DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0128
102 III. HIERAPOLIS: THE HOLY CITY.
In the following chapter we shall study in more detail the traces
of the old system of society which survived in more backward and
remote parts of the country even under the Roman Empire. But at
this point we may make some general remarks about the theocratic
character of the Anatolian system.
Besides the land which was originally, apparently, the property
(probably communal property) of the free population, there was also
a considerable, or even a very large estate, actually the property of
the god and called x®Pa teJ°^- The rents or crops of this land were
enjoyed by the priest of the god1. It seems to have been generally
let on hire ; and analogy would lead us to suppose that the rent was
in many cases a proportion of the produce. Besides this Sacred
Ground there was a tract of land round the hieron which was inha-
bited specially by hieroi (Gh. IV § 12 (c)), worshippers, &c, and
which seems to be originally the same as the lepa, kco/it], lepbv yapiov,
irepmoKiov. At Stratonicea those who inhabited the peripolion were
distinguished from the inhabitants of the city. Narrower still than
this was the Sacred Precinct (TrepifioXos), where, as a rule, probably
the priest and the priestess alone lived2.
It is an interesting but difficult study to trace the change through
which the Anatolian system passed in contact with the freer Greek
civilization.
The population round the ancient Anatolian hiera consisted of both
freemen and hiero-douloi. The latter were serfs, attached to the soil,
and under the rule of the priest except that he was not allowed to
sell them 3. What was the condition of the free population 1 It has
sometimes been assumed that the priest-kings had always been the
rulers of the free population also ; but this seems to be an error.
Strabo p. 672 seems perhaps to imply that the priests of Olba were
dynasts only after the expulsion of the pirates by Pompey4 ; and he
says that Pompey, when he made Archelaos priest of Comana Pontica,
ordered the population of the country around to obey him, which
seems to imply that previous priests had not possessed this autho-
rity over the free population5. The fact seems to be that an influence
1 Strab. p. 535 x<i>pa lepa fjv 6 dci Upevs more fully in a paper in the Numismatic
KapirovTai. Cp. Heller, quoted n. 5. Chronicle at an early date.
2 Strab. p. 575. 5 Had it been recognized as part of
3 Strab. p. 558 says of the priest of the regular powers of the priesthood,
Comana Pontica (rjv) Kvpios tq>v Upohov- there would have been no reason to state
\u>v ttKtjv tov TrnrpatTKsiv, cp. 535 xipios it, as Heller de Lydiae Cariaeque Sacer-
ian ku\ t5>v Upo&ovXwv. dotibus p. 219 rightly argues.
4 I hope to discuss the subject of Olba
In the following chapter we shall study in more detail the traces
of the old system of society which survived in more backward and
remote parts of the country even under the Roman Empire. But at
this point we may make some general remarks about the theocratic
character of the Anatolian system.
Besides the land which was originally, apparently, the property
(probably communal property) of the free population, there was also
a considerable, or even a very large estate, actually the property of
the god and called x®Pa teJ°^- The rents or crops of this land were
enjoyed by the priest of the god1. It seems to have been generally
let on hire ; and analogy would lead us to suppose that the rent was
in many cases a proportion of the produce. Besides this Sacred
Ground there was a tract of land round the hieron which was inha-
bited specially by hieroi (Gh. IV § 12 (c)), worshippers, &c, and
which seems to be originally the same as the lepa, kco/it], lepbv yapiov,
irepmoKiov. At Stratonicea those who inhabited the peripolion were
distinguished from the inhabitants of the city. Narrower still than
this was the Sacred Precinct (TrepifioXos), where, as a rule, probably
the priest and the priestess alone lived2.
It is an interesting but difficult study to trace the change through
which the Anatolian system passed in contact with the freer Greek
civilization.
The population round the ancient Anatolian hiera consisted of both
freemen and hiero-douloi. The latter were serfs, attached to the soil,
and under the rule of the priest except that he was not allowed to
sell them 3. What was the condition of the free population 1 It has
sometimes been assumed that the priest-kings had always been the
rulers of the free population also ; but this seems to be an error.
Strabo p. 672 seems perhaps to imply that the priests of Olba were
dynasts only after the expulsion of the pirates by Pompey4 ; and he
says that Pompey, when he made Archelaos priest of Comana Pontica,
ordered the population of the country around to obey him, which
seems to imply that previous priests had not possessed this autho-
rity over the free population5. The fact seems to be that an influence
1 Strab. p. 535 x<i>pa lepa fjv 6 dci Upevs more fully in a paper in the Numismatic
KapirovTai. Cp. Heller, quoted n. 5. Chronicle at an early date.
2 Strab. p. 575. 5 Had it been recognized as part of
3 Strab. p. 558 says of the priest of the regular powers of the priesthood,
Comana Pontica (rjv) Kvpios tq>v Upohov- there would have been no reason to state
\u>v ttKtjv tov TrnrpatTKsiv, cp. 535 xipios it, as Heller de Lydiae Cariaeque Sacer-
ian ku\ t5>v Upo&ovXwv. dotibus p. 219 rightly argues.
4 I hope to discuss the subject of Olba