By W. M. Ramsay
Civilisation of Galatia Under the Roman Empire
IN our sketch of the history of the Province Galatia, we have reached the period when Paul and Barnabas entered it. We must now state the evidence showing the character of the southern and northern parts of the Province respectively.
It is, of course, not open to dispute that Paul founded churches in four cities of South Galatia, viz., Antioch, Iconium, Derbe and Lystra. The only point in dispute is whether Paul founded also another set of churches in North Galatia. The South Galatian theory is that no churches were founded by Paul in North Galatia; and that when he speaks of the churches of Galatia, he means the four churches in the south of the Province Galatia. The North Galatian theory is that Paul also founded churches in North Galatia, and that, when he speaks of his churches of Galatia, he means only the churches of North Galatia, and excludes the four South Galatian cities.
The opinion that Paul included in his “churches of Galatia” both those of South and others of North Galatia is not held by any; and is, in fact, barred by the conditions of the question.1 On this we need not enter.
To the scholar who studies the society of the eastern Roman provinces, North Galatia stands apart and isolated from the cities of the southern part of the Province. Reserving South Galatia for the final Sections, we now gather together all that is known about society and civilisation in Imperial North Galatia.
We saw in the sketch of its history, the failure of Greek civilisation to establish itself there, and the strength of the reaction towards the Celtic national character. It has never proved easy to eliminate the national genius of a Celtic race; and the Celtic element in North Galatia, though numerically inferior, was immeasurably superior in practical strength to the older Phrygian element.
A convincing proof of the essential contrast in character between Galatia and the Graeco-Asiatic Provinces that bordered on it, lies in the societies of Hellenes which formed a feature in all of them. These Hellenes were really Hellenised people of the province, and not as a rule Greeks by blood or descent; and in many provinces the Hellenes were formed into associations, meeting in the worship of the Emperors. In Asia and in Bithynia the Association of Hellenes was the Provincial Association, the Koinon of the cities of the province. The titles, “the Hellenes in (the Province) Asia,” “the Koinon of the Hellenes in Asia,” are precisely equivalent to “the Koinon of Asia,” and the head of “the Hellenes in Asia” was the Asiarch2 or high priest of the Province. Similarly the Koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia was simply the Koinon of Bithynia, the assembly of representatives of the cities of Bithynia, of which the head and president was the Bithynarch. This is very clearly put by Dion Cassius, LI 20, where he says that “Augustus permitted the non-citizens, Xenoi, (according them the title Hellenes) to erect temples to him, those of Asia at Pergamos, and those of Bithynia at Nikomedeia”.
But in Galatia the Koinon of the Province, or the Koinon of Galatians,3 was distinct and separate from the Association of the Hellenes. The Koinon was apparently organised on the basis of the three tribes4 (though details are quite unknown), and its president was the Galatarch. The Association of Hellenes had as its president the Helladarch; and was doubtless formed of representatives from the poleis, the cities so far as they had adopted the Greek fashion, sent either by the cities officially or by special societies in the cities. There is no evidence as to the date when the Association of Hellenes in Galatia was formed; but none of the inscriptions mentioning it are earlier than about A.D. 150, whereas the Koinon of Galatians was organised by Augustus,
As to the organisation and law of household and family in Galatia under the Romans, the two leading modem authorities have pronounced a decisive judgment.
Professor Mitteis, speaking of the slow and imperfect adoption of Hellenic civilisation in inner Asia Minor, says that “the Galatians especially constituted a distinct and exclusive stock of the population” through the preservation of its language at least in the early imperial period,5 and the continuance of Celtic customs.
Mommsen points out that, though the Phrygian religion was adopted by the Galatians, “nevertheless, even in the Roman Province of Galatia, the internal organisation was predominantly Celtic. The fact that even under Pius, A.D. 138-161, the strict paternal power foreign to Hellenic law subsisted in Galatia is a proof of this from the sphere of private law.”
The last sentence refers to the evidence of the Roman lawyer Gaius, I 55, who, speaking of the characteristic Roman custom that the father had absolute power over his children (even to life and death), says that there are hardly any others among whom this right exists, with the one exception of the Galatians, quoting from a rescript of Hadrian the recognition of this Galatian custom. Caesar6 mentions the same custom as ruling among the tribes of Gaul.
Such power of a father over his children was repugnant to the Greeks; and its existence in Galatia shows how fundamentally un-Hellenic was the social system of that country even in the second century after Christ.
