DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0135
11. HISTORY. 109
termed Phrygia HierapoUtatia. The lists vary as to its extent; some
assign to it a district on the south-west frontier of Pacatiana, contain-
ing Attouda, Mossyna, Dionysopolis, Anastasiopolis, and Metellopolis;
while others add a second district in the north-west, including Ankyra,
Synaos, Tiberiopolis, Aizanoi and Kadoi. It is certain that at the
second council of Nikaia, a. d. 787, both districts were under Hiera-
polis; while it is equally certain that at the Quinisextan Council in
693 the north-western district was under Laodiceia and only the
south-western under Hierapolis. It is therefore clear that between
69a and 787 a. D. a district including five cities in the north-west of
Pacatiana was taken from Laodiceia and assigned to Hierapolisl. This
change may be assigned to one of the early iconoclast emperors, when
re-organizing the empire, after the disorder of the seventh century;
but the new arrangement had only ecclesiastical, not political, sig-
nificance, for the themes had already come into existence, and the
provinces had no political meaning. A table showing the list of
bishoprics subject to Hierapolis in the Councils and Notitiae is
annexed as App. IH.
§ 12. Magistrates and Municipal Institutions. The Greek
political institutions seem not to have taken deep root in Hierapolis.
The inscriptions mention the Senate, but only as a receiver of
sepulchral fines; they mention the Record-office as containing copies
of sepulchral inscriptions; they mention the Gerousia as guardian
of graves; and they mention an annual gymnasiarch, and an agora-
nomos. On the coins, which are a thoroughly political institution, we
find Senate, Demos, Gerousia, Archons, Strategoi, Grammateus, and
Prytanis2; also Euposia and Eubosia, the former an impersonation
of the public banquets, and the latter of the fertility of the soil (as in
CIG 3906), both being forms of the mother-goddess of the city in her
civic aspect3.
In one case we find a date by a magistrate Stejjhanephoros'1. On
the analogy of Iasos and other cases (Ch. II § 9), we understand him
1 Incidentally we have a proof that Asiarch, belongs to Hieropolis in Phry-
the lists of bishoprics were not always gia Salutaris.
corrected up to date. Notitia I of Par- 3 M. Imhoof-Blumer (MG- p. 402)
they (more correctly given by Gelzer, considers the two forms to be mere
Georg. Cypr., who dates it about 820- variants in spelling, but they are dis-
840) does not give this new arrangement tinct terms. At Smyrna the public
of Phrygia, though it gives the re-ar- banquets were directed by a Euposiarch
ranged district Amoriana, which was (CIG 3385), Eubosia was a goddess at
cut out of Phrygia and .Galatia about Akmonia.
820-829 (it is Not. Basilii p. I2l). 4 CIG 3912a iw\ orecfiwritfmpov 2d£i-ou
2 The Epimeletes, Claudius Pollio to y.
termed Phrygia HierapoUtatia. The lists vary as to its extent; some
assign to it a district on the south-west frontier of Pacatiana, contain-
ing Attouda, Mossyna, Dionysopolis, Anastasiopolis, and Metellopolis;
while others add a second district in the north-west, including Ankyra,
Synaos, Tiberiopolis, Aizanoi and Kadoi. It is certain that at the
second council of Nikaia, a. d. 787, both districts were under Hiera-
polis; while it is equally certain that at the Quinisextan Council in
693 the north-western district was under Laodiceia and only the
south-western under Hierapolis. It is therefore clear that between
69a and 787 a. D. a district including five cities in the north-west of
Pacatiana was taken from Laodiceia and assigned to Hierapolisl. This
change may be assigned to one of the early iconoclast emperors, when
re-organizing the empire, after the disorder of the seventh century;
but the new arrangement had only ecclesiastical, not political, sig-
nificance, for the themes had already come into existence, and the
provinces had no political meaning. A table showing the list of
bishoprics subject to Hierapolis in the Councils and Notitiae is
annexed as App. IH.
§ 12. Magistrates and Municipal Institutions. The Greek
political institutions seem not to have taken deep root in Hierapolis.
The inscriptions mention the Senate, but only as a receiver of
sepulchral fines; they mention the Record-office as containing copies
of sepulchral inscriptions; they mention the Gerousia as guardian
of graves; and they mention an annual gymnasiarch, and an agora-
nomos. On the coins, which are a thoroughly political institution, we
find Senate, Demos, Gerousia, Archons, Strategoi, Grammateus, and
Prytanis2; also Euposia and Eubosia, the former an impersonation
of the public banquets, and the latter of the fertility of the soil (as in
CIG 3906), both being forms of the mother-goddess of the city in her
civic aspect3.
In one case we find a date by a magistrate Stejjhanephoros'1. On
the analogy of Iasos and other cases (Ch. II § 9), we understand him
1 Incidentally we have a proof that Asiarch, belongs to Hieropolis in Phry-
the lists of bishoprics were not always gia Salutaris.
corrected up to date. Notitia I of Par- 3 M. Imhoof-Blumer (MG- p. 402)
they (more correctly given by Gelzer, considers the two forms to be mere
Georg. Cypr., who dates it about 820- variants in spelling, but they are dis-
840) does not give this new arrangement tinct terms. At Smyrna the public
of Phrygia, though it gives the re-ar- banquets were directed by a Euposiarch
ranged district Amoriana, which was (CIG 3385), Eubosia was a goddess at
cut out of Phrygia and .Galatia about Akmonia.
820-829 (it is Not. Basilii p. I2l). 4 CIG 3912a iw\ orecfiwritfmpov 2d£i-ou
2 The Epimeletes, Claudius Pollio to y.