The End of "Provincia Asia"

Author(s): Sviatoslav Dmitriev

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte , 4th Qtr., 2001, Bd. 50, H. 4 (4th Qtr.,
2001), pp. 468-489
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436632

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE END OF PRO VINCIA ASIA*

The end of the old senatorial provincia Asia is usually thought to have com
about as a result of Diocletian's provincial reorganization. ' It has been argued,
however, that the joint province of Phrygia and Caria was established at the
expense of provincia Asia in the middle of the third century2 and survived until
c.301.3 The theory of this joint province developed in several stages, which
took almost a century. Its beginning dates to 1898, when W. Judeich published
a newly discovered inscription from Hierapolis, which referred to the "f7ryegWv
of Phrygia and Caria", and placed it in the earlier half of the third century.4 In
1932, J. G. C. Anderson republished this inscription together with a similar one
from Laodicea on the Lycus; the two documents are likely to refer to the same
person since his name appears to have been erased in both inscriptions. Ander-

* The following abbreviations have been used: Roueche, Rome for Ch. RouechM, "Rome,
Asia and Aphrodisias in the Third Century", JRS 71 (1981) 103-120; Roueche, ALA for
Ch. Rouech6, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity (Leeds 1989). All dates are A.D.
For example, V. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie (Paris 1904) 85-86;
J. B. Bury, "The Provincial List of Verona", JRS 13 (1923) 127; J. G. C. Anderson, "The
Genesis of Diocletian's Provincial Reorganization", JRS 22 (1932) 31; T. D. Barnes, The
New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Harvard UP. 1982) 224-225; A. Demandt,
Die Spdtantike. Romische Geschichie von Diokletian bis Justinian. 284-565 n. Chr.
(Munich 1989) 54-55; R. P. Davis, "Diocletian", OCD3 471; S. Williams, Diocletian and
the Roman Recovery (N.Y.-London 1997) 105.
2 See esp. M. Christol and Th. Drew-Bear, "Une dflimitation de territoire en Phrygie-
Carie", Travaux et recherches en Turquie: 1982 [Collection Turcica 21 (Leuven 1983) 35
and Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 215. For an attempt to reconcile the two opinions, see M.
Sartre, L'Asie Mineure et lAnatolie dAlexandre a Diocletien: IVe s. av. J. -C./IIIe s. ap. J. -C.
(Paris 1995) 176. For Aphrodisias as the most likely provincial capital, see Ch. Roueche,
"L'histoire d'Aphrodisias apres 250, d'apres les inscriptions", ed. J. de la Geniere and K.
Erim, Aphrodisias de Carie. Colloque du Centre de Recherches archiologiques de I' Universite
de Lille 111 (Paris 1987) 155-158. Cf. R. Haensch, Capita provinciarum. Statthaltersitze und
Provinzialverwaltung in der romischen Kaiserzeit (Mainz 1997) 297 n. 199.
3 For example, Rouech6, Rome 1 1 1; Christol and Drew-Bear, Delimitation (as in n. 2) 38 n.
42; RouechM, ALA 21, 320; E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, "Four Milestones from
Ceramus", REA 93 (1991) 133.
4 Altertuimer von Hierapolis IV (Berlin 1898) 88 no. 43a (= IGR IV 814; see App. no. 4)
together with his comment ad hoc: "Ein i?ycgv 1pvia ic;ai Kapia; war bisher nicht
bekannt, ein i?yegbv in Karien erscheint erst reichlich ein Jahrhundert spater als die vorliegen-
de Inschrift in der Zeit des Constantius (CIG 2744.6, 2745.1 Aphrodisias)". Since Fl. lulius
Constantius reigned in 337/361, the inscription was dated by W. Judeich to c.230/260.

Historia, Band L/4 (2001)

? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 469

son dated them to the late third or early four

inscriptions he concluded that at the end of t
was temporarily established at the expense of the old provincia Asia and was
dissolved soon afterwards.6 A. H. M. Jones, while analyzing the Verona list,
referred to these inscriptions as the evidence for the "dismemberment of the
province of Asia".7 Therefore, Anderson's idea about the temporary nature of
the union of Caria and Phrygia was put aside. In 1975, M. H. Crawford and J.
M. Reynolds published a new inscription from Aezani, a copy of the Prices
Edict of Diocletian (301), which referred to Fulvius Asticus as the fyej.v of
Phrygia.8 The same person had already been evidenced as the ilYygwv in
inscriptions from Caria, dated to c.293/305.9 His status as ilyyquiv in inscnp-
tions from the two regions rejuvenated the old idea of the united province of
Phrygia and Caria. 10
Marking a new step in this direction, in 1981 Ch. Roueche published an
inscription from Aphrodisias, which mentioned a certain Asclepiodotus as the
"tFycgiv of Caria and Phrygia". I 1 After dating it to about the middle of the third
century, she suggested that the creation of the joint province of Phrygia and Caria
took place at that very time,12 i.e. long before the reign of Diocletian. In the same
year, D. H. French published a new inscription from Tekin, a village on the road
from Apamea to Laodicea, which referred to the 'yrly(Wv Asclepiodotus and dated
it to 283.13 This dating was revised, however, a year later, when D. H. French and
Ch. Roueche put forward a theory according to which the province of Phrygia and
Caria was carved out of provincia Asia in the middle of the third century. 14
Since then, several new pieces of evidence have been found in Phrygia and
Caria. In 1983, M. Christol and Th. Drew-Bear published an inscription found

5 Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1) 24 (= I.Laodikeia am Lykos I 39.2-5; see App. no. 4). For
his dating of the two inscriptions, which followed the note of W. Ramsay about "the
lettering of the Laodicean stone", see Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1) 25.
6 Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1) 31: "The facts as a whole suggest that the first division of
the province of Asia was one of the measures taken in preparation for the Persian war of
A.D. 296-7, and that it was revised after its close".
7 A. H. M. Jones, "The Date and Value of the Verona List", JRS 44 (1954) 28.
8 M. H. Crawford and J. M. Reynolds, "The Publication of the Prices Edict: A New
Inscription from Aezani", JRS 65 (1975) 160 = SEG 26, 1353.1; see App. no. 12.
9 PLRE I s.v. Asticus = CIL III 480 = CIG III, p. 1087 (a milestone from near Alabanda,
dated to c.293/305?). For him as a iye?uiv, see also in SEG 31, 932 and 940 and 41, 941 a
(for all, see App. no. 12).
10 Crawford and Reynolds, Publication (as in n. 8) 163.
] 1 RouechM, Rome 108 no. 6 (= SEG 31, 910).3-9; see App. no. 8.
12 Rouech6, Rome 108-109, 112.
13 D. H. French, "Milestones of Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia and Lycia", ZPE 43 (1981) 172 no.
15(iii) = SEG 31, I1 0l(iii); see App. no. 7.
14 D. H. French and Ch. Rouech6, "Governors of Phrygia and Caria", ZPE 49 (1982) 159.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
470 SVIATOSLAV DMITREV

by Drew-Bear near Aezani, which referred to a certain lulius lulianus as having

t,a Ti; fryegoviag gpil Opuyia;s e i& Kapia;, and dated it to 253/260 or, as
they said, to the "beginnings of the new province of Phrygia-Caria".'5 In 1986,
S. Frei-Korsunsky published an inscription from near Eskishehir, which men-
tioned the ?yeg.6v Clodius Celsinus, i.e. the same person who was likely to be
referred to as a iryegwv also on a milestone from near Iasus.16 Her conclusion
was that already under Decius (reigned 249/251), to whose reign she attributed
the newly discovered inscription, Dorylaeum belonged not to provincia Asia but
to the province of Phrygia and Caria.17 Of the inscriptions on milestones from
near Ceramus, published by E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French in 1991, two
referred to the same Clodius Celsinus as the np?ev 5 toi xpaaToi5 cal
avttcrcpaTnyoo,'8 one to Marcus Aurelius Diogenes with a similar title,19 one to
the yyej6v Tiberius Asticus,20 and another one to the 'yyc?Wav Firminianus
undocumented until then.21 With the exception of the last, taken as the "gover-
nor of Caria after its separation from Phrygia in c.301", all the rest were,
according to the editors, the ryej6vs; of the province of Phrygia and Caria.22
The same was allegedly the status of the 'ye_gctv Valerius Rinacius whose
name appeared on a milestone, also from near Ceramus, which was found a little
later.23 A recently published inscription, recovered in Aphrodisias in 1988,
mentioned the hyEgpxov iiraTtu6; Publius Aelius Septimius Mannus. The same
person was probably the fyeygXov in an inscription from Phrygia, dated, on the
basis of the script, to the second or third century.24 Although no further evidence
for this person has survived from Aphrodisias and no archaeological context of
the new inscription has been preserved, Publius Mannus was acknowledged as
one of the governors of the "joint province", who allegedly ruled it in the 250s.25

