das Sepulkralwesen im Rauen Kilikien am Ende der Antike:
Funerärarchäologie und Grabepigraphik einer spätantiken Landschaft. Asia
Minor Studien 98. Bonn.
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 363

Culasso Gastaldi, E. 2014. “‘To Destroy the Stele,’ ‘To Remain Faithful to the Stele’:
Epigraphic Text as Guarantee of Political Decision.” Attic Inscriptions Online
Papers no. 3: 1–11. https://www.atticinscriptions.com/papers/aio-papers-3/.
De Souza, P. 2013. “Who Are You Calling Pirates?” In M. Hoff and R. Townsend
(eds.), Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. Oxford
and Philadelphia: 43–54.
Destephen, S. 2012. “L’Évergétisme aristocratique au féminin dans l’Empire romain
d’Orient.” In B. Caseau (ed.), Les Réseaux familiaux Antiquité tardive et Moyen
Âge in memoriam A. Laiou et É. Patlagean. Paris: 183–206.
Dodd, E. 2020. Roman and Late Antique Wine Production in the Eastern
Mediterranean: A Comparative Archaeological Study at Antiochia ad
Cragum (Turkey) and Delos (Greece). Oxford.
Fernández-Götz, D. Maschek, and N. Roymans. 2020. “Power, Asymmetries and
How to View the Roman World.” Antiquity 94: 1653–6. https://doi.org
/10.15184/aqy.2020.210.
Garner, A. 2020. “Re-balancing the Romans.” Antiquity 94: 1640–2. https://
doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.170.
Gradoni, M.K. 2013. “The Parthian Campaigns of Septimius Severus: Causes, and
Roles in Dynastic Legitimation.” American Journal of Ancient History 6–8:
3–24. https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463214340-003.
Hagel, S., and K. Tomaschitz. 1998. Repertorium der westkilikischen Inschriften:
Nach den Scheden der kleinasiatischen Kommision der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften. DenkschrWien 265. Vienna.
Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen
im römischen Reich. Stuttgart.
Henderson, B.W. 1923. The Life and Principate of the Emperor Hadrian. London.
Hodos, T. (ed.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization.
London.
Hoff, M., and T. Howe. 2020. “What’s in a Name? New Inscriptions from Antiochia
ad Cragum in Western Rough Cilicia.” Epigraphica Anatolica 53: 163–7.
Hoff, M., et al. 2006. “The Rough Cilicia Archaeological Project: 2005 Season.”
Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 4: 99–104.
Hoff, M., et al. 2008a. “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2007 Season.” Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 25: 95–102.
Hoff, M., et al. 2008b “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2007 Season.” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 6: 95–9.
Hoff, M., et al. 2009a. “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2008 Season.” Arastirma Sonuçlari Toplantisi 27: 461–70.
Hoff, M., et al. 2009b. “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2008 Season.” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 7: 6–11.
Hoff, M., et al. 2010. “The Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2009 Season.” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 8: 9–13.
 364 Timothy Howe

