[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This volume began life in a workshop held in in 2014, entitled ‘Towards a New History of Ancient Galatia’.[1] In keeping with the workshop’s original format, the book is a collection of essays, covering major debates and points of interest in Galatian history from the migration of the Galatians into Hellenistic Anatolia (third century BC) to the imperial period. The volume is therefore a miscellany in terms of content and approaches. It explores aspects of socio-political interaction between Galatians and inhabitants of Anatolia, historiographical perspectives, linguistic considerations, epigraphic discoveries, and the interpretation of literary and archaeological sources.
Like pieces of a puzzle, all chapters provide fragments of evidence towards a ‘re-writing’ of the history of ancient Galatia in light of old and recent discoveries, and old and recent debates. The authors are attentive to problems regarding the Greco-Roman tradition of the Galatian history, in order to emphasize the agency of the Galatians as geopolitical actors, often suffocated by heavily Hellenocentric or Romanocentric sources.
Part One consists of Chapter 1, in which Coşkun provides both an introduction to the volume and a survey of Galatian studies to date. Although he denies any claims of being exhaustive (p. 3), the editor provides an extensive and very useful bibliography. He dissects some of the main points of discussion, especially regarding methodology. He advocates, for instance, the cautious use of material culture as an indicator of ethnic identity but also expresses scepticism towards an excessive emphasis on Celtic linguistic elements as a marker of ‘ethnic awareness’, especially in literary sources (p. 14).
Part Two explores aspects of warfare and political history regarding the Galatians and their interactions with other geopolitical realities of the Hellenistic world. Against traditional Galatian scholarship such as Mitchell and Strobel, implying that the Galatians were subordinate to neighbouring kingdoms, Chapter 3 by Burghart aims at restoring the image of these tribes as independent actors in third-century BC Hellenistic Asia Minor.[2] He re-evaluates in this light some of the main steps of the Galatians’ history in Hellenistic Asia Minor, from their arrival to Vulso’s expedition. The chapter fits perfectly into the volume’s original aim of studying the agency of the Galatians, although it perhaps overemphasises the faults of previous scholarship in this regard. Burghart cites sources proving that the Galatians were competent adversaries of the kings and challenges the notion that the Celts were just tools of the dynasts’ imperialism, although not always effectively. For example, he references a passage from Memnon where the Galatians are said to be putting off the kings from enslaving the Greek cities (p. 153). However, as Burghart himself notes, it has been suggested that Nikomedes of Bithynia had favoured the Galatians’ crossing into Asia Minor precisely to discourage other kings, his rivals, which would make the Celts a political tool in the hands of Hellenistic monarchies once again.[3] Although it is true that previous scholarship tends to overemphasise the instrumentalisation of the Galatians by their neighbours, royal propaganda and Galatian agency can coexist and do not exclude each other.
In Chapter 6, Coşkun discusses a letter, found in 2003, by Attalos II to two of his officials, written before he bore the royal title. The inscription complements the so-called Ballıhisar dossier and testifies to changes in Attalid administration in the area around Pessinus. Coşkun engages with previous interpretations of the letter by the original editors (Avram and Tsetskhladze) and Thonemann.[4] Along the lines of Thonemann, he advocates for a date in the 180s BC, and suggests a dating even closer to the treaty of Apamea, 188/185 BC. He concedes to Thonemann that Kleonnaeion, a settlement mentioned in the letter, can be reasonably linked to two coins bearing the legend ΛΕΟΝΝΑΙΤΩΝ, although he advises placing the site outside of the Gallos Valley (p. 228). As for Thonemann’s interpretation of the enigmatic toponym as a military settlement hosted by Pessinus and then granted the status of polis, he considers it unconvincing, due to the scarcity of sources (p. 227).
Part Three of the volume is devoted to the discussion of the culture, society and historical geography of Hellenistic-Roman Galatia. Chapter 9 by Güney explores new and old evidence for the cult of Zeus Heptakomeiton or Heptakomikos in the Choria Considiana, an imperial estate in north-western Galatia (first-second centuries approximately). She suggests that the presence of Zeus in the area could be associated with the cult of Meter ‘of the seven villages’, although the latter is not safely attested (p. 279). Based on archaeological and epigraphic evidence, the author attempts to identify the ‘seven villages’, presided over by Zeus, and their modern locations and suggests that the cult of Zeus Heptakomeiton or Heptakomikos could represent a sort of ‘common cultic identity’ of the Choria Considiana (p. 280). The chapter explores a still-unknown aspect of the religion of Asia Minor with fascinating results. The author is aware that the latter are still hypothetical; one should therefore hope for the discovery of further evidence, especially of findings that could confirm the existence of a common cult of Zeus and of Meter Heptokometes in the region.
The essays by Felix John (Chapter 10) and Coşkun (Chapter 11) constitute a contrasting pair. Although they reach different conclusions, they both engage with the so-called North and South Galatian hypotheses on the location of the churches addressed by Paul’s Galatians. Because Christianity was mainly an urban phenomenon, John argues in favour of the location of the Pauline churches in the urbanised landscape of southern Galatia (i.e., Antioch in Pisidia), although he admits that there are no imperative arguments against different solutions (pp. 307 and 314). On p. 303, he dismisses the existence of a literary tradition around the Galatian anoia, contradicting his interesting suggestion that Paul used this ‘barbarian’ imagery as a deliberate provocation to an ethnically non-Galatian audience. It may be fruitful to explore further the occurrence of anoia in Christian and non-Christian texts, in order to illuminate the uses and evolution of the phrasing employed by Paul and, perhaps, either dismiss or confirm the usefulness of the phrase for the identification of his addressees.