15 Christol and Drew-Bear, Delimitation (as in n. 2) 26 (see App. no. 5) and 39 for the dating.
16 S. Frei-Korsunsky, "Meilensteine aus der Gegend Eski?ehir", EA 8 (1986) 91 no. I (-
SEG 36, 1195).11-16; JI.asos 18; see App. no. 1. See also SEG 36, 985.
17 Frei-Korsunsky, Meilensteine (as in n. 16) 93.
18 Varinlioklu and French, Four Milestones (as in n. 3) 126 no. 1 = SEG 41, 939 (250); 127
no. 2 = SEG 41, 940a (249/25 1). See App. no. 1.
19 Ibid. 128 = SEG 41, 940b. See App. no. 2.
20 Ibid. 130 = SEG 41, 941 a. See App. no. 12.
21 Ibid. 133 = SEG 41, 941c (317). See App. no. 17.
22 Ibid. 135.
23 E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, "A New Milestone from Ceramus", REA 94 (1992) 407:
- iyrpovei6ovxoq 0u<a>kxpio oPvawcioxu pit E together with their comment on p. 411.
See App. no. 15.
24 I.Laodikeia am Lvkos I 46.9-10: [ ?li 1roi fyep.6o;j[ It]7rnuio1.v Mayvou [ ]. See
App. no. 3. For another possible governor of the "joint province", see a very fragmented
inscnption in 1. Laodikeia am Lvkos 1 17 with AE 1997, 1452.
25 Ch. Rouechd, "A New Governor of Caria-Phrygia: P. Aelius Septimius Mannus", Splen-
didissima Civitas. Etudes d' histoire romaine en hommage a F. Jacques (Paris 1996) 232
- SEG 46, 1394 (see App. no. 3). For the dating, see ibid. 235. For the Fasti, see ibid. 236-
239 and Appendix.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 471

The theory of the province of Phrygia and Caria has recruited influential
supporters.26 This province is credited to have become an intermediary stage in
the genesis of Diocletian's provincial reform.27 And, since the "joint province
of Caria and Phrygia" is thought to have survived till c.301, it is implied that the
provincial reorganization of Asia was complete only after that time.28

I. The pre-Diocletianic period

The whole theory of the "joint province" is based, as we can see, on the
interpretation of several inscriptions. Of the men evidenced in inscriptions
which have been dated to the pre-Diocletianic period, Aurelius Maximus (App.
no. 6) and Asclepiodotus (App. no. 7) were documented only in Phrygia. The
office of Titus Ulpius Asclepiodotus (App. no. 8) has been re-dated to 284/301,
which certainly falls within Diocletian's reign.29 Our pre-Diocletianic evidence
therefore appears to be limited to five men. Clodius Celsinus (App. no. 1) and
Julius lulianus (App. no. 5) are directly evidenced as ryEwxv and 5teirov ta tl;
iyyjovia; p?prl respectively of the two regions in inscriptions from Phrygia
and Caria. Marcus Diogenes (App. no. 2) is referred to as either legatus
propraetore, in two inscriptions from Caria, or as 'y?Rg6v in inscription from
Aphrodisias or i'1yy?ovec3cov in a recently published milestone from near Phi-
lomelium. Publius Mannus (App. no. 3) is mentioned as irlysF(ov in inscriptions
from these two regions.
The dating of the anonymous ihyFi.ubv of Phrygia and Caria (App. no. 4) has
been debated. W. Judeich, basing his argument only on one inscription, from
Hierapolis, placed his office in the middle of the third century. J. G. C.
Anderson, following W. Ramsay who analyzed also the lettering of the other
inscription, from Laodicea, attributed both inscriptions to the late third or early

26 For example, Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 140, 156, 215; M. Christol, Essai sur
l'evolution des carrieres senatoriales dans la seconde moitie du Ille siecle ap. J. -C. (Paris
1986) 51; B. R6my, L'evolution administrative de l'Anatolie aux trois premiers siecles de
notre ere (Lyon 1986) 107 n. 490; W. Eck, "C. Iulius Octavius Volusenna Rogatianus.
Statthalter einer kaiserlichen Provinz", ZPE 90 (1992) 202; S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land,
Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, vol. II (Oxford 1993) 158; M. Christol and T. Drew-Bear,
"Asia [2]", NPauly 2 (1997) 79.
27 Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1), passim; L. and J. Robert, Lfa Carie. Histoire et geographie
historique avec le recueil des inscriptions asiatiques (Paris 1954) 200 ad no. 123;
Rouech6, Rome 113.
28 See, however, Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) 11 162, Map 7, who dates this province to
c.249-293.
29 Christol, Essai (as in n. 26) 220-221; Roueche, ALA 16 no. 7. It is uncertain if the two
inscriptions (App. nos. 7 and 8) mention the same man; see Rouech6, A New Governor (as
in n. 25) 238.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
472 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

fourth century. R. Cagnat, although he published only the inscription from

Hierapolis, nevertheless found it possible to re-date this inscription to the reign
of Diocletian too. Going even further, A. H. M. Jones dated these inscriptions to
"the opening years of the joint reign of Constantine's three sons".30 In the absence
of any new evidence, more than one dating of these inscriptions is possible,31 so that
most recently Ch. Roueche conceded to "before 260 or after 283".32
The two inscriptions which have been placed by Ch. Roueche in the period
from 260s to the reign of Diocletian, for Aurelius Maximus (App. no. 6) and
Asclepiodotus (App. no. 7), do not provide any firm evidence for the existence
of the joint province at that time. First, the inscription mentioning Aurelius
Maximus has not received precise dating. Second, both inscriptions come only
from Phrygia. Since they make no reference to Caria, it is impossible to say if
the two men had authority over both Phrygia and Caria. Finally, both inscrip-
tions use the participle iye,ovE*ovto;. The Greek word ~yeg6v, i.e. the one
which we usually find in these inscriptions, could designate procurator33 or
legatus34 or praeses.35 Accordingly, this participle could have had the general
meaning of "under the command of'.36 There is therefore no solid basis for

30 W. Judeich, Altertiumer von Hierapolis IV 88 ad no. 43a (see note 4 above); Anderson,
Genesis (as in n. 1) 32 with the suggestion that this inscription, as well as the other one
published by him, i.e. from Laodicea (= I.Laodikeia am Lykos I 39.2-5), referred to L.
Castrius Constans, on whom see further in the text; R. Cagnat ad IGR IV 814; Jones, Date
and Value (as in n. 7) 28.
31 Cf. Christol, Essai (as in n. 26) 314-315: either the mnid-3rd century or the time of the
tetrarchy.
32 Rouech6, A New Governor (as in n. 25) 237.
33 e.g. J(AI 30 Beibl. (1937) 204, no. 10.3-5: Tij& iv' ic KtSe?vta iavrioxov hyepovta
XKcauptavov Ca0kTj ayov ni; apcTi; ayjaav xtr. (Ephesus) and AE 1988, 1022.3-6:
coniugem clariss(imam) Scauriani, e(gregii) v(iri), [prJoc(uratoris) [A]ug(usti) provin-
ciae [Asiaje (late 3rd cent. A.D.?) together with J6AI 55 Hauptbl. (1984) 140-141.
34 e.g. MAMA VIII 211.6-10: TO dyacXpa Kav6wv ISouA' Sij1io; iill TrS; iyeovia; nlonxiou
KaXoutaiou' Poi0owvo;' IouRAiou 4povteivou (Cana in Lycaonia) and the reference to
him in MAMA VII 193: Imp. Caesar divi Nervaef. Nerva Traianus Aug. Ger. Dac. pont.
max. trib. pot. (IX imp.) IV cos. Vp.p. viam [n]ovam derexit Calvisium Rusticutml Iulium
Frontinum leg. suum M.P. [?] xv (Philomelium in Asia) together with the comments by
W. M. Calder, MAMA VII (1956), p. 38: "The Asian section of the Ancyra-Antioch road
was maintained by the governor of Galatia" and R. K. Sherk, "Roman Galatia: The
Governors from 25 B.C. to A.D. 14", ANRW II 7.2 (1980) 1017-1020. However, ?ni m;
iye?povia; in MAMA VIII 211 does not necessarily point to the status of P. Calvisius
Frontinus as the praeses of Lycaonia.
35 For example, H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. A Lexicon and Analysis
(Toronto 1974) 144-149; cf. 148: "a general word for all governors of all classes".
36 For example, Mason, Greek Terms (as in n. 35) 52 and 149. See a similar situation with
respect to Volumnius (see note 115 below) and L.Anazarbos 12.14-15: iyepovv6ovTo;
KXwaviou NI.aio-o Toit Xapicpotdtou atpac[Tyoij] (a milestone, A. D. 218/222). Cf. Th.
Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht II3 (Berlin 1887-1888) 240 n. 2.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 473

considering Aurelius Maximus and this Asclepiodotus as governors of the

"joint province". As a result, even if we accept the first of the two possible
datings for the anonymous governor, all the evidence which we have for the
governors of Phrygia and Caria in the pre-Diocletianic period is limited to c.249
to 260s.
The governors of the "joint province" are thought to have been either
praesides or, in more recent works, legati Augusti propraetore.37 What do we
know about the status of these men? As we have seen, Marcus Diogenes posed
as either legatus propraetore or ily?cgov or ilfyejovEvwv. The last two words did
not necessarily refer to the status of praeses; they could well designate the
position of a legate. The roi KppactaTov [6vOnxnroi)] of Clodius Celsinus
undermines the theory of the "joint province", but KcpdTato;o also designated
various other officials. Clodius Celsinus could be an imperial procurator (,ro
cpatiatov [I?tiponoi]),38 i.e. like lulius Iulianus, or an imperial legate,39
though in the latter case his titulature was unlikely to fit into the lacuna. Also,
Clodius Celsinus was the npeoI3exv ; toi Ypacoroi Kiat a&vtcoprparyo;, i.e.
legatus Augusti propraetore, in two other inscriptions.40 lulius lulianus was the
KcpatoCo; &nitpoio;, i.e. the egregius procurator, and 8te'wv 'r& ti5 fjiv-
ia; ggpin, i.e. vice praesidis, at the same time. In other words, he was not a
praeses but a procurator agens vice praesidis, i.e. one of those officials who are
quite well documented at that time in various parts of the Roman empire.41
We possess a large amount of the corresponding evidence for procurators
and legates. Procurators could have authority in two or more administrative
provinces.42 This reflected the difference between administrative and fiscal

