Ramsay, William Mitchell: The cities and bishoprics of Phrygia: being an essay of the local history of Phrygia from the earliest time to the Turkish conquest (Band 1,1): The Lycos Valley and South-Western Phrygia (Oxford, 1895)

Apr. IV. THE SULLAN ERA. 203

But the following theory is worth testing, and is now stated by me
only to be tested and not as a principle on which any reasoning can be
founded,—no states reckoned by the era whose first year was 8.5-4 B.C.
except those which were either brought into the province or in some way
remodelled in their administration in the summer of 84 ; and these states
seem to be (1) the convening of Apameia, Synnada and Philomelion;
(2) per/laps Apollonia on the Rhyndacos, which had a strong Bithynian
connexion and was afterwards added to Bithynia, and which therefore
was perhaps first included in Asia by Sulla1; (3) the Cibyratic district,
which was incorporated by Murena, might justly have used the Sullan
era, but it adopted the era of a. d. 25; (4) perhaps the Katakekaumene,
where an era which has hitherto been assumed by all (including myself)
to be the Sullan was widely used: this will receive careful examination
in a future chapter; at present I may say that, while most of the
inscriptions are inconclusive (though several suit the Sullan era), the
following seem to me to disprove the Sullan era (1) Mous. Sm. no. rjxe
anno 215, dedication by Aur. Trophime: this requires a later date than
130-] a.d. (Sullan era); (2) Mous. Sm. 17/8', anno 169, dedication by
P. Aelius Theogenes: this calls for a later date than 84-5 a.d.2

The era of the province Asia, properly speaking, was 133 B.C.; and
this era was used on cistophori struck at Ephesos, Tralleis, Laodiceia, &c,
and was therefore widely employed in the coast-valleys 3. Further the era
133 B. c. was probably used at Themisonion; Laodiceia is not known to have
used any other era than 133 B.C. or 123 a.d. ; dates are not frequent in
the conveutvs of Cibyra, but the era a. d. 25 was widely used around that
city. On the other hand, as soon as we enter the Apamean conventus at
Keretapa and in Tchal-Ova, the Sullan era is found.

1 This is suggested to me by Prof. tween the inscriptions of Iasos, and
Mommsen as a possibility. those which use the Lydo-Phrygian

2 Perhaps the Katakekaumene dated era; and as they contain nothing de-
like Philadelpheia. Dr. Kubitschek has cisive we ought to be guided by the
assumed (p. 639) that Philadelpheia analogy of districts nearer Iasos. The
used the Sullan era, but the case is now era at Iasos is more likely to be 133 B.C.
decided against him, and Dr. Buresch or 48 or 31 B.C., which were used in
has proved that Philadelpheia used the nearer regions. In favour of the latter
Actian era. Moreover the inscription, the inscription given in Ath. Mitth. 1889
dated by Kubitschek in A. d. 288, suits p. 107 may be quoted, Kaicrapos Nuojs:
a. d. 341 better. See Mous. Sm. v£s the same phrase is used in an inscrip-
(frovs roy ht]v6s Aciov 8' fjnepa 'A<ppoSei- tion dated by Caesar's era App. Ill § 5.
rt]s). This reason is far from conclusive, but

8 Why M. Th. Reinach Rev. Et. Gr. it furnishes at least a presumption in

1893 P- 161 should declare that the era favour of the Iasian era as 31 01-48 B.C.;

85-4 was used at Iasos, I fail to see. but 133 B. c. is on other grounds perhaps

There is not the slightest analogy be- more probable.