Hoff, M., et al. 2015. “Antiochia ad Cragum: Excavations at a Roman-Era City

in Western Rough Cilicia.” In S. Steadman and G. McMahon (eds.), The
Archaeology of Anatolia. Newcastle upon Tyne: 201–27.
Hoff, M., et al. 2012. “Antiochia ad Cragum Archaeological Research Project:
Northeast Temple 2011 Season.” Anadolu Akdenizi Arkeoloji Haberleri 10: 9–14.
Hoff, M., T. Howe, and R. Townsend. 2021. “New Old Stones at Antiochia in Rough
Cilicia: A Novel City Name and a Proposed Visit by Hadrian and Sabina.” Journal
of Roman Archaeology 34: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047759421000088.
Højte, J.M. 2000. “Imperial Visits as Occasion for the Erection of Portrait Statues.”
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 133: 221–35.
Jiménez, A. 2020. “Seeing in the Dark: Roman Imperialism and Material Culture.”
Antiquity 94: 1643–5. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.177.
Kantirea, M. 2019. “The Topography of the Imperial Temples in the Greek East: A
Political Answer to a Religious Question.” In E. Koulakiotis and C. Dunn (eds.),
Political Religions: Discourses, Practices, and Images in the Graeco-Roman
World. Newcastle upon Tyne: 306–23.
Kleiner, D.E.E. 1983. The Monument of Philopappos in Athens. Rome.
Levante, E. 1991. “Cilician Coinage.” Numismatic Chronicle 151: 205–12.
Ma, J. 2013. Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the
Hellenistic World. Oxford.
Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton.
Millett, M. 2021. “‘Romanization,’ Social Centralization and Structures of Imperial
Power.” In O. Belvedere and J. Bergemann (eds.), Imperium Romanum: Romanization
between Colonization and Globalization. Studi Materiali 2. Palermo: 63–76.
Pitts, M., and M.J. Versluys (eds.). 2015. Globalisation and the Roman World.
World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge.
Rauh, N., and E.L. Will. 2002. “’My Blood of the Covenant’ What Did the Apostles
Drink at the Last Supper?” Archaeology Odyssey 5.5: 46–51, 62–3.
Rauh, N., et al. 2009. “Life in the Truck Lane: Urban Development in Western
Rough Cilicia.” Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in
Wien 78: 253–312.
Rauh, N., C. Autret, and J. Lund. 2013. “Amphora Design and Marketing in
Antiquity.” In M. Frass (ed.), Kauf, Konsum und Märkte, Wirtschaftswelten
im Fokus Von der römischen Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Wiesbaden: 145–82.
Rauh, N., M. Dillon, and R. Rothaus. 2013. “Anchors, Amphoras, and Ashlar
Masonry: New Evidence for the Cilician Pirates.” In M. Hoff and R. Townsend
(eds.), Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. Oxford
and Philadelphia: 59–86.
Rosenmeyer, P. 2008. “Greek Verse Inscriptions in Roman Egypt: Julia Balbilla’s
Sapphic Voice.” Classical Antiquity 27.2: 334–58. https://doi.org/10.1525
/ca.2008.27.2.334.
 Intersectional Elites at Antiochia ad Cragum 365

Rosenmeyer, P. 2018.The Language of Ruins: Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the

Memnon Colossus. Oxford.
Sofia, G., and Nováková, L. 2014. “From Western Anatolia to Eastern Sicily: Tombs
of the Hellenistic Elite.” Anodos 14: 171–92.
Spawforth, A.J.S. 1978. “Balbilla, the Euryclids and Memorials for a Greek
Magnate.” Annual of the British School at Athens 73: 249–60. https://doi.org
/10.1017/S0068245400006262.
Struck, P.L. 1933. Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung des zweiten
Jahrhunderts. Vol. 2: Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit Hadrians. Stuttgart.
Sullivan, R.D. 1977. “The Dynasty of Commagene.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der
römischen Welt 2.8: 732–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866940-018.
Syme, R. 1988. “Journeys of Hadrian.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
73: 159–70.
Toynbee, J.M.C. 1934. The Hadrianic School: A Chapter in the History of Greek
Art. Vol. 1. Cambridge.
Van Oyen, A. 2015. “Deconstructing and Reassembling the Romanization Debate
through the Lens of Postcolonial Theory: From Global to Local and Back?” Terra
Incognita 6: 205–26.
Van Oyen, A. 2017. “Material Culture in the Romanization Debate.” In A. Lichtenberger
and S. Raja (eds.), The Diversity of Classical Archaeology. Turnhout: 287–300.
Versluys, M.J. 2020. “Nothing Else to Think?” Antiquity 94: 1646–8.
Versluys, M.J. 2021. “Romanization as a Theory of Friction.” In O. Belvedere and
J. Bergemann (eds.), Imperium Romanum: Romanization between Colonization
and Globalization. Palermo: 19–32.
von Mosch, H.-C., and L.-A. Klostermeyer. 2015. “Ein Stempelschneider auf
Reisen: Die Antinoosmedaillons des Hostilios Markellos und Hadrians Reise
im Jahr 131/2 n. Chr.” In U. Wartenberg and M. Amandry (eds.), ΚΑΙΡΟΣ:
Contributions to Numismatics in Honor of Basil Demetriad. New York: 285–326.
Wandsnider, L. 2013. “Public Buildings and Civic Benefactions in Western Rough
Cilicia: Insights from Signaling Theory.” In M. Hoff and R. Townsend (eds.),
Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. Oxford and
Philadelphia: 176–88.
Weiss, P. 2005. “The Cities and Their Money.” In C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, and A.
Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces. Oxford: 57–68.
Woolf, G. 2014. “Romanization 2.0 and Its Alternatives.” Archaeological Dialogues
21: 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203814000087.
Woolf, G. 2017. “Roman Things and Roman People.” In A. van Oyen and M. Pitts
(eds.), Materialising Roman Histories. Oxford and Philadelphia: 211–16.
Woolf, G. 2021. “Taking the Long View. Romanization and Globalization in
Perspective.” In O. Belvedere and J. Bergemann (eds.), Imperium Romanum:
Romanization between Colonization and Globalization. Palermo: 19–31.