37 praeses, Rouech6, Rome 108-112 and AL4 12; legatus Augusti propraetore, Mitchell,
Anatolia (as in n. 26) II 158; Christol and Drew Bear, Asia [2] (as in n. 26), loc.cit.;
Th. Corsten, I.Laodikeia am Lykos 1 (1997) 57 ad no. 17; AE 1997, 1452.
38 Cf. e.g. MAMA VI 378.1-3: T6v KpanTtov uiTpoitov Toi ep. AiJp. Oaazwivov crX.
(Synnada); lEphesos III 616, 691, 739, 786, 821 (Apollonia on the Rhyndacus); cf. 697;
Christol and Drew-Bear, Delimitation (as in n. 2) 26; AE 1931, 128 (see note 56 below).
This expression could designate procuratorial posts of various character.
39 Cf. e.g. LEphesos VII(1) 3050.3-4: T6v KpdTarmov 7pE?o5?0kUTV icat XOYIatThIvJ, SEG 41,
939.5-8 and 940a (for both see App. no. 1) as well as 942.
40 SEG 41, 939.5-8 (see app. crit. ad hoc: "active during the period of Traianus Decius'
road-building program in Asia in 250 A.D."), 940a (for both see App. no. 1). See also
SEG 36, 985 and 1195. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (as in n. 36) II3 245; Mason, Greek
Terms (as in n. 35) 22 s.v. &v-rtaTpdTlyo;.
41 e.g. ILS 9490: proc. prov. Numidiae partes praes(idis) agenti and IGR III 1287: 56wiov-
Tos; Tiv iryepoviav. Cf. AE 1900, 169.2-7: AMpAXtov O6ca4vtetvov c6v wczmrln6aTov
tpipoi5vov BaTa6vwv ical WiovEa ?&p71 Tri frycovia; (Thessaloniki) and 1931, 128
(see note 56 below).
42 e.g. AE 1930, 86: proc(urator) provinciarum Asiae et Lyciae (the reign of Vespasian) and
1993, 1477: proc(uratori) Asiae et Syriae (Hadrianic, Ephesus); CIL II 2643: proc(urator)
Asturiae et Gallaeciae, Dalmatiae et Hist(riae) together with AE 1985, 374; CIL III 5215:

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
474 SVIATOSLAV DMITREV

organization of the Empire.43 The evidence from Spain,44 central Europe,45

Africa,46 and Asia Minor47 demonstrates that one legatus Augusti p.p. could
also operate in two or more provinces. In Asia Minor, legati were often
responsible for building roads which extended through several provinces and
could therefore be mentioned in inscriptions from more than one province.48
One person could be praeses and legatus Augusti p.p. simultaneously,49
since the first post was relevant to civil administration and the second to
military.50 Likewise, one person could be vested with the powers of procurator

proc(urator) provinciar(um) Belgicae et urriusq(ue) Germ(aniae); ILS 1341: proc(urator)

provinciarum trium [Galliarum] (the end of Trajan's reign); SEG 35, 829.5-7: kxitponov
rtoi Eefkiatco MaKc8ovia; Kcai Gpc6i; (Philippopolis, c.190/200?). See G. P. Burton,
"Procurator", OCD3 1252.
43 "Administrative and financial provinces" in the Roman empire could differ, R. Syme,
Roman Papers, vol. I, ed. by E. Badian (Oxford 1979) 44; Burton, Procurator (as in n.
42), loc.cit. The geographical limits of the authority of praeses and procurator differed
accordingly; see W. Ensslin, "Praeses", RE Suppl. 6 (1956) 603.
44 e.g. AE 1934, 155: leg(ato) Au[g(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) provinciarum Hispaniaje cite[rioriJs
et Baericae (161/164).
45 e.g. AE 1984, 738: legatu[s Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) Moes(iae) ?] ln[ferJioris itlem 1II
Da]ciaru[m] (3rd cent.) and 1985, 752: leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o)pr(aetore) provinciarum
Moesiae itemque Germani(ae) inferiorum (early 230s); CIL VI 1377 (= ILS 1098):
leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) provinciarum Daciarum et [MoesiaeJ Super(ioris)
simul, leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) provinca[r(um)] Daciar(um), leg(ato)
Augg(ustorum) pr(o) pr(aetore) Moesiae Super(ioris) let] Daciae Apulensis simul and
1457 (= lLS 1097): of the same person - leg(ato) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aelore) trium
Dac(iarum) et Moes(iae) Sup(erioris) (168/170); see I. Piso, Fasti Provinciae Daciae 1.
Die senatorischen Amtstrager (Bonn 1993) 99-101.
46 e.g. IAM 11 126: leg(atum) Aug(usti) propr(aetore) ordinandae utriusq(ue) Mauretaniae
(75).
47 e.g. CIL III 6813 (= ILS 1038): leg(atus) Aug(usti) pro pr(aetore) provinciar(um) Galati-
ae Pisid(iae) Paphlagoniae (117/119); CIL III 254: leg. Augustorum pr. pr. provinc.
Galat. item provinc. Ciliciae (mid-2nd cent.?). Cf. the evidence for the legatus Augusti Fl.
Ulpianus in JRS 14 (1924) 76 no. 110 (Galatia) and Belleten 42 (1978) 412 no. 38 (Seleucea
on the Calycadnus in Cilicia, 202?); see Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) II 157 n. 84.
48 e.g. CIL III 312 (= ILS 268): leg. pr. pr. vias provinciarum Galatiae Cappadociae Ponti
Pisidiae Paphlagoniae Lycaoniae Armeniae Minoris (c.80/82) and similar evidence in
CIL III 318 (= ILS 263; the reign of Titus) and 1418448 (1st cent.).
49 Cf. ILS 1162: M. Valerio Senecioni leg. Aug. pr. pr. praesidi provin. German. infer.; IGR
III 175.15: ily?p6va xpeakeuihv (Ankara). Cf. IGR I 669.7-13: hyepove_5ovco; Tij;
OpcKC(iv C'iapXyia; PovriXk(iou) Kptcaieivou nprao(eUroij) rxp(aaroi) Kai ) vTv-
arpacrfyoi) (Pantalia), 670, 685, 723-725 etc. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht (as in n. 36) I13
244-245; J. B. Campbell, "Legati", OCD3 839.
50 Legati as military commanders co-existed with praesides as civil governors; see Mom-
msen, Staatsrecht (as in n. 36) II3 246-247, 263, 696-699; A. von Premerstein, "Lega-
tus", RE 23 (1924) 1145; Burton, Procurator (as in n. 42) 1252. Cf. Mason, Greek Terms
(as in n. 35) 147-148.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 475

and praeses or vice praesidis.51 The limits of

es did not coincide. The inscription for Tulius lulianus (App. no. 5) demon-
strates that he was vice praesidis of Phrygia and Caria but it does not say if he
also was the procurator in both of them. Many inscriptions directly refer to
procuratorship in more than one province.52
The absence of such reference in the inscription for lulius indicates that
he was the procurator only in Phrygia. Similarly, the i'y?coSv of Phrygia and
Caria Clodius Celsinus was referred to as [Frirpono;I only in an inscription
from Caria. Caria53 and Phrygia54 were distinguished as separate fiscal units
inside old provincia Asia. It would not therefore be surprising that each of these
regions had its own procurator in the mid-third century.55 The status of Clodius
Celsinus and Tulius Iulianus was similar to that of C. lulius Senecio, the
procurator of Galatia and vice praesidis of this province and Pontus, also in the
middle of the third century.56 Clodius Celsinus is documented as legatus

51 e.g. CIL VIII 9371 (= ILS 1355): proc. Augg[g.] utriusqu. Mau[re]taniae, praesidi suo
(Caesarea, early 3rd cent.); A. Magioncalda, "I procuratori-governatori delle due Maure-
taniae: un profilo (titolatura e carriere)", in: M. Christol and A. Magioncalda, Studi sui
procuratori delle due Mauretaniae (Sassari 1989) 9-154, esp. tables on p. 19-32 and
124-154. Cf. CIL XIII 1807 (= ILS 1330): vice proc(uratori) patrimon(ii) prov(inciarum)
Belgic(ae) et duarum Germaniar(um), ibi vice praesid(i) prov(inciae) German(iae)
inferior(is) (c.233/234); ILS 1331: [proc. prov.] Maced., proc. pro[v.] ... ubiq. vic.
praes[idi]. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (as in n. 36) I13 240 n. 2.
52 See note 42 above.
53 e.g. I.Ephesos III 647.8-1 1: Tib. Cl. Seren[o proc.] rationis pr[ivatae pro]vinciae Asia[e
et Phrygi]ae et Cariae; cf. PIR2 11 1017. For the dating to c.197, see H.-G. Pflaum, Les
carrieres procuratoriennes e'questres sous le Haul-Empire romain, vol. III (Paris 1961)
1073. Cf. LEphesos VII(1) 3052 and VII(2) 4335.6-7: proc(urator) Aug(ustorum)
XXher(editatium) provinci[a]e Asiae (c. 198/209).
54 e.g. IGR IV 749.4-8: [E]ir[i]rpoicov Avy8oi6vou Fakkia; icai tn[iltponov O1pvyuia; cai
niTpoinov caa?prlcatv (161/169 and 176/180); ILS 1359 (= CIL X 7584; see also 7583):
proc. Augg. item ad vectig. XX her. per A[s]iam Lyciam Phrygiam Galati[amJ insulas
Cyclades (see Pflaum, Carrieres [as in n. 53] 1074: 198/209), 1477: proc. prov. Fryg.
(Tricomia in Phrygia, 2nd or 3rd cent.); CIL II 484: e[xpeditionis per] Asiam Lvciam
Pamphyliam et Phrygiam (late 2nd/early 3rd cent.). For the special status of Phrygia, see
also D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 568; Christol and Drew-Bear,
Asia [2] (as in n. 26) 78.
55 Cf. Christol and Drew-Bear, Asia [21 (as in n. 26) 79, who argued for one procurator in
Phrygia and Caria.

