Asiarchs, Archiereis , and the Archiereiai of Asia

TLDR: In this article, a distinction is made between the title of the male, which denoted the holding of the office concerned (along with its constituent powers and privileges), and that of the female, the chief entitlement to which, it is implied, was her marriage to an asiarch or archiereus of Asia.

Abstract: T EPIGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE for the archiereiai of Asia is rarely discussed as a whole except as it is thought to throw light on the relationship of the asiarch and the archiereus of Asia. l Since many archiereiai were wives of one or the other of these male functionaries, it is generally assumed that the women bore their titles in an honorary capacity.2 In effect a distinction is made between the title of the male, which denoted the holding of the office concerned (along with its constituent powers and privileges), and the title of the female, the chief entitlement to which, it is implied, was her marriage to an asiarch or archiereus of Asia. This interpretation is an implicit element in the notion that the titles asiarch and archiereus of Asia were synonymous.3 Otherwise, the hypothesis that the archiereiai of Asia received their title by marriage to an asiarch would be untenable. The efforts of scholars to prove this very fact by drawing attention to the number of archiereiai of Asia who were wives of asiarchs as well as of archiereis of Asia reveal a circularity of argument. Further, it has been established that the imperial cult in Asia, although centered on a Roman emperor, remained essentially Greek in character.4 But proponents of honorary archiereiai have not at-