Here the questions may be asked by those who have not specially studied the Roman provincial system, whether the Galatian law would be made uniform throughout the Province, and whether the Roman law would not be introduced in the Province in place of the old native law. Neither would be done: both were contrary to the Roman system. Each district was administered according to its private law and hereditary usage (as is pointed out in the beginning of Section 17). Violent or sudden changes in society were shunned by Roman policy.
The old custom that the chiefs and leading men feasted the tribesmen, which flourished from the beginning of the Galatian state,7 was still practised in the reign of Tiberius. The public gifts and donations of leading Gauls about A.D. 10-30 are recorded in a fragmentary inscription. Such inscriptions are common also in Asia; and a comparison of Asian and Galatian inscriptions shows the difference of manners in the two Provinces. The chief Galatian entertainment is a banquet to the people: the gifts of almost every donor begin with a public feast; sometimes it is stated that the feast was given to the two tribes at Pessinus, sometimes to the three tribes (meeting, of course, in Ancyra), generally a “public feast” alone8 is given.
After the feasts are often mentioned shows of gladiators and combats of wild beasts (venationes) after the Roman fashion; these were not much to the Greek taste, and were not very popular in the Province Asia, nor very common there: inscriptions show that gladiators were sometimes shown in the great Asian cities, but were far less popular and common than games of the Greek style.
Thereafter, distributions of oil are mentioned. These were after the Greek fashion, and are the commonest form of public liberality in Asian inscriptions; but the lavish use of oil was universal in the Mediterranean lands, and does not prove much for Galatian imitation of Greek customs.
The characteristic point lies in the games that were given. These were almost always of the Roman and bloody type. An athletic contest is mentioned only once. Chariot races and horse races were commoner, but these were by that time as characteristic of Rome as of Greece. What was aimed at by the Galatian donors was clearly Circensian games of the Roman style. Bull-fights, which were said to be of Thessalian origin, but were regarded as un-Hellenic and barbaric by the true Greeks, are several times mentioned. The least Hellenic among Greek sports is the one which the Galatians patronised, for it was more after the Roman sanguinary style.9
Hecatombs also are often mentioned among the gifts. These were undoubtedly great sacrifices in the Imperial religion practised by the Koinon of the Galatians, Hecatombs were no longer a Greek custom, and are hardly mentioned in the inscriptions of the thoroughly Hellenised cities. Probably these Galatian hecatombs are a mild and civilised representative of the Celtic and early Galatian custom of human sacrifices on a gigantic scale (see p. 78).
Thus under Tiberius, the spectacular side of society, the shows under the patronage of the Koinon, are mainly of Celtic or of Roman, not of Greek style. And later inscriptions of the Pessinuntine State are similar.
In the tribal organisation lay the essence of the Celtic character as it worked itself out in practical society. Where the Celtic people has created any organisation, it gives to it the tribal character. The Celtic Church, as it temporarily ruled in Northern England and Scotland, rises to one’s mind (in the brilliant sketch, for example, of J. R. Green). Its strength and its weakness lay in the loose, but free, tribal system.
The Romans did not attempt to destroy the tribal system in Galatia. Not merely were they always unwilling to force sudden and violent changes on the subject peoples; they also saw that the tribal system was the antithesis of Hellenism, and they were not at first eager to make Hellenism absolutely supreme in Asia, There were only two alternatives in the last days of the free Galatian state: it must either be Celtic, or it must yield to the pressure of the Greek ocean that surrounded it on three sides.
In other Provinces of the Roman State the fiction was usually maintained that there was only one “tribe” or “nation”.10 Even in provinces which were composed of many distinct nations, such as Asia,11 the official form admitted only one “nation,” viz., the Roman idea, the Province: in other words, the “nation” officially was the Province. “The Nation Asia” (ἡ Ἀσία τὸ ἔθνος) was the technical Greek form translating the Latin Asia Provincia.12 But in Galatia the old Three Tribes or Nations — τὰ τρία ἔθνη — continued to be the Roman official form.
The theory has been stated that this form was applied to the whole Province, and that the Koinon of the Galatians, i.e., the Three Tribes meeting in a, Diet or Common Council, was as wide as the Province. This would imply that the other divisions of the Province were by a fiction represented as enrolled in one or other of the Three Tribes. A trace of this is perhaps preserved in an inscription of Apollonia, dated A.D. 57,13 implying that that city was of the Trocmi, Another indication may be found in the dedication at Apollonia of a copy of the great inscription of Ancyra, commonly called the Monumentum Ancyranum. The Galatian Koinon, which dedicated the one at Ancyra, may be presumed to have dedicated the other also. But this theory is too uncertain to be taken as evidence.14 It is enough that in North Galatia the Three Ethnê were recognised and left undisturbed in the Provincial organisation.
As Mommsen says, in North Galatia, as a part of the Province, at the beginning, “in public relations there were still only the three old communities, the Tribes, who perhaps appended to their names those of the three chief places, Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium, but were essentially nothing but the well-known Gallic cantons”. In process of time the pressure of Hellenism became too strong, while the vigour of the Roman system died out, and Galatia was Hellenised. But the process was slow.
The two systems, Celtic and Greek, stand contrasted in their characteristic forms, the Tribe and the City or Polls. As the Greek system established itself, Galatia became, like other Hellenised Provinces, a body of Cities; and the progress of that system can be traced by the appearance of Poleis.
It is quite consistent with the Tribal system that a Tribe should have a town-centre. The town, however, was not organised as a polis, it was simply the centre of the Tribe. Many examples might be quoted from Gaul of the growth of town-centres in each tribe, and the growth of organised municipal institutions in the centres.15
A similar process, only making Greek poleis instead of Roman municipia, went on among the three Tribes in North Galatia. They had as their centres the three towns, Pessinus for the Tolistobogii, Ancyra for the Tectosages, Tavium for the Trocmi. But these were not at first termed cities (πόλεις). The Tribe was the essential idea, and the town was the Tribal centre.
The strict and proper title of the town mentioned first the nation, next the tribe, last the town, e.g.: —
In each case there were varieties; and in each the simple Greek designation as Pessinuntines, Tavians, was gradually introduced. The difference is not a slight one. The Greek title makes the city the essential idea, and speaks only of inhabitants of the city: the Galatian title makes the town a part of the Tribe, and lays the chief stress on the Tribe,
The evolution from the idea of the town as tribal centre to the Greek conception of the city is best shown in the gradual change of legends on the coins struck at the three tribal centres, as stated fully in the following paragraphs. Those who have not studied the subject as a whole in the various parts of Asia Minor for its own sake and apart from theological theories and prepossessions, will hardly appreciate the unique character of Galatian titles and the indubitable proof that is thereby given of the peculiar and distinct constitution and system existing in North Galatia. Probably some of the German champions of the North Galatian Theory will meet us with the question what the titles of Galatian cities have to do with the Biblical question. But it is on the ground of a title that they have now elected to rest their own Theory: the most recent form of the argument by which they demonstrate the impossibility of the South Galatian Theory is simply that they cannot believe that Paul (Roman citizen as he was) could apply the title “Galatae” in the sense of “Men of the Province Galatia” to the inhabitants of four South Galatian cities.16 They give no arguments: they quote no analogous cases: they simply state a bare negative on their own authority, yet no sign appears that they have specially studied the use and implication of political titles amid the contending forces that were then causing the development of society in central Asia Minor. Every thinking man knows how delicate is the innuendo that often lies in political titles, and how much they often change in connotation amid the pressure of social forces. But the North Galatian theorist, who looks on the history of Asia Minor as a mine from which he may extract some confirmation of his prejudice, has firmly made up his mind beforehand that the word “Galatae” could never have any other than the single and simple meaning, “men who are Gauls by blood and descent”. We who begin by studying Asia Minor before we decide about the meaning of the titles used there, know that it would be as absurd to argue that the word “Français” now could not be used in addressing an audience of Breton and Norman towns, as that the word “Galatae” could not be used in A.D. 54 in addressing an audience of South Galatian cities.
The study of the titles chosen by North Galatian towns and impressed on their coins is of real importance in estimating the character of the social forces working in Asia Minor when Paul wrote his Epistle. History had developed rapidly in the 332 years since the Gauls entered that country; but yet the Celtic tribal feeling was still dominant for a full century later than Paul, and that feeling was the negative of Hellenism.
In the typical titles “Galatae, Trocmi, Taviani,” etc., the meaning of the three elements must be noticed, in order to appreciate the meaning of the variation. “Trocmi,” indicates the tribe. “Taviani” indicates the tribal centre, where the coinage and other administrative powers in the tribe are situated. But “Galatae” is not a mere assertion of Gaulish or Celtic origin: it expresses a living political fact. The tribal character, as shown in the second element, “Trocmi,” fully satisfied Celtic pride. The first element, “Galatae,” is the Roman imperial element: it embodies the idea of Roman unity, i.e., the Provincia of which the Trocmi gloried in forming a part.
That such is the force of the element “Galatae” in the typical title is proved by the common substitution for it of the “Imperial” adjective “Sebaste” or “Sebasteni”. When a tribe called itself “Imperial” or “Augustan,”17 that sufficiently recognised the Roman unity, and it did not then use the provincial title Galatae.
It must be emphatically stated, as the foundation of true conceptions on this subject, that the “Province” is the embodiment of Roman unity among all members of the Empire, who were not actually cives Romani. The ideal which the Empire slowly worked out was the recognition of all members of the Empire as cives about A.D. 212. The word Provincia then lost its old force, and denoted thenceforward only what it now denotes, a division for administrative purposes of the homogeneous Empire.
The coinage of Pessinus, on the most probable dating, began shortly before 100 B.C., evidently connected with the temple and arranged by the priestly hierarchy. In the early Roman period the same kind of coinage persisted, with legends: —
Under Claudius, 41-54, the style develops; sometimes,
adding the recognition of the Roman provincial governor. Sometimes the Goddess is represented only by her image with,
This style is quite that of the ordinary Asian GraecoRoman cities, and marks clearly the growth of Occidentalism. But it disappears again, and under Nero, 54-68, Poppaea is mentioned instead of the Goddess, with ΠΕ or ΠΕΣ added, marking an increase of the Roman element and weakening of the Greek.
But after this the Celtic tone increases;18 and for the first time the tribal system becomes fully dominant in the old Phrygian city in the legend: —
and this continued in regular use till 160-170, when the simple Greek form began: —
and became universal after 170.
The only two official inscriptions19 of Pessinus are erected by the “Senate and people of the Sebasteni Tolistobogii Pessinuntines”, Both belong to the second century. They mention a course of office that is hardly of the fully Hellenised type, speaking of agoranomoi and astynomoi and eirenarchs and public feasts20 and distributions of corn, but not of archons or strategoi and the usual career in the Asian cities. The tone is on the whole at least as much Roman as Greek.
The ancient Phrygian city of Ancyra had declined to be a mere fortress under the Gauls.21 Though it was the capital of the Roman Province, its coins did not bear the name Ancyra during the first century, but have the legends of Romanised Celtic character: —
Under Vespasian, 69-79, and Nerva, 96-98, coins with the full name and title of the Roman governor, and the name of Ancyra half-hidden in monogram, were struck; similar coins under Titus, 79-81, are mentioned, with ΚΟ · ΓΑΛ in place of the city name; and under Trajan, 98-117, similar coins with the Roman governor and the full title Κοινὸν Γαλατίας, but without the city name, were struck.
Under Pius, 138-161, the fully developed Greek fashion —
was introduced and permanently fixed.
In inscriptions composed in name of the city, a similar practice was observed. Those of the later second and third centuries are in the name of Metropolis Ancyra; but in the early second century the title runs (C. I. G., 4011): —
earlier still the form —
At Tavium the legend —
was regular in the first century, and under Pius. Coins are very rare from 100 to 200. Then under Severus and Caracalla they are numerous with —
and also the pure Greek style Ταουιανῶν. Later coins hardly occur.
In the first century B.C. rare coins reading Ταουίων occur, of the pure Greek style. These point to some isolated Greek influence at work in Eastern Galatia; and we remember that Graeco-Pontic influence was strong in Galatia for a time, and would be strongest in Tavium.
These facts show how long the tribal idea continued dominant in Galatia. Only after the Greek style of title for the city had become the regular official form, are we justified in saying that the Greek manners and customs were dominant in the cities: i.e., at Ancyra about 150, at Pessinus about 165, at Tavium about 205. Naturally there was a Hellenised element in the cities from an early period, but it became the dominant element about that time.
If such are the dates in the three great cities, what must we say about the rustic districts and the villages, which are found as cities and bishoprics in the fourth century, but whose very names are sometimes unknown in the second century? It is certainly quite unjustifiable to speak of Greek manners, Greek civilisation, Greek ways of thinking among them about A.D. 50.
As to the constitution of the Galatian cities, Ancyra and Pessinus are the only two about which any evidence has been preserved. They are the two that were earliest Hellenised; and the inscriptions which give evidence are almost all of the late Hellenising period.
Three characteristics are at once evident: —
1. The strong dissimilarity in almost every respect to the Hellenised cities of the Province Asia. Archons, Agoranomoi and Agonothetai are almost the only Greek titles that occur, probably the Agoranomoi are Roman aediles (p. 143), while the Agonothetai were presidents of Circensian games (p. 133), not of Greek sports.
2. The resemblance in many points to the Hellenised cities of Bithynia-Pontus and the Euxine coasts, e.g., Astynomoi, Politographoi.22
These facts show that, as might have been expected, the Galatian cities were in far closer relations with the cities of Bithynia-Pontus than of Asia. We notice in corroboration of this that the resident strangers mentioned in Galatian inscriptions are two from Nikomedeia, C. I. G., 4077, Bull. Corr. Hell., VII, p. 27; two from Sinope, Journ. Hell Stud., 1899, p. 58; one from Byzantium, Mordtmann, Marm. Ancyr., p. 22; but none from Asia. See p. 154.
3. Roman facts and analogies, so rare in the Province Asia, are very numerous in Ancyra. Even the comitium23 is mentioned there. Each town tribe24 met separately and passed its own decrees, like the Vici in Colonia Antiocheia: the Phylarch of the town tribe was an important official, corresponding to the Roman magister vici. The title “Son of the Phyle” takes the place of the Asian compliment, “Son of the City”.
Eirenarchs, who occur everywhere in Asia as in Galatia, were responsible more to the Roman officers than to the city administration. There is an extraordinarily large proportion of Latin inscriptions and of Latin names among the people. Hence the agoranomoi, who are so often mentioned, are more likely to be in reality Roman aediles than strictly Greek magistrates (as they were in Asia).
The chief results may now be summed up as follows. The Gauls of Galatia were brought in contact chiefly with three classes: the Phrygian inhabitants of Galatia, the Hellenised peoples of Asia Minor, and the Romans. They learned much from all of them.
From the Phrygians they adopted their religion, adding to it certain Celtic elements. Further, they coalesced with them into a single people. The amalgamation became much more thorough after Galatia ceased to be a sovereign power, and became a mere Province of the Roman Empire. The governing Romans treated all Galatians as practically equal; and valued most those who were most useful to them. The privileges of the Gaulish aristocracy could not be long maintained under a foreign government, except in so far as they were supported either by wealth and landed property25 or by natural ability. The domination of the aristocratic caste came to an end when Galatia became a Roman Province, and with it the broad line of separation was rapidly obliterated.
From the Hellenes of Asia Minor they adopted a second language,26 along with many educated customs and arts. The Oecumenical Association of athletes and Dionysiac artists, known also widely over the eastern provinces, began to appear in Ancyra and Pessinus in the second century; and along with it appeared the Society of Hellenes of Galatia; and more attention was then paid to the Greek style of games. But the Hellenes whom they took as models and teachers were not of Pergamenian Asia but of the Black Sea coasts.
From the Romans they learned most of the arts and devices of administration. Their cities adopted the Greek name polis,27 but they were Roman more than Greek in type; and the name πόλις was used only because they had Greek as their official language. If they have more resemblance to the Pontic than the Asian cities, we must remember that the Pontic cities were more Roman in type than the Asian cities, where Hellenism was so old and deep-rooted.
Under all these foreign elements, however, there lay a fundamental substratum of true Celtic tribal character in the family, the society, and the town centre, as Mommsen and Mitteis have recognised.28 It is not until about A.D. 160 that it becomes justifiable to speak of Ancyra and Pessinus as, in the strictest sense, cities of the Graeco-Roman type: and the change occurred even later in Tavium. Before that time these towns were rather Galatic-Roman tribal centres, using Greek as the official language. That character was, of course, quite consistent with a high degree of splendour and magnificence: there were great towns both in European Gallia29 and in Asiatic Galatia,
We should be glad to know more about the actual condition of those tribal centres; but more exploration is needed in order to furnish evidence. Clearly, so long as there were only single tribal centres, the other places known by name in the territory could only be villages. But when the Greek city idea was adopted about A.D. 150-200, the more important villages had the opportunity open to them of developing into cities.