56 e.g. AE 1931, 128: T6v KpdatRfov elEirpo7ov Trov Xepf., npd4avta cai Ta' Tr1; ryelovia;
iEpil and a Latin version in CIL III 251 (= ILS 1373): proc(uratorem) prov(inciae)
Galat(iae), item vice praesidis eiusd(em) prov(inciae) et Ponti (both from Ankara). For
the dating, see Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) II 158: mid-3rd century; M. Christol and X.
Lriot, "Le Pontus et ses gouverneurs dans le second tiers du Ille siecle", Centre Jean
Palerne, Memoires VII: Recherches epigraphiques: documents relatifs ai 1'histoire des
institutions et de l'administration de l'empire romain, ed. by B. R6my (Saint-Etienne
1986) 39: from 256 to 260. See the discussion of this evidence by J. Colin, L'Empire des
Antonins et les martyrs gaulois de 177 (Bonn 1964) 38 and note 133.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 476 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

Augusti propraetore only in Caria. We know that Phrygia could have its own
legate even when it formed a part of provincia Asia.57 Therefore, in a similar
fashion Caria and Phrygia had their own legates in the middle of the third
century. As a result, we can see not only that procurators and legates could
operate in more than one province simultaneously, but also that Phrygia and
Caria occupied a very special position inside provincia Asia.
The epigraphical evidence for praesides or people acting vice praesidis of
two regions in Asia Minor and neighboring territories is significantly smaller. It
emerges only in the third century and is limited to the dedication set up by
Simonius Proclus lulianus, the praeses of all three Daciae "before 254";58 two
inscriptions from Ankara referring to C. Tulius Senecio, the previously men-
tioned vice praesidis of Galatia and Pontus in the middle of the third century,
probably from 256 to 260;59 a fragmentary inscription from near Amasea for M.
Iunius Nepotianus, the praeses of Pontus and Galatia at approximately the same
time as Senecio;60 and, finally, the inscriptions from Phrygia and Caria - for
Clodius Celsinus (App. no. 1),61 Publius Mannus (App. no. 3), lulius lulianus
(App. no. 5) and, if they precede the reign of Diocletian, two inscriptions for the
anonymous governor (App. no. 4). All this evidence dates to the 250s/260s. The
geographical and chronological proximity suggests that the reorganization of

57 e.g. IPergamon II 451: C. Antius Aulus lulius Quadratus as the puprpr?tti Ypaaroi)
tn[apX]e[ia; KaaooKia;,J raXatia;, poyia;, [Hicnia; KE.J (I 14/117?) together
with PIR2 IV 507; see also LDidyma 151. LEphesos VII(1), 3033.5-10: npeavrriU#v icli
dvlaiaxpTdrnyov 'Aia; &i;, rrpEaoVu[rvvl ?eacrtoi ?napXeia; H16vToi Ka[! Bet&JOuvia;
Kanxa8oKia; VaXatia4 0[lpu]yia; AuKaovia; HaoXayoviac 'Apg[Elvia; pEiKpEt; cTX.
(early 2nd cent.); cf. 3034.7-10.
58 CIL III 1573: Herculi Sancto Simonius lulianus v.c. praeses Daciarum ("ante a. p. C.
254"); see a reference to the same person in ILS 1189: praeses Daciarum (Rome).
59 AE 1931, 128 together with CIL III 251 = ILS 1373 (see note 56 above). His vice-
governship of two provinces at once has been acknowledged as extraordinary and tempo-
rary; see Christol and Loriot, Pontus (as in n. 56) 36-40.
60 CIL III 1418425. See PIR2 IV 844 together with Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 1461 n.
24; Christol and Loriot, Pontus (as in n. 56) 39; Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) 11 158 n.
7.
61 Cf. D. H. French, EA 17 (1991) 57-59 = SEG 41, 1174 (see App. no. 1). The dating of this
inscription serves as the terminus post quem for the dating of the foundation of the "joint
province of Phrygia and Caria". The two regions could not have been detached from Asia
long before that date sirtce an inscription from Aphrodisias reflects honors paid to the
proconsul of Asia, whose proconsulate has been dated to 241/248, while a coin from
Laodicea on the Lycus recorded the celebration of the Asian koinon in the year when the
Younger Philip was Caesar; see J. Reynolds, "L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus and Carian
Aphrodisias", L'Afrique, la Gaule, la religion a l'epoque romaine. Melanges a la
memoire de M. Le Glav (Brussels 1994) 675-679 and SNG von Aulock 8422 respectively.
Cf., however, X. Loriot, "Sur la datation du proconsulat d'Asie de L. Egnatius Victor
Lollianus", Splendidissima Civitas (as in n. 25) 224: from 242 to 247.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 477

these regions was caused by the same reason, most likely Gothic invasions
which affected both the Balkans and Asia Minor.62
These invasions fell upon Asia Minor in several waves. Because there are
chronological conflicts in our literary sources and the precise archaeological
context for the epigraphical evidence is often missing, for the most part these
invasions have been dated only approximately as follows: (1) an attack on
Pontus and the capture of Trabzond in c.254,63 (2) an attack on Bithynia
"perhaps in 256 or 257",64 (3) an attack on Ionia, the siege of Ephesus and
Miletus in 262,65 (4) an attack on Galatia, "either in this time or soon after-
wards",66 and (5) another raid on Bithynia, dated to 268.67 Roman response
came in more than one way. Praesides assumed control of the province of Lycia
and Pamphylia, and equestrian governors took the place of senatorial legates in
Pontus.68 Also, putting two regions under command of one person ensured a
better command and therefore a better defence. Often, and probably in the
majority of cases, imperial procurators, trusted and experienced, were given
this responsibility, such as Clodius Celsinus and lulius Iulianus in Phrygia and
Caria, and C. lulius Senecio in Galatia and Pontus. The emperors therefore
made some effort to protect Asia Minor.69
Even though the dating of Gothic incursions in Asia Minor and the Balkans
is approximate, it is clear that they were checked in the 260s. In 269, Claudius
(Gothicus) marshalled a major defeat of the Goths at Naissus in the Balkans,
stopping what has been regarded as their most dangerous offense in the third

62 The earliest evidence which we have for Phrygia and Caria being put under the command
of one person dates to the late 240s (see note 61 above). It is possible that M. lunius
Valerius Nepotianus was the praeses provinciae Galatiae Ponti at about the same time;
see Remy, L'evolution administrative (as in n. 26) 106 and id., Lesfastes senatoriaux des
provinces romaines d'Anatolie au Haut-Empire: 31 av. J. -C. - 284 ap. J.-C. (Paris 1988)
98: 250. We do not have any firm evidence for Gothic invasions in Asia Minor at that
date. However, it is evident that four regions (Pontus, Galatia, Phrygia, Caria) which lay
close to each other were paired under the command of two men at approximately the same
time and probably for the same reason.
63 Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 705-706, 1566-1567.
64 Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 706; H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (University of
California Press 1988) 49: 256/257. See B. Rappaport, Die Einfdlle der Goten in das
Romische Reich bis auf Constantin (Leipzig 1899) 125: 258. Cf. P. Heather and J.
Matthews, T7he Goths in the Fourth Century (Liverpool UP. 1991) 2, who seem to speak
about two datings of the same raid, i.e. either 254/256 or 255/257.
65 L. Robert, Hellenica 6 (1948) 121. See Rappaport, Einfdlle (as in n. 64) 44: 262/263;
Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 706: "a few years later", 1567: "262 or 263".
66 Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 706-707, 1567-1568.
67 Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 712. See Rappaport, Einfdlle (as in n. 64) 269: Nicaea.
68 W. Ruge, "Pamphylia", RE 16 (1949) 384: in the reign of Decius; Mitchell, Anatolia (as
in n. 26) II 158 dated this change to 230/249.
69 Contra Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 707.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
478 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

century.70 As a result, although Dacia to the north of the Danube had to be

evacuated by Aurelian,71 the whole of Asia Minor was saved. Some Gothic
incursions continued into the 270s,72 but the most dangerous period was over
by the time the army under Aurelian marched through Asia Minor in 271 or
early 272.73 The period in which western Asia Minor experienced the threat
from the Goths is limited therefore to the 250s/260s.74 Not surprisingly, joint
provinces were disunited after the danger receded. Pontus was an independent
province in about 279.75 Its separation from Galatia could have happened
earlier than that year, probably after the last major attack on these regions by the
Ostrogoths and the Heruli in 275/276.76 In the absence of evidence for gover-
nors of Phrygia and Caria after the 260s, we are left to assume a similar
outcome for the union of these two regions as well. The separation of Phrygia
and Caria from provincia Asia, which was facilitated by the special fiscal and
administrative status of these regions inside provincia Asia in previous times,
therefore resulted from military necessity and was temporary.