In Chapter 11, after highlighting the impact of Galatians not only on Christian theology but also on the perception of Galatia in ‘Western’ society, Coşkun invites us to reconsider the North Galatian hypothesis, increasingly dismissed in favour of the South Galatian. He does so by responding to some of the South Galatianists’ arguments, such as the possibility of non-strictly ethnic uses of ‘Galatians’. For instance, he contests the interpretation of the genitive Γαλατῶν in a lex sacra from Pednelissos (Pisidia) as an ethnic denotation; instead, he suggests that Galato was the name of the priestesses or hierodoulai of Apollo Galatothremmon or Galaxios (p. 336).[5] He also argues that, in Luke’s account of Paul’s itinerary through Phrygia and Galatian territories, Galatike chora should be interpreted as a non-urbanised landscape (Acts 16:6 and 18:23). With these and other examples, he proves convincingly that the grounds at the basis of the South Galatian hypothesis are disputable. The reader may agree with his – and John’s – conclusion that scholarly discussion has relied too much on Galatians 3:1 to either prove or disprove the use of ‘Galatians’ to indicate non-Celts and eventually to identify Paul’s addressees (pp. 304 and 339).
The editor’s choice not to add a conclusion to the collection leaves the window open for new studies into the ‘agency and identity of the Galatians’, to quote the title of the volume. Up-to-date and full of debate, this book will enrich the libraries not only of researchers on the Galatians but also of those interested in ancient migrations and aspects of cultural, political and social interaction. Nevertheless, the study of the Galatians is inherently challenging. Aside from scant archaeological and epigraphical evidence, most of our documentation on Galatian history is indirect, meaning Greco-Roman, or ascribable to contexts of cultural contamination where it is almost impossible to isolate ‘Galatian’ elements – as is often pointed out in the book. This may raise the question whether it will ever be possible to disengage from a filtered, Greco-Roman version of Galatian history, especially in its earliest stages. Certainly, scholars will find new stimuli in this book, while hoping for new archaeological discoveries.[6]
Authors and titles
PART I. Introduction
Altay Coşkun, A Survey of Recent Research on Ancient Galatia (1993-2019)
PART II. Enemies, Allies, and Rulers: Galatian Politics and Warfare in Hellenistic Asia Minor
Thomas J. Nelson, Beating the Galatians: Ideologies, Analogies and Allegories in Hellenistic Literature and Art
William D. Burghart, When Galatians Attack: A Re-evaluation of the Impact of the Galatians on the International Affairs of 3rd-century Hellenistic Asia Minor
Elizabeth Kosmetatou, The Eunuch Philetairos: Pergamene Founding Father and Galatian-Slayer
Germain Payen, When Galatians Unite? A Geopolitical Evaluation of the Impact of the Alleged Galatian Unity in the 2nd Century BC
Altay Coşkun, Pessinus, Kleonnaeion and Attalid Administration in Eastern Phrygia in Light of a Recently found Royal Letter from Ballıhisar
PART III. Culture, Society and Historical Geography of Hellenistic-Roman Galatia
Wojciech Sowa, Linguistic and Cross-cultural Relations in and around Galatia (3rd Century BC-3rd Century AD)
Christian Wallner, Inscriptions of the Tavium Area
Hale Güney, The Imperial Estate Choria Considiana and ‘Zeus of the Seven Villages’ in North-west Galatia
Felix John, Pauline Churches in South Galatia
Altay Coşkun, Pauline Churches in the Galatike Chora: A New Plea for Their Location in North Galatia
Notes
[1] Cf. Preface, p. x. The reader may find the programme of the workshop under the title ‘Recent Research on Ancient Galatia (Central Turkey) in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods’.
[2] S. Mitchell, Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, I: The Celts in Anatolia and the Impact of Roman Rule, Oxford 1993; S. Mitchell, ‘The Galatians: Representations and Reality’, in A. Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford/Malden 2003, 280-283; K. Strobel, ‘Keltensieg und Galatersieger: die Funktionalisierung eines historischen Phänomens als politischer Mythos der hellenistischen Welt’, in E. Schwertheim (ed.), Forschungen in Galatien, Bonn 1994, 67-96; K. Strobel, Die Galater I: Geschichte und Eigenart der keltischen Staatenbildung auf dem Boden des hellenistischen und römischen Kleinasien, Berlin 1996; K. Strobel, ‘State Formation by the Galatians of Asia Minor’, Anatolica 28, 2002, 1-46.
[3] See p. 153 n. 22. Cf. P. Moraux, ‘L’établissement des Galates en Asie Mineure’, IstMitt 7, 70.
[4] A. Avram A., G. R. Tsetskhladze, ‘A New Attalid Letter from Pessinus’, ZPE 191, 2014, 151-181; P. Thonemann, ‘Pessinus and the Attalids: a New Royal Letter’, ZPE 193, 2015, 117-128.
[5] Cf. Chapter 10 n. 48. See A. Coşkun A., ‘Was Pednelissos a “Galatian Polis”? A Note on SEG II 710 and the Debate on the Location of Paul’s Galatians’, Philia 6, 2020, 62-73.
[6] I noted a few typos and minor errors: on p. 6 Lexion instead of Lexicon; in p. 12 n. 32 Grafitti instead of Graffiti; on p. 69 Esposito 2020 instead of 2019; on p. 149 Memnon (13.11. 4), (13.11.2) and (13.11.2-3) instead of (11.4), (11.2) and (11.2-3); on p. 151 Memnon (13.14.2) and (13.16.1) instead of (14.2) and (16.1); on p. 151 Memnon (13.11.4) instead of (11.4); on p. 200 Polybios (21.22.21) instead of (22.21); in p. 200 n. 26 dated from; in p. 200 n. 27 AD instead of BC.