M. Perrot points out one interesting fact about North Galatia, which is characteristic of a country containing a conquering aristocracy30 — wealth and power fell to a great extent into the hands of a few leading nobles. He traces the signs of this during the first fifty years of the Roman Province. Later than that the subject passes beyond our limits.
Note. — Van Gelder is mistaken, p. 202, in taking Pliny, Nat. Hist., VII ID, 56, as showing that a Galatian boy did not speak Celtic. The boy was born in Asia, and the marvel lay in the fact that he so closely resembled a boy born in Gaul, when the two were diversarum gentium. The more diverse the races, the greater the wonder and the consequent price of the pair. In 1882, writing home from southern Cappadocia, and wondering at the beautiful fair complexions of many boys among the Christian families (lost as they grew to manhood), I said they were like children in our own country (though Pliny’s story was not then in my mind).
 In his admirable Einleitung, 1897, Prof. Th. Zahn finds in the Churches of Galatia a certain North-Galatian part, but only secondary and unimportant: to him the important and determining element lies in the four South-Galatian Churches. In proportion as that North-Galatian element is insignificant, it withdraws itself from consideration, and the self-contradictoriness of the view escapes notice.
 We do not enter on controversies as to the powers, etc., of the Asiarch.
 (τὸ Κοινὸν Γαλατῶν in first century inscriptions, C. I. G., 4039, Cities and Bish. of Phr., pt. II, p. 648, no. 558: τὸ Κοινὸν τῶν Γαλατῶν in C. I. G., 4016, 4017 (third or late second century): Κοινὸν Γαλατίας on coins of Trajan.)
 ἔθνη: in C. I. G., 4039, the only authority of much consequence, “the three tribes” and “the two tribes” are often mentioned: “the two tribes” apparently held a joint meeting at Pessinus, while “the three tribes” met on certain festivals in Ancyra. The Trocmi were far less civilised than the “two tribes”.
 He means the first two centuries, and leaves the question as to the authority of Jerome (see p. 155), to be discussed by others, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht, p. 23.
 Bell. Gall., VI 19 (false reference in Mitteis, p. 24 note).
 See above, p. 79.
 M. Perrot well states this, de Galatia Prov. Rom., p, 85.
 ἔθνος. An exception in Bithynia-Pontus, where the double nationality was officially recognised in the constitution and in the technical Roman name of the Province.
 Mysians, Lydians, Greeks, Carians, Phrygians, Solymi in Cibyra, etc.
 Dion Cassius, LIV 30.
 Studia Biblica, IV 54.
 If for a time Rome tried to make the Galatian tribal Koinon co-extensive with the Province, the attempt apparently failed, as the Romanising effort weakened.
 See Mommsen, “Provinces of the Roman Empire” (Röm. Gesch., V), ch. III.; Hirschfeld, Gallische Studien; Kuhn, Verfassung des Rom. Reichs. Rushforth, Latin Historical Inscr., pp. 13-18, gives briefly and clearly some typical examples.
 See, e.g., Schürer in Theol. Littztg., 1893, p. 507, Blass in his larger edition of Acts, p. 176. [More recently Meyer-Sieffert admit the proof (given in reply to Schürer and Blass in Studia Biblica, IV) that Galatae could mean “people of the Province,” and try to argue, reasonably and fairly, that Paul would not use it so.]
 Sebastos was the Greek for Augustus.
 Hitherto it was weak in Pessinus, see pp. 55, 62, 73 f.
 C. I. G., 4085; Athen. Mittheilungen, 1897, p. 44 (Körte).
 See p. 132.
 See p. 74.
 No Astynomoi are mentioned in Asia, and only once the noun Politographia (in a Latin inscription of Nakoleia, C. I. L., III 6998).
 C. I. G., 4019 read ἐν Κομετιῳ.
 φυλή, not ἔθνος.
 See p. 145 f.
 See section 14.
 It appears thrice in C. I. G., 4039 (v. Perrot, Expl. Arch, de la Gal., p. 261 f.), A.D. 15-37, alongside of the more common Three Nations.
 See quotations on p. 131.
 Called Galatia in Greek.
 A similar state of things once existed in the most “civilised” part of Phrygia, the part most open to conquest: see Cities and Bish. of Phrygia, II, p. 419 f. The Tetrapyrgiai of the Phrygian nobles corresponded to the castles of the Galatian chiefs.)