II. The Diocletianic period

The reign of Diocletian has produced evidence for four governors of Phry-
gia and Caria. Two of them are documented directly as 'yyei6ve; of the two
regions, the anonymous governor (App. no. 4) - if we date him to the Diocle-
tian's reign - and Asclepiodotus (App. no. 8); the other two, L. Castrius

70 Wolfram, History (as in n. 64) 52-54; J. F. Drinkwater, "Claudius (11) Gothicus", OCD3
340; F. A. W. Schehl, J. J. Wilkes, "Naissus", OCD3 1022. See B. Gerov, "Die Einfiille
der Nordvblker in den Ostbalkanraum im Lichte der Mtinzschatzfunde", ANRW II 6
(1977) 142.
71 Eutr. 8.1.2; Oros. 1.2.53; Iord.Get. 73. See Wolfram, History (as in n. 64) 56; J. J. Wilkes,
"Dacia", OCD3 425; cf. Gerov, Einfallle (as in n. 70) 144: 271; T. S. Bums, A History of
the Ostrogoths (Indiana UP. 1984) 30: 275; E. Chrysos, "Von der Raumung der Dacia
Traiana zur Entstehung der Gotia", Bonner Jahrbilcher 192 (1992) 176-179.
72 Burns, Ostrogoths (as in n. 71) 28, 32; Heather and Matthews, Goths (as in n. 64) 4.
73 Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 717; J. F. Drinkwater, "Aurelian", OCD3 219.
74 For example, A. Alf6ldi, CAH 12 (1939) 147-149; Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 705,
1566 n. 28; B. Scardigli, "Die gotisch-romischen Beziehungen im 3. und 4. Jahrhundert n.
Chr. Ein Forschungsbericht 1950-1970", ANRW 15.1 (1976) 241-258; Mitchell, Anato-
lia (as in n. 26) 1 235-236. Cf. 1. Noll, "Pamphylische Studien 6-10", Chiron 17 (1987)
255; P. 1. Heather, "Goths", OCD3 643.
75 Cf. Aelius Quintianus v(ir) p(erfectissimus), pr(aeses) p(rovinciae) P(onti) in two inscrip-
tions dated to 279; see D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) 153-154. Cf. K. Strobel, "Galatia,
Galatien", NPauly 4 (1998) 745: "250 wurde die Prov. Pontus mit Galatia vereinigt, ist aber
ab 279 wieder als eigene Prov. unter Einfluss von Neoklaudiopolis bezeugt".
76 For example, Rappaport, Einfdlle (as in n. 64) 101-102, 126; M. Salamon, "The Chronol-
ogy of Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in the IlIrd century A.D.", Eos 59 (1971) 139.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 479

Constans (App. no. 9) and T. Fulvius Asticus (App. no. 12), are evidenced in
separate inscriptions from both regions. None of the other personalities (App.
nos. 7, 10, 11, 13-17) corresponds to any of these criteria. The two inscriptions
mentioning the anonymous governor (App. no. 4) have been dated to the period
from 280 to the early fourth century. The inscription for Asclepiodotus (App.
no. 8) has been re-dated to 284/301.77 The inscription for L. Castrius Constans
(App. no. 9) was dated to c.292/305. Finally, T. Fulvius Asticus (App. no. 12)
has been firmly dated to around 301, i.e. the year when Diocletian's Price Edict
was issued. The period included in all cases is the one from c.292 to c.305.
Our knowledge about this time is scarce. But, as far as we know, there were
no noticeable Gothic attacks on Asia Minor or neighboring territories during
this time, at least not after their defeat by Diocletian sometime in 292/294.78 It
is quite probable that in 295/297 the Romans concluded a treaty with the
Goths.79 If there was such a treaty, the participation of a part of the federate
Goths in the Persian campaign of Galerius in 297/299 could have been one of its
outcomes.80 As already noted, Diocletian does not bear the title Gothicus in the
text of the Price Edict,81 which probably reflected the conciliation between the
Romans and the Goths at that time.82 In short, there is no evidence to show that
at that time Phrygia and Caria were joined because of the Gothic danger.
The most significant military event close to Asia Minor in this period was
the Persian campaign. As has already been suggested by J. G. C. Anderson, the
unification of Phrygia and Caria was a temporary measure caused by the
Persian war which he dated to 296/297.83 However, negotiations with the
Persians lasted into 299;84 Galerius remained in the East until 299,85 and
Diocletian had to reside in Antioch from February 300 to July 301.86 It was only
late in 301 when Diocletian found it possible to proudly declare in his Price
Edict that the world was finally pacified.87 The edict against the Manichees -

77 Christol, Essai (as in n. 26) 220-221; Rouech6, ALA 16 no. 7.

78 P. Brennan, "Diocletian and the Goths", Phoenix 38.2 (1984) 146.
79 For example, Wolfram, History (as in n. 64) 59, 62; Brennan, Diocletian (as in n. 78) 146:
296/297; Chrysos, Raumung (as in n. 71) 183.
80 Wolfram, History (as in n. 64) 56-57; Brennan, Diocletian (as in n. 78) 145.
81 Praef. 1. See T. D. Barnes, "Imperial Campaigns, A.D. 285-311", Phoenix 30.2 (1976)
188, 190; Brennan, Diocletian (as in n. 78) 142.
82 Brennan, Diocletian (as in n. 78) 142-146.
83 Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1) 31 (see note 6 above).
84 For example, Barnes, Campaigns (as in n. 81) 185-186; id., New Empire (as in n. 1) 63.
85 F. Kolb, "Chronologie und Ideologie der Tetrarchie", Antiquit6 Tardive 3 (1995) 27; R. P.
Davis, "Diocletian", OCD3 471.
86 CJ 3, 28.25; Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 55.
87 Praef. 5: Fortunam rei publicae nostrae, cui iuxta immortales deo<s> bellorum memoria,
quaefeliciter gessimus, gratulari licet tranquillo orbis statu et in gremio altissimafe] quieris
locato etc. together with the commentary by J. Corcoran, The Empire of the Terrarchs.
Imperial Pronouncements and Government, A.D. 284-324 (Oxford 1996) 207-208.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
480 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

usually put in 301 or 302, though its dating is still being debated - denounced
them for disturbing the leisure of mankind (otia maxima interdum homines in
communione condicionis naturae humanae modum excedere hortantur) as if
new monsters were coming from Persia (veluti nova et inopinata prodigia in
hunc mundum de Persica adversaria nobis gente progressa).88 The final estab-
lishment of peace therefore became acknowledged by imperial propaganda
only in the early 300s. The command of one praeses over both Phrygia and
Caria was thus necessitated by preparation for, and waging of, the Persian war
and lasted into the early 300s. The different reason for the temporary unifica-
tion of the two regions under Diocletian produced a different entity which was
reflected by the use of a different name.89
The idea of the continuity of the province of Phrygia and Caria from the
250s to the early fourth century can also be questioned on the basis of the
evidence for proconsuls of Asia, as well as asiarch Macarius, operating in
various parts of Phrygia and Caria late in the third century. This evidence
includes the following documents:

X8 FIRA 11 580-581 = Mos. et Rom. Legum Collatio XV iii, I and 4. For the debate on the
dating of this edict, see Kolb, Chronologie (as in n. 85) 28-29.
89 Cf. Dp-oyia;, Te K K?apia; in App. nos. 1, 4, 5 and Kapia; OaY 4pxyi a; in App. no. 8. A
good parallel is offered by Lycaonia, Isauria, and Cilicia which were put together by
Antoninus Pius (138/161) in one unit that was dissolved already in the Antoninus' reign
as well as in those of Marcus Aurelius (161/180), Commodus (176/192), and Septimius
Severus (193/21 1). It was resurrected more than fifty years later by the Severi (193/235)
under the name Tres Eparchiae that has been applied in retrospect to the original
conglomerate as well. Antoninus Pius: C. Habicht, "Zwei neue Inschriften aus Perga-
mon", IstMitt 9-10 (1959) 110, no. 1.4-5 (Pergamum, c.144/146); ILS 8827 (= OGI
576).6-8 (Isaura Vetus?, c.147/149?). The suggested reason for bringing together the
three provinces was the military threat: Magie, Roman Rule (as in n. 54) 1529 n. 3; Remy,
L'evolution administrative (as in n. 26) 79. Dissolved: ILS 1050: P. Cassius Dexter as
legatus Aug. pr.pr. provinciae Ciliciae (Castabala, 149/151); SEG 16, 758 (Derbe?) and
45, 1835 (Nephelion): Cornelius Dexter as the governor of Cilicia (c.156/160). Marcus
Aurelius: SEG 43, 777: Cappadocia, Pontus, and Lycaonia together (Ephesus). Com-
modus: MAMA VI 74-75: Carminius Athenagoras, proconsul of Lycia, Pamphylia, and
Isauria (Attouda). Septimius Severus (193/211): honors to C. Atticius Norbanus Strabo,
the governor of Galatia (198), in AE 1906.21 (Iconium) and 1907.58 (Lycaonia). Remy,
L'evolution administrative (as in n. 26) 96-97, dated the resurrection of the composite
unit of Lycaonia, Isauria and Cilicia to 202, but AE 1926.75, to which he referred, does
not seem to allow us to draw such a conclusion. Caracalla (198/217): ed. G. F. Hill, BMC.
Greek Coins of Lycaonia, Isauria, and Cilicia [vol. 211 (London 1900) 200, no. 206
(Tarsus); I.Anazarbos4.13-15 (A.D. 207). Macrinus (A.D. 217/218), see lAnazarbos 11.
Elagabal (A.D. 218/2222): LAnazarbos 12. Severus Alexander (222/235): IGR III 879-
880 (Tarsus) with G. Laminger-Pascher, ZPE 15 (1974) 32; SEG 37, 1335 (Tarsus);
l.Anazarbos 6 and 13; AE 1990, 989 and 994 (Tarsus and Anazarbus).

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 481

(i) A letter of the previously unknown proconsul Taurus to what is supposed to

be a village somewhere in the region between Magnesia on the Maeander
and Tralles.90
(ii) A dedication from Docimium in Phrygia by the pr(oconsul) Priscus (App.
no. 10), dated to 286/293.91 Priscus has been reconsidered as the pr(aeses)
solely on the grounds that there could be no proconsul in Phrygia because it
formed a joint province together with Caria at that time.92
(iii)A Phrygian inscription, from Laodicea on the Lycus, which mentions a
proconsul. It was redated for the same reason, in spite of the fact that its
genre and the script place it in the late third or early fourth century.93
(iv) Inscriptions from Miletus and Didyma mentioning the proconsul Festus of
Asia soon after 263 and in 286/293.94
(v) Inscriptions from Miletus mentioning the asiarch Macarius together with
the praeses Tatianus, which were dated by Louis Robert to "the very end of
the third century".95 These inscriptions, as well as those mentioning pro-

90 SEG 38, 1172.8-13: 7; &vayvwaOeianS; i ,o-o 4[i peydkw v0nciaro Tacfpq

vaol; T6v oorijpa naoiq t [mi Qvk V 8fpov TEr?icwa;- 6t4[ot Vl-o]Wraw rCov
8&opev. iot nA[kdrTatj] tXe?t6v(ov and 21-23: [&]noxTEiOvETat xai [l ?nIGTOita TOi
kaXxrpordtox dv[OOnr]dTou Tcaupou tv T, dpXE-io (dated to c.250/300). The 6i8jio;
[hAevxuiv was probably situated on the territory belonging to Magnesia on the Maeander;
see J. Nolle, EA 15 (1990) 121-125, esp. 125.
91 CIL III 141912 (286). See PLRE I s.v. Priscus 1.
92 Bames, New Empire (as in n. 1) 156. See Roueche, Rome 1 10 and n. 40.
93 IGR IV 854 = .Laodikeia am Lvkos I 38: JIn6 4Ovali pEiXvTOV EipEKTIV OtpTaTOV
dEvOord,rwv. Cf. L. Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 20 n. 6: "puisqu' il s'agit d'un 'proconsul',
il faut la placer avant la dislocation de la province d'Asie et la crdation de la Phrygie";
Rouech6, Rome 112: "it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions from such slight
evidence", "both the genre and what indications we have on the script would suggest a
date in the late third or early fourth century for this fragment".
94 PLRE I s.v. Festus 7 (= SEG 4, 467.1II.30): 6 Kcal ida; j'Aoia8o; dvftntato; (laudation
in honor of the proconsul Festus in Miletus, dated to shortly after 263); I.Didyma 89 and
90: tnipzX1Taagvou AF; dvacrae-o ai~),v TiToI 1kapior 0fGTOIt t10oDa apnpoEaTou
&vOrundtoiu (dedication to Apollo Didymeus of statues of gods by Diocletian and Maxim-
ian, 286/293) together with Ad. Wilhelm, "Zwei lnschriften aus Didyma", JOAI 35
(1943) 164-169; B. Malcus, "Die Proconsuln von Asien von Diokletian bis Theodosius
II", Opuscula Atheniensia 7 (1967) 92-93, who prefers 293 to 286; and Barnes, New
Empire (as in n. 1) 157, who gives the dating from 286 to 293. See also I.Didyma 159.11:
8i; 8' i5iato; iKXeivrl 'AaiTn cOjTo; waT Xpucrfiv ipAv7lv va?cati; Oijicev dYapxa
n64it (honorary inscription for decorating the spring of Didyma, 287/293).
95 e.g. Milet I 9, 339a: Maxdpto; I8]Tltov 8[fipiv dxeE,cz?pvo;] dv8poo6vawv T6&e Kc)891;
?1v 4[aatotaiv y'?Y 6e4v ?I dvf dcacpXiTI kourp6v 91v1ie, v?ov] (c.286) and 339c:
MaKdpto; T6 XOetpOV ; dp%atov OXto KTCXXo; )vXnTiv,j KcazgxOv 6itXePo; COXo-
0?tn;. Tarnav6; ? nr6voio SlKa&KQo'6o; 6ipaTo tEppa ud; v-poao KaXt(v Tad; iwp
ptayopEva;. See Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 129 n. 4: "Sans doute a l'extreme fin du IIle
si6cle". See also an epigram on Tatianus in Milet I 9, 340, which was relevant to the same

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
482 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

consul Festus, have been considered irrelevant on the grounds that Miletus
and Didyma were not included in Caria and, by extension, in the joint
province of Phrygia and Caria.96

Finally, two documents refer only to Caria or Phrygia. One of them is the
dedication by Aurelius Marcellus (App. no. 16) which mentions him as the
praeses of only provincia Caria sometime between 293 and 305. However, it
has been placed at the end of Diocletian's reign and, in particular, after the
office of Tiberius Asticus in 301.97 The other, the inscription for Flavius
Optimus (App. no. 14), was placed under "uncertain date", though he has been
identified as the praeses of Phrygia Secunda or Salutaris in the reign of
Diocletian. However, his office was dated to the fourth century, again because
of the need to accomodate the "joint province".98
Those who argue for the existence of the joint province of Phrygia and
Caria from the mid-third century to the early fourth century have had to
reconcile the evidence for the co-existence of proconsuls and praesides. They
did so by reinterpreting and redating Phrygian inscriptions mentioning procon-
suls; excluding the region around Magnesia and Tralles as well as Miletus and
Didyma from Caria; and redating inscriptions mentioning Aurelius Marcellus
and Fl. Optimus to the very end of Diocletian's reign. With respect to geograph-
ical considerations, it is difficult to explain the purpose for which this small
province squeezed between Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, Lycia and Pamphylia, and
Lycaonia would have been created.99 However, there is no contradiction be-
tween the evidence for praesides on the one hand, and proconsuls and the
asiarch Macarius on the other. Diocletian established praesides as govemors of
his reorganized provinciae, 100 including those in Asia Minor, which he put into
one dioecesis Asiana under the supervision of a proconsul. 101
The geographical borders of the new provinces inside the dioecesis Asiana
are known only approximately, especially in the period immediately following
Diocletian's reign. Our sources do not always enumerate all the provinces. 102

event. For Tatianus as the praeses of Caria, see PLRE I s.v. Tatianus 2 with reference to
Milet I 9, 339c (see above).
96 For example, Roueche, Rome 112 and ALA 21; Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 215.
97 Cf. Anderson, Genesis (as in n. 1) 31; Rouech6, AL4 21; Christol and Drew-Bear,
Delimilation (as in n. 2) 38 and note 41.
98 See the commentary ad App. no. 14.
99 See Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) II 162 Map 7.
100 For example, Ensslin, Praeses (as in n. 43) 605-614; A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman
Empire: 284-602. A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey (Oxford 1964) 45; R.
P. Davis, "Diocletian", OCD3 471.
101 For example, Ensslin, Praeses (as in n. 43) 605; Christol and Drew-Bear, Asia [21 (as in
n. 26) 79.
102 See, for example, Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina, ed. by H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, 0. Cuntz
(Leipzig 1898) 66: (xx) 'Aaia; (1 21 )'ilpiow 'Ikiou and (124) Maptav6; Tpoxi&o and

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 483

Sometimes they attribute similar ethnics to different provinces.103 But from

what we have it is clear that proconsuls of the dioecesis Asiana exercised their
authority in such new provinces as (i) Hellespont: Ilium,104 Assus,105 (ii) Asia:
the vicinity of Pergamum,106 (iii) Lydia: Ephesus,107 Smyrna,108 Clazome-
nae,109 Hypaepa,110 (iv) Phrygia: Docimium,111 (v) Caria: Didyma,112 Tral-
les, 1 13 (vi) Insulae: Naxos1 14 and, probably, Samos. 1 15
The evidence for individual proconsuls also demonstrates the co-exist-
ence of their authority with that of praesides. The proconsul of Asia and the

p. LXII (index patrum Nicaenorum restitutus): (124) 'Qpiv 'lkiox and (127) Maptvo;
Iio-u'EXXTon6v,ro1 (324).
103 e.g. Patrum Nicaenorum Nomina s.v. Graece: (i) Phrygia: 'laUo;' Arapc6ai; (140) and
<Pisidia>: TcpcnKo;'Acajlwia; (146), (ii) Lydia: Hokkiav Bdpeco (129) and <Pisidia>:
HpiickXrno; BapEoq (150), (iii) <Pisidia>: EiuT-xto; xkeuOiceia; (144) and Pamphylia:
Kuv?lav6; Xex-uiccia; (157). The list of the church council of 381 still shows one
Cappadocia, while the latter had already been divided into Cappadocia Prima and Secun-
da in 371 (see Greg.Nazian. Or. 43.58: Tj; yap nanpi8o; iji~v 6i; 6uo BLatpeOeia;
iye-povia; ca iTrpon6Xr;), which suggests a certain difference between religious and
secular administrative divisions. This difference probably explains why, in spite of the
fact that two Phrygiae are evidenced in the Laterculus Veronensis (c.314/324) and the
Laterculus of Polemius Silvius (c.394), only one Phrygia is referred to in the final
proceedings of the Nicaean Council of 325.
104 PLRE I s.v. Hermogenus 8 = CIL III 7069 = I.llion 98 (309/3 10); cf. Barnes, New Empire
(as in n. 1) 157: 286/305; PLRE I s.v. Epiphanius S = IGR IV 214 = Lllion 96 (293/305).
See note 116 below.
105 I.Assos 30 (337/353).
106 PLRE I s.v. Dulcitius S = ULS 751 (361/363).
107 LEphesos II 305 (303/304), 306 (379/387), 314-315 (379/386), III 621 (298/299), 666d
(324/337), and, in relation to the same person, IV 1307 and VI 2043-2044 (late 4th/early
5th cent.) together with Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 87 and Bull.ep. 1953.29, 1961.536.
108 L.Smvrna 636 (late 4th/early 5th cent.), 814(iii), 815a (364/367).
109 L.Klazomenai 517 (340/350).
110 PLRE I s.v. Isidorus 9 = Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 18-19 (405/410).
Ill PLRE I s.v. Priscus 1 = CIL III 141912 (286/305). See App. no. 10.
112 PLRE I s.v. Festus 7 = SEG 4, 467.11I.30 (286/293) (see note 94 above). For the dating of
this inscription, see also above in the text.
113 L.Tralleis 152 (340/350); see also PLRE I s.v. Magnus 9 (354/359). For this Magnus, see
now C. P. Jones, "Epigrams from Hierapolis and Aphrodisias", Hermes 125.2 (1997)
203-212; cf. SEG 47, 1735.
114 PLRE I s.v. Cassianus 1 = IG XII(5), 58 (3rdJ4th cent.).
115 See PLRE I s.v. Aristus = IGR IV 967: an epigram for Volumnius (eiaop6owv tO6 Oaiza
[Boko~.]pvtov iye(p)ovnia) who built an aqueduct under the command of Aristus
(tirtnpiavno; ApicrTou), the proconsul of Asia (Samos, 4th/Sth cent.) together with the
analysis of this inscription by Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 66-67 and 71-72. However,
since the word iyspovia could also mean "command" in a very neutral sense, Volumnius
was not necessarily a praeses and his exact status remains open for discussion; cf. a
similar case of Frontinus (see note 34 above).

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
484 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

praeses of the Hellespont were mentioned in two inscriptions, dated to 293/305,

which referred to the same event in Ilium. 1 16 L. Caelius Montius, the proconsul
of Asia in 340/350, was mentioned in inscriptions from such disparate cities as
Assus, Clazomenae, Ephesus and Tralles.1 17 Ambrosius, the proconsul of Asia
late in the fourth century, is documented in inscriptions from Ephesus and
Smyrna,"8 while Aristus, the proconsul of Asia at approximately the same
time, had command over the praeses of provincia Insularum. 1 9
The authority of the proconsul and the asiarch did not preclude, therefore,
the authority of the praesides of the new provinciae.120 Proconsuls have been
documented in other regions of Asia at approximately this very time. Aurelius
Hermogenus (286/305)121 and An-? [Epi]phanius (293/305)122 have been evi-
denced in Ilium, while L. Artorius Pius Maximus (287/298)123 and lunius
Tiberianus (293/303)124 operated close to Ephesus. Diocletian's provincial
reorganization did not exclude the possibility of governing two provinciae by
one praeses. The unification of Phrygia and Caria in the late third and early
fourth century therefore represented not a continuation from the 250s but a new
entity which was based on the already reorganized provinciae. Other Diocle-
tianic provinces could be put under the command of one praeses as well. For
example, Pontus and Paphlagonia were governed by one praeses in 305/306.125

116 lI.lion 96 and 97. Both inscriptions were connected with one and the same event, i.e. the
dedication by the emperors of silver statues of Zeus and Asclepius to the temple of
Athena Ilias. JI.lion 96 refers to the proconsul of Asia: Toi kazupoT6To[ dcv0ouaTo)]
'Acaia;, while Illion 97 to the praeses of the Hellespont: ci~ 'loiuX[ioPt Kcacaiou To1)
StaorpoTtdto iryod[pJsvoV toi EXXTIa,6vro[uJ.
117 LAssos 30; I.Klazomenai 517; LEphesos IV 1314-1317; ITralleis 152.
118 PLRE I s.v. Ambrosius 4; see l.Ephesos VI 2045 together with Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948)
62.
119 Robert, Hellenica 4 (1948) 66-67 and 71-72 together with his analysis of this inscription.
120 Cf. a similar position of the syriarch in the fourth century, P. Petit, Libanius et la vie
municipale a Antioche au IVe siecle ap. J.-C. (Paris 1955) 130-136; J. H. G. W.
Liebeschuetz, From Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Change in the Late Roman Empire
(Variorum 1990), XI.
121 CIL III 7069; Lllion 98. See note 104 above.
122 I.llion 96; Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 158. See note 104 above.
123 CIL III 1419527; LEphesos II 307 and III 621; Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 157. See
note 107 above.
124 I.Ephesos II 305; Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 158. See note 107 above.
125 D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) 159 no. 10 (SINOP 7.i): [Aur.] Hierax. v.p.p[r(aeses)
Po]nti (vac) [et] Paflag(oniae) (305/306). See Mitchell, Anatolia (as in n. 26) II 159:
"The title is without precedent or sequel, and should be seen as no more than a temporary
alternative designation of a province that certainly included Paphlagonian territory". See
also CIL VIII 5348 (= ILS 1228): consulari Ponti et Bithyniae, dated to 324/c.338 by
Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 155.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 485

Phrygia was temporarily joined with Pisidia at about that time.'26 Lycia and
Pamphylia are documented to have been joined together in 313.127

Conclusion

It was the Roman practice to put two regions under the command of one
governor in times of need.128 This practice intensified in the mid-third century
when several provinces in the Balkans and Asia Minor, including Phrygia and
Caria, Pontus and Galatia as well as the three Daciae were grouped together to
ensure better defence against the Gothic invasions. Caused by a temporary
necessity, such entities were dissolved after the danger receded. This practice
was adopted in other regions of the Roman empire, such as Syria Coele and
Arabia,129 both Mauretaniae,130 and both Numidiae. 131 It survived into Diocle-
tian's provincial reorganization, as demonstrated, in particular, by the unifica-
tion of Phrygia and Caria, Pontus and Paphlagonia, Phrygia and Pisidia, and
Lycia and Pamphylia.

126 e.g. ILS 8932: [VaJI. Diogenes v.p. praes[es] (Apamea, the time of Diocletian) and CIL
III 6807: Val. Diogenes v.p. [prJaes. provin. Pisid. (Yalovadj). Cf. an unfortunate
explanation by H. Dessau (ad ILS 8932) who included Apamea in the province of Pisidia.
127 CTh. 13.10.2 together with Barnes, New Empire (as in n. 1) 232. Only Pamphylia was
mentioned in the Laterculus Veronensis (II! 2), i.e. in 314/315; see Barnes, New Empire
(as in n. 1) 204. See also J. NoNll, "Pamphylische Studien", Chiron 16 (1986) 202-203:
Lycia and Pamphylia as one province in the mid-4th century.
128 Cf., for example, Cn. Domitius Corbulo as the legatus Aug. pr.pr. of Galatia and
Cappadocia, as well as Syria, in c.54/c.64, during the war against the Parthians; Tac. Ann.
12-15, D.C. 62.19-24, PIR2 III 142, R6my, L'evolution administrative (as in n. 26) 39-
41, who thought that Pamphylia also made a part of this conglomerate. For Tres Eparchi-
ae, see note 89 above.

129 e.g. CIL VI 31775 (= ILS 1210): [per Asiam] et per Ori[eIntem, praes(es) [Svriae] Coeles
et Arabiae dated to 259/260, G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Harvard UP.-London
1983) 162. The most likely reason for the unification of the two provinces was the third
invasion of Shapur in 259, Ibid., 130.
130 e.g. CIL VIII 9002: utrubi praeses (prov. Maur. Caes. et Tingitan.) (3rd cent.); IAM II
(1982) 4 together with AE 1992, 1933 (291).
131 e.g. CIL VIII 7067: Valerfius Antonilnus v.p. [p.p. NumiJdiar[um] (dated to the Diocle-
tianic period or a little earlier).

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
486 SVIATOSI.AV DMITRIEV

Appendix:

Governors of the "joint province of Phrygia and Caria"

Here, I reproduce, in the same order and with the same chronological
divisions, the list of the governors as it appeared in the most recent edition of
the Fasti of the "joint province". 132 I have supplied the texts of inscriptions as
well as some additional information.

"Late 249 - early 250":

no. 1. Q. Fabius Clodius Agrippianus Celsinus
-Frei-Korsunsky, EA 8 (1986) 91 no. 1 = SEG 36, 1195.11-16: yF-ovs?VOVTOq
Toi3 Xagrpocdtou ,nratilicloi Kco)6iou [..]IXiv[oxI (Dorylaeum in Phrygia);
see also SEG 36, 985 (dated to 252).
- E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 93 (1991) 126 no. I = SEG 41, 939: siri
lpeaikutOV) 0 a) Yar6To Ki cavnarpaTfnyou KXoxSiot KsXaEivour to) Kpa-
tiatou (Ceramus in Caria, dated in SEG to 250/317).
- E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 93 (1991) 127 no. 2 = SEG 41, 940a: [-
ki ntpCoEuTkOT ?06 TpaaTou icail 4yTvTpqTWyYv [OaPiouI Kk4Aov
AypriwyqcEv K)q6vyQpv ?0. 'Kp rquTQp Ta; QQVi CnEoKCuxaaEv (Ceramus
in Caria, dated to 249/25 1).
- I.asos 18: qjyEg.VoVcOVTO[o] KXio&ou KEXa[iVo-U] To KpaTiOTOt [&vOxnd-
tou ano vi];I 'Iaasov nr6Xto[;] g(iXtov) a (lasus in Caria).
- D. H. French, EA 17 (1991) 57-59 = SEG 41, 1174: T6V Xagnpo6aro[v]
Va?Kcov K)[iv]rov OaCltov KX6Lov 'Ayptictavv6vl v v KeXasivovq YEg6-
va (pyiq[;J cait Kapia; TOv [aIoipa cov eOvCp[v] icai vto rv pit4 [ap]XEOt)v
t6v ayvov icat 6iicatov (his honorary inscription, Alia near Corum, dated to
c.249).

"255"
no. 2. M. Aurelius Diogenes
- Roueche, Rome 106 no. 4 = SEG 31, 908.1-6: ['H Po-oXk Kaio 61 tijog
Madpcov AuipijXtov Atoy?v11v prpeIciUtv Eepaut6ov &vttatpa&rryov (Aphro-
disias in Caria, dated in SEG to 254-259/260).
- Roueche, Rome 107 no. 5 = SEG 31, 909: M&picov Avp7JXtov Atoyr_VV T6v
Xagpopatov 'ycji6va (Aphrodisias in Caria) dated in SEG to 254-259/260.
- E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 93 (1991) no. 2 = SEG 41, 940b: diii
inp?F,3vtoi5 caQ advtotpaT7Jyou r6v YxPatcrv M. Av'p. Atoye'voV; (Ceramus,
255).

132 Roueche, A New Governor (as in n. 25) 236-239.

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 487

- D. H. French, EA 29 (1997) 58, no. 1 = SEG 47, 1748.1: AV5To0PdTopI

Kaiocaptf H. Atctvviw OU5aXEptav4 ?eV1Ek-i s?VtiXC?s Yej3aatCi cT a H. AtKIV-
Vi(o rakktivci eixce'3 e1?VCi)X6 YeIkatdiW 17YegR0VCo)0VTo Tij; e-iapXEtia; TOi5
kagRpoTacoU M6picot Avup. Atoyivou;. 'Air6 (tXog-qEtliou ei; ['lolvXeiav
gsiktov a' (253/256?).

"250s"
no. 3. P. Aelius Septimius Mannus
- I.Laodikeia am Lykos I 46.9-10: [?J4' TOi hyEg6vo; 1 [ XIkmrtjAiou Macvvou

- Ch. Roueche, A New Governor 232 = SEG 46, 1394: nH6nXtov A'tRtov
EXETiptov Mavvov TOv kanusp6Tatov i'yegova unta'iucov ev6o4ov d8ptiov
ayvov otXavOpokov 6;i acnicln; iljcovTa apetiT; TOv -aTou cue-pygrrq[V ?vacatl
(Aphrodisias, dated in SEG to 250/260).

"before 260 or after 283"

no. 4. Anonymus

- Altertumer von Hierapolis IV 88 no. 43a = IGR IV 814: T'OV kagnp6TaTov 5ta'
lLavT6; "yvou; zznaTtc6[v] fry?j0va Opvy[ia; Kai] Kapia; (Hierapolis in
Phrygia).
- J. G. C. Anderson, JRS 20 (1932) 24 = I.Laodikeia am Lykos I 39.2-5:
[Iyegl6va 1puyia; Te i& K[apia; pIpscuT3 v 1C?' aiVTIp[aTpdnyovJ Tiv
XJa1CuTwv, iukaTov cTX. (Laodicea on the Lycus).

no. 5. Iulius Iulianus

- Christol and Drew-Bear, Delimitation 26, no. 32: Eioiv(Xtoq) Atovwno; a&iro
XtXtaprXv, cxaT'a T'iv KCSXSUOLV TOO lCpaTiOTo0) EntTpO6io T(WtV X paoTCOv
Eioukx(ioiu) Eiouktavo3 68tgoVTO; K? Ta' Tr; 'lyegovia; gcpil 4)pVyia; Te ice
Kapcia;, yevogevo; ? 7ri Tciov To6lwv ice Tiv aicptqiav ?csT6ada; 6po0grtioa,
irap6vto; i?e yeopkrpou AtiXtavoi 'Eaptvo[i)1 opo; Tata7rv6v K? 17COPpV@v
(near Aezani in Phrygia).

"before 282"
no. 6. Aurelius Maximus
- D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) 171-172 no. 15(ii) = SEG 31, 1101(ii):
7jyegovEUi(ovto;) Au6p. Matigou (Apamea in Phrygia, undated in both edi-
tions).

"282-283"
no. 7. Asclepiodotus
- D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) no. 15(iii) = SEG 31, 1 10 (iii): tot; Kupiot;
i-ov Kapp icai Kapeivqp 1C? Nopgptavw ilyygoveuovto; toi 8tao(r,goxdtou)
'Acnkjto86(sic)Co)T 'An6 9Aapec'ia; MA (found on the road between Apamea
and Laodicea, dated in SEG to 282/283).

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
488 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

no. 8. T. Oppius Aelianus Asclepiodotus (s

- Roueche, Rome 108 no. 6 = SEG 31, 910.
'AaXTnt66o,tov -T6v kagipo6a-Tczov l5IaT
avOivnatov Kca ?navopOwTiiv Aaica (tenta
258).

"?After 282"
no. 9. L. Castrius Constans
- IGR IV 731 = ILS 8881.8-10: ?4 6OtX[i]o0 Toi kcxapo-TCTou 'YFrg6vo;
KcaCTpioI-l K6)VOTavTo; (Eumenea in Phrygia)
- MAMA 94.11.5-6: [E'ni (?) 'ycIg6vo; A. Kactpiou K(o$ruavTo; -itaTucoi aTio
'HpaOXkiaq (Heraclea Salbace in Caria) dated to c.292/305, W. H. Buckler and
W. M. Calder in MAMA ad hoc; Barnes, New Empire 157.

"286-305"
no. 10. Priscus
- CIL III 141912: Clementissimo ac piissimo domino nostro M. Aur. Valerio
Maximiano Pio Felici Perpetuo Augusto Priscus v. C. pr(ocos?) (Docimium in
Phrygia) dated by Barnes, New Empire 156, to 286/293.

no. 11. Jul...]

IGR IV 523: 'yEgoVEivovVTo; toj &QtaoT.ortvool) 'Iou[Xio) ...1 (Dorylaeum in
Phrygia) dated by Barnes, New Empire 156, to 286/293.

"301 "
no. 12. Tiberius Fulvius Asticus
- M. H. Crawford and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 65 (1975) 160 = SEG 26, 1353.1:
?ou5kXt?o; 'AntKo; o &taoriis6ta'o; rys,.a6v (Aezani in Phrygia).
- PLRE I s.v. Asticus = CIL III 480 = CIG III, p. 1087: cini rysg6(vo;)
4oufXiioo 'AOTtcoi toiu 8ta"go(6aTou) (a milestone from near Alabanda).
- D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) no. 16.i = SEG 31, 932.11-13: fr7yEgVC1VsOVtO;
(bo)XP(iou) 'AtiicovKoi T5iacnta o(6atou) (milestone from near Halicamassus,
dated to c.293/305).
- D. H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) no. 16.ii = SEG 31, 940 = I.Mylasa 36.10-12:
rhycjOVvc6oVTo; (o?XD(io1) AcKoTiO) roi) 8ta Ta&rotdto (milestone from near
Mylasa, dated to c.293/305).
- E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 93 (1991) no. 3.1 = SEG 41, 941a: Tot;
ctpiloi; i,Ljy Fr.] Ou5(a)X. Ato[KXkiajv6 [Kai M. Oi5(a)X. MaEtijavw
[Kat ?Xa. O(a)X. KcovatavjTi'O [1aC r. 0i(a)X. MatjstaqvCp 1]yL9Ivto;
Tt. tPX. AcnvKoi (a milestone from near Ceramus, dated to c.301/317).

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The End of provincia Asia 489

"uncertain date"
no. 13. Anicius Asper
- Roueche, Rome I 1 = AE 1973, 531 = SEG 31, 1117: [ H no6kt;j 'Aviictov
"Aairpov r6[v Xa&(poiLpaov)I fLarucZov cat ictiot;r1v [acn-ii;] (Laodicea on th
Lycus, Phrygia, dated in SEG to late 3rd/early 4th cent.).

no. 14. Fl. Optimus

- J. G. C. Anderson, JHS 17 (1897) 424 no. 22 = AE 1979, 617: (X."O`Otgov
TO6v 8taacg(ota-rov) flycu6va Mt Miprlvcivl no't[;s] I'Ov ??Epy?Tv icat
ao)tp[caj tij; ?S apX6ia; (Merus in Phrygia, dated by Anderson to "after the
reorganisation of Diocletian" or "shortly before Dioclet."). See also AE 1979 ad
617: 4th cent. A.D., apraeses of Phrygia Secunda or Salutaris; Bull.ep. 1972.461:
this inscription "honore un gouverneur apres la reorganisation des provinces
par Diocletien"; PLRE I 650 s.v. Fl. Optimus 2: "v.p., praeses (of Phrygia)."
(dated to the 4th century).

no. 15. Valerius Rinacius

E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 94 (1992) 407 = AE 1992, 1594.d: -
iY?egOV?IVOVTO; OA<a>XApiou Ptvaciou gi 0 together with their comment on
p. 411. Judging from two other inscriptions on the same milestone, this one
belongs to late 3rd/early 4th century; see commentary ad hoc by the editors of
AE: "early 4th century?"

"After 301, before May 305"

no. 16. Aurelius Marcellus
- ILS 635 = PLRE I s.v. Aur. Marcellus 9: Aurel. Marcellus v.p. praes. Prov.
Caria[e d.n.] eorum dedicav[it] (Halicarnassus) dated by Barnes, New Empire
157, to 293/305.

"317"
no. 17. Firminianus
E. Varinlioglu and D. H. French, REA 93 (1991) 133 = SEG 41, 941c: toi;
Kvpiotq fu&iv ?-liav?*x?6ot; Kaioapaiv IXa. Ou<a>. Kpiaiw Kca;. Ou<a>A.
[Ko]votavTivq AuKtvv[icp Jcat 4NXa. Kwvatavtivw vac iy[e? ov]eI5{yIovro;
Toi &<t>aa1ljo<u> Otpgtviavoi (Ceramus).

Michigan State University Sviatoslav Dmitriev

This content downloaded from

88.230.11.31 on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 14:18:51 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms