Shaping the Elite of Attalid Pergamon A Reappraisal of the Epigraphic Dossiers Concerning Priesthoods

The history of Hellenistic Pergamon is deeply affected by the dual status of a polis that also func - tioned as a dynastic residence. This overlap between civic and royal institutions significantly im - pacted the political life of the city. This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about honorific habits and the consolidation of the civic elite of Pergamon by focusing on the triangular interac - tions between the Attalids, their court, and the polis’ institutions in the period from Eumenes I to Attalos III. To do so, several dossiers concerning the priesthoods and religious liturgies of Attalid Pergamon will be reassessed by paying attention to their tenure, appointment, privileges, and the social groups that held these charges.


Introduction
The history of Hellenistic Pergamon is deeply affected by the dual status of a polis that functioned as a dynastic residence for about one and a half centuries between Philetairos and Attalos III . This overlap between civic and royal institutions significantly impacted the political life of the city and the diachronic developments of its elite. Of course, Pergamon was not the only Hellenistic settlement displaying this two-fold nature of polis and dynastic capital, 1 yet no comparable city witnessed the same combination of two decisive factors: a long history of cohabitation with a foreign dynasty that managed to anchor its power in the political, monumental, and religious memory of the city; and a crucial change concerning the geographical scale of the hegemony exerted by the Attalids between the late-3 rd and the early-2 nd century, which transformed Pergamon from a local stronghold with regional ambitions into an autonomous power first (under Attalos I), and then into the capital of a reign embracing western Asia Minor after Apamea (188 BC, with Eumenes II).
Recent scholarship has paid increasing attention to the social, political, and economic dynamics that accompanied the institutional history of Pergamon through these various phases. 2 One of the questions on which scholars have focused is how the presence of a powerful dynasty affected the composition of the Pergamon elite, its behaviours, selfawareness, and aspirations through time. A few previous studies have pointed to the very limited information we have about the members of the Pergamon political class during the 3 rd century in comparison with other centres of Asia Minor. On the other hand, it has been observed that the citizens of Pergamon conquered a more prominent space in the honorific evidence from the 2 nd century. However, it is only under the last king, Attalos III, that civic documents start displaying a greater awareness of the city's prestige and reveal a more autonomous attitude of the institutions in cultivating their relationships with the elite. Accordingly, it has been pointed out that in the last years of Attalid rule, the Pergamon Demos took up the function of a partner, and later of the successor of the royal family. 3 In this paper, I intend to contribute to this ongoing debate by reassessing several dossiers concerning the priesthoods of the main deities of Attalid Pergamon. 4 The criteria adopted for their tenure and appointment, 5 their duties, privileges, and relationships with civic institutions and the ruling dynasty will be examined to explore the level of entanglement between the Attalid court elite and the political class of the city. The discussion of these dossiers will allow us to conclude that court and city never existed autonomously. Like in other Hellenistic kingdoms, the Attalid court comprised a certain number of foreign courtiers who could not play a direct role in the civic institutions, but a large part of its members came from Pergamon and its surroundings and this allowed them to operate at a dual level, as courtiers and holders of civic charges. Therefore, by supporting the rising of a class of loyal families to the top of Pergamon' society, the Attalids also set the premises for the development of a civic elite which would inherit the ruling functions of the dynasty after 133/2 BC. underwent a process of poliadisation during the 3 rd century, when it also functioned as the western seat of the Seleucid court: see Kosmin 2019. In the Antigonid kingdom, evidence of the interaction between civic and royal institutions allows us to interpret various cities outside the borders of historical Macedonia as 'regional capitals': see Mari 2018 for the case of Amphipolis. Comparison with Syracuse under Hiero and Hieronymos also proves fruitful: see Caneva 2023. Other capitals had political institutions, but as new royal foundations their functioning was ultimately subject to royal authority from the very beginning.

Royal vs. civic? Reassessing the evidence and its specific point of view
As stated above, evidence about high-ranking citizens in 3 rd -century Pergamon is remarkably scanty in comparison with other cities from Asia Minor. Even in the 2 nd century, when decrees and statue bases shed greater light on distinguished figures honoured by the Demos, inscriptions primarily define the social profile of the honorandi in relation to their close bonds with the royal family. A significant change only occurs under Attalos III (139/8-133/2 BC), when for the first time honorific decrees expound on the public merits of two gymnasiarchs towards the city with a level of detail and rhetorical focus on the positive interactions between citizens and their non-royal benefactors that can be compared with the trends of contemporary Asia Minor. These documents can be seen as the forerunners of a tradition destined for great success in late Hellenistic Pergamon. 6 The prominence granted to the court in honorific texts from the Attalid period does not entail the disappearance of the city, but establishes a clear hierarchy as regards both the functioning of institutions and the rhetoric of praise. A dossier comprising a letter and a decree about the honours granted to the board of strategoi under Eumenes I (IvP I,no. 18; reveals that these civic magistrates had been directly appointed by Eumenes. When publishing these documents, the city decided to give priority (ll. 1-20) to the dynast's letter dictating the motivations and content of the honours that the city should grant to the strategoi at the end of their office. As shown by the decree appended to the letter (ll. 21-39), the civic institutions indeed approved Eumenes' proposal to honour the magistrates with a crown; their initiative was motivated with the formula ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας τῆς εἰς | Εὐμένη τε καὶ τὸν δῆμον. The city also accorded ritual honours to the dynast as a way to express gratitude for his good care of civic affairs (ll. 21-39). 7 Similar cases can be found in the 2 nd century as well. Two statue bases and one decree honour high-ranking courtiers who could claim the status of foster-brother (syntrophos) of the king. The texts accompanying the statues mention the name of the honorandi, their close relationship with the king, and the reason why they deserved being honoured, which is invariably expressed through a formula evoking their value and benevolence towards the king and the people. The decree expands this semantic nucleus by underlining the bonds of proximity and trust that the honoured person enjoyed with the king, and stressing the numerous advantages the city obtained from his diplomatic competence in missions in which he had taken part on royal request. 8 2010, 150-154;Chin 2018, 122. Müller 2003 argues that while the royal appointment of the highest civic magistrates can be seen as proof of the direct control 3 rd -century Attalids exerted on the civic institutions of Pergamon, this situation should not be projected onto the 2 nd century. At this time, civic magistrates were regularly elected by the people, whereas the Attalids controlled the polis through an officer appointed by the king and named ho epi tes poleos, first attested in the so-called Astynomoi Law under Eumenes II: see MDAI(A) 27 (1902), 47, no. 71;OGIS 483, with addenda at p. 551-552;discussion in Allen 1983, 171-173;Saba 2012. According to Müller, IvP I, no. 18 might even point to an exceptional situation rather than the norm under Eumenes I. texts show a higher degree of autonomy on the side of the city, which does not represent its initiative as the result of a royal request, although the possibility that this first step had initiated the honorific process cannot be ruled out. Another revealing case of this prominent focus on the personal link between elite members and the ruling house comes from the contemporaneous decree for Metris, daughter of Artemidoros (IvP I,no. 167;150/49 BC). Metris is possibly the first priestess of Athena Nikephoros for whom an honorific statue is documented in Pergamon. 9 Curiously, the priestess actually has an ancillary role in the justification of her honours, which are explained as the consequence of a great success obtained by King Attalos II during her priesthood. 10 Thus, the decision of honouring the priestess does not stem from her good service to Athena, but from the fact that when she was in charge, the goddess conceded a magnificent victory to the king, "and thanks to this, the greatest benefits came to our people and all the others." 11 The importance of advertising one's close links with the royal house also appears in contexts where the honouring initiative stems from the elite members themselves. A case in point is provided by the multiplication of royal statues during the reign of Attalos III. This process apparently took place by the joint initiative of the city and distinguished members of elite families. The decree IvP I, no. 246 reveals that the city promised the erection of a gilded portrait of Attalos on horseback on the agora and a five-cubit cult statue of the king inside the temple of Asklepios. 12 Conversely, the decree for the gymnasiarch Me […] informs that the honorand personally paid the costs for the erection of a four-cubit golden statue of Attalos and graciously accepted that the dedication would be made inscribed in the name of (hyper) the Demos. 13 Collaboration between civic institutions and elite members was profitable for the city's economy but also for rich individuals who seized the opportunity to confirm and increase their links with the court. Similarly, a statue of Queen Stratonike was dedicated by Eurydike, daughter of Demarchos, the holder of a lifelong priesthood possibly devoted to the cult of the queen herself. 14 Both her charge and the motivation a syntrophos of Attalos II who enjoyed the privilege of prohedria on the king's side and was sent by him as an ambassador to negociate with Rome; MDAI(A) 29 (1904), 173, no. 16, statue base of an unknown person, probably a syntrophos of Attalos II, for his arete and eunoia towards the king and Demos. On the socio-political profile of these persons, see Bielfeldt 2010, 141-143. On foster-brothers in Hellenistic courts, see Savalli-Lestrade 1998, passim;Strootman 2014, 140-144. 9 On honours for Athena's priestesses in the Hellenistic period, see Mathys 2009, 232-234, and2014, 48-49. 10 This event was Attalos' victory against Prusias II of Bithynia. 11 IvP I, no. 167, ll. 5-10: ἐπεὶ ἱερητευούσης | τῆς Νικηφόρου Ἀθηνᾶς Μήτριδος, τῆς Ἀρτεμιδώρου τοῦ Θεοτίμου θυγατρός, | μείζονα εὐημερήματα γέγονεν τῶι βασιλεῖ, ἐξ ὧν τὰ μέγιστ' ἀγαθὰ τῶι τε ἡμε | τέρωι δήμωι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν περιγέγονεν, καθήκοντ' ἐστίν, πρὸς | τὴν κοινὴν τιμὴν τοῦ πράγματος ἀνήκοντος, πρόνοιαν ἡμᾶς ποιήσασθαι τῶν τοιούτων | τὴν μεγίστην. See Bielfeldt 2010, 148-149. 12 IvP I, no. 246, ll. 6-11. 13  given by Eurydike-the queen's benevolence towards her-clearly advertise the donor's high-standing rank and proximity to the court. This privileged status would be confirmed if we accept the proposed identification of her father Demarchos with a collaborator of Eumenes II who was honoured by a statue erected in the gymnasium. 15 An important point emerging from the honorific evidence is its hierarchical pattern. Generally speaking, it appears that 2 nd -century individuals from the Pergamon elite advertised their proximity and gratitude towards the ruling house whereas the Demos tended to describe itself as benefiting from the competence of the elites, whose loyalty to the ruling family also ensured their benevolence to the city itself. However, although a part of the Attalid royal collaborators certainly came from abroad, the majority plausibly had Pergamene origins. 16 Thus, for instance, the aforementioned decree passed for a royal syntrophos maintains that the honorand had constantly shown his zeal towards the fatherland. 17 This and other similar texts reveal the city's growing awareness of its identity and pride: its honorific rhetoric supported the elites' understandable aspiration to establish fruitful contacts with the court, but also reminded them that they were members of a community which was ready to lavishly reward their benefactors. 18 The analysis of the evidence also points to an internal development in honorific patterns. 19 As seen above, IvP I, no. 18 conveys the image of highly hierarchical relationships between the dynast Eumenes I, the strategoi, and the Demos: Eumenes has appointed the magistrates and requires that the Demos honour them; the Demos obeys and grants the dynast even more prestigious religious honours. In the documents from the reigns of Eumenes II and Attalos II, the city (apparently) spontaneously praises the achievements While this cannot be excluded beyond any doubt, we should also consider the hypothesis that Eurydike omitted the name of the goddess she served because the dedication was made inside her sanctuary, or in any case because she was sufficiently well-known to make any further detail superfluous. See, for instance, MDAI(A) 33 (1908), 403-404, no. 32 (= PHRC 032), a dedication to King Attalos I accomplished by Metris, the priestess of Meter Aspordene at Mamurt Kale. In this case, the fact that Metris concisely describes herself simply as "the priestess" can be explained as the omission of a redundant detail, not as proof that she served a civic cult of the king. Since IvP I, no. 178 was reused in the late-antique fortifications on the eastern side of Pergamon, the statue was probably dedicated in the citadel, but the exact location escapes us. In any case, we can rule out an identification of Eurydike with a priestess of Athena since this priesthood was not lifelong, but possibly lasted four years as suggested by the fact that the priestesses were referred to by mentioning the edition of the Nikephoria during which they fulfilled their office (cf. IvP I, no. 167, Metris, ninth edition of the Nikephoria, IvP I, no. 223, Bitò, fourteenth edition; IvP I, no. 226, Asklepias, eighteenth edition); on the quadrennial cycle of the Nikephoria: Jones 1974. 15 See MDAI(A) 32 (1907) 340, no. 74 (statue); IvP I, no. 158 (royal collaborator from the early 2 nd century); cf. Savalli-Lestrade 1998, 85, and2001, 84-85;Bielfeldt 2010, 143. 16  and Agias) contribute from a more equal position to the establishment of a positive honorific interaction with the king. As we shall see, in the decree IvP I 246, the civic institutions act alone by reserving for the priestly elites the role of executors of the ritual honours approved by the city.

Uncertain beginnings: The prytanis and priest of Philetairos
A few documents published in Pergamon after 132 BC mention the "prytanis and priest of Philetairos." 20 The name of this charge appears in a late-2 nd century honorific decree for Menodoros, son of Metrodoros, 21 and in two ephebic lists inscribed on the walls of Temple R (north-west of the gymnasium). 22 The evidence concerning this magistrate has been collected and reassessed by M. Wörrle, who has drawn attention to the prestige Philetairos enjoyed in post-Attalid Pergamon, when he was considered as the new founder of the city after the eponymous hero Pergamos. 23 Wörrle also proposed that, regardless of its several alternative names ("prytanis," "priest," "prytanis and priest," "prytanis and priest of Philetairos"), this eponymous charge was the same as the priesthood mentioned at the end of the much earlier decree for Eumenes I (IvP I, no. 18; 263-241 BC) 24 . All these documents reveal that this charge was annual and had an eponymous function in the Attalid as well as in the post-Attalid period. 25 The eponymous function of the prytanis is already attested in Pergamon by a treaty of isopoliteia between Pergamon and Temnos, which has been dated to the early 3 rd century 20 Wörrle 2000. For a possible earlier occurrence of this denomination, see the dating formula of a decree issued for the gymnasiarch Me[…] under Attalos III, MDAI(A) 33 (1908), 375, no. 1. However, in this case the restoration of the full denomination in the lacuna at line 1 is uncertain. We can read ἐπὶ πρυτάνεως καὶ ἱ<ε>ρέως […], but the title of the office could also be directly followed by the name of the person holding the charge. This uncertainty deprives us of the only possible attestation of the priesthood with its full denomination before the end of the dynasty. 21 SEG 50.1211, l. 2 (Wörrle 2000, where the charge, mentioned with its full name, is held by the proposer of the honorific decree; ll. 22-23 inform that Menodoros had been previously elected "prytanis and priest of Philetairos" for the spirit of justice he had always displayed in his public life. IvP I, no. 18, l. 39 refers to the "treasurers of (the year of) priest Arkeon" (τοὺς ταμίας τοὺς ἐφ' ἱερέως Ἀρκέοντος). Before Wörrle, this eponymous charge was tentatively linked with the priesthood of Asklepios. 25 After 133/2, its occurrences are particularly connected with the identification of the year in which young citizens underwent their ephebic training.
Shaping the Elite of Attalid Pergamon 81 on palaeographic grounds. This would imply that the prytanis already had an eponymous function before its possible association with a new priesthood of Philetairos. 26 Wörrle's thesis that a cult of Philetairos as Pergamon's new founder was established soon after the dynast's death, under his successor Eumenes I, might be confirmed by the contemporaneous coins issued in Pergamon. The first group of Hellenistic coins from the city shows the portrait of Seleukos I; the second group has Philetairos with a headband, possibly a diadem; finally, group III depicts the dynast with a laurel wreath. The chronology of the various groups has been long debated, but Le Rider's proposal has won consensus: groups I-II should belong to the period of Philetairos, whereas type III would date to Eumenes I and the change of Philetairos' attribute may symbolise his death and the institution of a heroic cult of the city founder. 27 To date, the space dedicated to the cult of Philetairos has remained unidentified. However, a plausible candidate could be under our eyes since long time. The excavations of Eumenes II' Great Altar have uncovered the foundations of a monumental building with an apse-shaped wall, which was erected around the mid-3 rd century and plausibly hosted public ritual activities. 28 This building, which is usually referred to as the Apsidenbau in German archaeological publications, has been interpreted as the heroon of a mythical figure linked with the origins of the city of Pergamon: possibly the mythical founder Telephos, who later played an important part in the narrative of the Great Altar frieze, 29 or the eponymous hero Pergamos. 30 However, a recent interpretation suggests that this building was conceived as a monument honouring the first dynast of Pergamon. 31 If we consider the chronological correspondence between this monument and the possible foundation date of the cult of Philetairos, it is tempting to interpret the Apsidenau as a sacred space hosting cultic honours for the new founder of the city and dynasty. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the building occupied a central place in the Philetaireia-as the ancient city of Pergamon was named in later times-that is, in the middle of the area between the dynastic citadel and the future temple of Zeus. If, as argued by K. Rheidt, 32 this part of Pergamon functioned as the city's agora between the late Classical period and the reign of Attalos I, we would have a perfect correspondence with the tradition of erecting monuments for ktistai on the central square of Greek cities. 26 IvP I, no. 5, with the palaeographic observations by Allen 1983, 16-18, esp. n. 29; see Saba 2020, 103-108. 27 Le Rider 1991, 71-82; Davesne -Le Rider 1989, 338. In favour of Le Rider's reconstruction, see Marcellesi 2012, 88-92;Queyrel 2003, 65-70 on the iconography. 28 Schwarzer 1999, 278-286 argues for the reign of Attalos I; however, a slightly earlier date seems more plausible to Rheidt 1992, 279-280 who dates the building to the first half of this century. 29 Schwarzer 1999, 286. 30 Coarelli 2016, 161-167. 31 Schwarzer 2011. 32 Rheidt 2015, 303. An argument that could be made against this identification is that Eumenes II decided to replace this monument supposedly associated with the honours for his ancestor. The possible religious continuity between the Apsidenbau and the Altar relies on too uncertain grounds to be assessed here (cf. Michels 2011, 122-123 for an overview of the debate). However, I can think of at least two possible explanations for Eumenes' monumental programme. On the one hand, the cult of Philetairos might have been moved to another space. On the other hand, the Altar could provide a multifunctional monumental context hosting a variety of cults, including that of Philetairos.
Wörrle's thesis also needs some nuancing. As aptly pointed out by R. Bielfeldt, the name of Philetairos never appears in the denomination of the eponymous priesthood before the reign of Attalos III-or, to put it more cautiously, before the end of the dynasty. Accordingly, the evidence leaves us with two options. We can dismiss Wörrle's interpretation as the anachronistic projection of a later situation back to the mid-3 rd century. However, in this case we are left with the issue of interpreting a priesthood that passed from honouring an unidentified deity or hero before 133 to commemorating Philetairos after the extinction of his dynasty. Alternatively, we should assume that the cult established after Philetairos' death was indeed associated with the eponymous prytanis since the mid-3 rd century, but his name was not mentioned in the decrees of the Attalid period simply because the identity of the cult recipient was self-evident to the readers of that period. Conversely, after the end of the dynasty, the civic elites of Pergamon felt the need to underline their connection with Philetairos and advertise the prestigious past of their city; they did so by explicitly mentioning his name in official texts, although even now not in all of them. 33 Be that as it may, the chronological issues raised by Wörrle's interpretation do not alter the fact that in post-Attalid Pergamon, and until the foundation of Augustus' Principate, the memory of Philetairos was explicitly associated with the charge of the prytanis. According to the Chronicle of Pergamon, a text probably composed during the reign of Hadrian, the charge of prytanis was regarded in the Imperial period as one of the most ancient and prestigious institutions of the city. The name of a certain Archias was associated with its establishment. 34 If we accept the historicity of the narrative transmitted by the Chronicle, the first prytanis is likely to have served as the eponymous magistrate of Pergamon in the period when the city underwent its process of poliadisation, probably soon after the great satrap revolt of 366-360 BC. 35 From this perspective, the attitude we take in relation to Wörrle's thesis entails a different understanding of the political and cultural scenario in which Philetairos' cult was associated with the city's eponymous prytanis. If we accept Wörrle's early chronology, we can conclude that the rising of a new local dynasty marked by Eumenes I's succession to Philetairos resulted in the association of the prytanis with the new priesthood of the dynastic founder: this would offer a way to respect the prestige of this civic magistracy while also integrating it within the framework of the new power of a family committed to turn Pergamon into its dynastic residence. Conversely, if we opt for a later chronology around, or after 133/2 BC, then the integration of the cult of Philetairos as city founder among the prerogatives of the eponymous prytanis would be the autonomous initiative of a civic elite that shared a nostalgic view of the city's royal past. On the prytanis in Pergamon as a figure of prestige rather than executive power, see Allen 1983, 161-165. This Archias has sometime been identified with the homonymous Archias, son of Aristaichmos, who introduced the cult of Asklepios in Pergamon according to Paus. 2.26.8-9. However, this hypothesis is contradicted by the archaeological data that places the first phase of monumentalisation of the Asklepieion under Eumenes I: see Ohlemutz 1968, 124-125;Riethmüller 2005, 336-340;Kohl 2008, 152;Renberg 2017. 35  The first person ἀνατέθηκα and the final greeting formula make it clear that the regulation was intimated via a letter. This automatically answers the question of which political entity issued the regulation itself. In Attalid Pergamon there was only one political figure that could dedicate major buildings and send letters with a legal value: the king. On the other hand, it has been noticed that the imperative tone of the text does not resemble the style of preserved Attalid letters addressed to cities. 38 The use of an impersonal third-person style suggests that the king wrote to a royal officer, 39 possibly the epi tes poleos, 40 to dictate the characteristics of the new priesthood. Similar to Eumenes I's letter IvP I, no. 18, the city was plausibly left with nothing more to do but approve the king's will, which was evidently perceived as a binding source of jurisdiction.
The inscription was found on the lower portion of a white marble door post (parastas), broken in two pieces and missing the upper part. The provenance from the area southwest of the main entrance to the citadel raises questions about the identity of the god or 36 Cf. Welles 1934, no. 24;Sokolowski 1955, no. 11;Le Guen 1991, no. 37. 37 I provide a slightly revised version of the translation published in CGRN 124: ". . . He who holds the office by lot [at a particular time] must wear a white cloak and a wreath of olive with a small purple band, and let him receive (5) as prerogatives from the sacrificed animals the skin and a ham, as well as the income from the workshops that I have dedicated. He who holds the office by lot at a particular time must let (them) out for hire, and he must hand them over (10) all repaired when he leaves the job, or he must pay the cost of the reparation. (15) He is to be exempt from all liturgies during the time that he wears the crown. Having taken good care of the silverware of the god and the other (20) dedicated offerings, he must hand them over to the one entering into function. Farewell." 38 For royal letters addressed to the city of Pergamon, see IvP I, no. 18 (= Welles 1934, no. 23; sent by Eumenes I); IvP I, no. 248 (= Welles 1934, no. 67; by Attalos III; see below). These texts display an argumentative style by which the king explains the reasons of his decision to a public institution. Conversely, our text is comparable to MDAI(A) 24 (1899), 212-214, no. 36, a letter by Attalos, the brother of King Eumenes II, to an officer concerning the tax-exemption of the katoikoi of Apollo Tarsenos (Welles 1934, no. 47). The text begins with the motivations of the royal initiative, which might also have appeared in the letter about the priesthood in Pergamon, and then moves to a list of orders. 39 Welles 1934, 117: "As many royal letters resemble in style the city decree, and as 18 resembles a business contract, so this letter is stylistically parallel to a city law." This explanation is more convincing than the alternative one, equally proposed by Welles, that the letter was rewritten with a legal phraseology. If such an intermediate passage was needed, then one would wonder why the text was kept with a letter form at all. 40 On this charge, see above, n. 7.
king honoured by the priest. 41 The male gender of the priest, which is revealed by grammar (ὁ λαχών) and by the reference to the chlamys, a male garment, allows us to exclude the priestess of Athena, who would provide a plausible candidate for a sanctuary placed within the citadel. Among the major male gods of Attalid Pergamon, one can list Zeus, Asklepios, Dionysos Kathegemon, and Zeus Sabazios. The cult of Zeus received a new temple on the western side of the agora in the late 3 rd century, during the reign of Attalos I. 42 Asklepios had his temenos outside of the city, in the Kaikos valley. The early stages of its monumentalisation belong to the first half of the 3 rd century, but the sanctuary was considerably renovated and enlarged by Eumenes II after the partial destruction caused by Philip V in 202/1 BC. 43 Dionysos' sanctuary, plausibly identified with the temple located at the northern edge of the terrace flanking the orchestra of the theatre, is dated to the late reign of this king or to the early years of Eumenes II. 44 Finally, the cult of Zeus Sabazios was brought to Pergamon at a later date by Queen Stratonike and was installed by her son Attalos III inside the precinct of Athena. 45 Although this location could make Zeus Sabazios a plausible candidate for our letter, his priest was lifelong and directly appointed by the king, two details forcing us to reject his identification with the priesthood regulated in IvP I, no. 40. 46 Finally, the possibility that the text deals with the cult of a king cannot be excluded, but is not supported by the contemporaneous evidence: as we shall see, all the evidence about priests of the Attalids comes from the reign of Attalos III. The first editor of the inscription, M. Fränkel, interpreted the olive leaves and purple fillet (tainidion) used for the priest's headband as proof that he was in charge of the cult of Zeus. 47 This may be correct, although these attributes could also be understood in a broader sense as marks of the distinguished social status of the priest. 48 The priest is allowed to wear a chalmys-the traditional cloak of the Macedonian elite-of a white 41 On the findspot, see M. Fränkel in IvP I, p. 36: "In zwei Stücke gebrochen, die zusammen August 1883 unmittelbar südwestlich vom Burgtor gefunden sind." 42 Steurenagel 2015, 372. Welles 1934 argues that the dedication of Zeus' temple can be seen as the watershed between Attalos' early dedications commemorating his victories against the Galatians, which are addressed to Athena alone (IvP I, nos. 20-28, 39) and possibly later dedications mentioning Zeus first, as corecipient (IvP I, nos. 29, 33-37). 43 CGRN 206), the material features of the stephanos attributed to the priest of Asklepios are not specified, but it is explicitly stated (ll. 10-12) that wearing the wreath was the visual mark of the priest's social distinction. colour expressing his ritual purity. 49 The possibility of displaying extraordinary clothes and purple attributes was a privilege granted by Hellenistic kings to their high-ranking collaborators. 50 The white colour of the chlamys also points to social distinction. Following a Persian precedent, 51 Alexander wore a purple chiton with white decorations (mesoleukos), which he combined with a Macedonian chlamys also of purple colour. 52 In Hellenistic cities, the combination of white and purple advertises the encounter between political and religious prestige accorded to prominent priests. An interesting parallel is offered by Plutarch's report about the purple and white headband (στρόφιον οὐχ ὁλόλευκον, ἀλλὰ μεσοπόρφυρον) that characterised the outfit of the priest of Aratos established in Sicyon in 213/2 BC. 53 As a sacred plant, an olive wreath is also a common religious marker of the social prestige of priests, which can be associated with the cult of Zeus. 54 Apart from his clothes, the priest also has right to a privileged share (geras) in sacrificial animals: he is to receive the skin and foreleg, the most precious parts whose selling would partly repay the priest for the costs related to his duties. 55 After this comes the most appealing economic advantage of the priesthood: the exemption from all liturgies for the period in which the selected person exerted his charge. According to Sokolowski, the fact that the priest was to be exempted from all liturgies entailed that his function was not a civic one. This inference fails to convince, 56 and the opposite has higher chances to be true. To begin with, in light of IvP I, no. 18, we should not be surprised that an Attalid king could unilaterally regulate the functioning of civic magistracies and their honorific implications, religious or 'profane' as they could be. Secondly, the definition of an appealing set of socio-economic privileges would increase the prestige of the priesthood: members of wealthy families in Pergamon would look at this office as a great opportunity not only to increase their social status, but also to have their patrimony protected from expensive social services.
The extant part of the letter focuses on the economic tasks of the priest, who has to lease out the workshops dedicated by the king and cake care of the silver vessels and other consecrated objects that constituted the patrimony of the sanctuary. The priest was in charge of supervising the attribution of the workshops (ergasteria) dedicated by the king to their renters and was responsible for the good state of both the working spaces and precious goods owned by the god at the time when the priesthood was handed over to its next holder. The importance of this detail for the identification of the god honoured by the priest has not received sufficient attention from previous commentators. Comparison with similar Hellenistic evidence shows that workshops dedicated by kings were usually 49  hosted in stoai. 57 For instance, in a decree from 213 BC referring to the reconciliation between Antiochos III and Sardis after the repression of Achaios' revolt, the king showed that he cared for the recovery of the civic economy by accepting the request made by the Sardians that the income from the renting of the workshops in the stoa be tax-free as in other cities. 58 Similarly, the inscription on Attalos II's stoa in Athens explicitly mentions that the king's dedication to Athena comprised the monument with its spaces for boutiques and workshops. 59 The situation evoked by these texts is similar to our text from Pergamon, except that in this case, the income produced by the workshops was placed under the direct management of the priest. 60 This specific function establishes a personal link between the king and the future holders of the priesthood, confirming the great importance the Attalids acknowledged to intervening in the religious life of the city to establish direct control over its elites. The central place of the ergasteria in the financing of the cult leads us to the question of which monumental porch our inscription could refer to. Between the 3 rd and 2 nd century BC, the upper citadel of Pergamon hosted various buildings with economic purposes which, however, did not exist all at the same time (Fig. 1). If we imagine to descend the citadel's slope from north to south, the first stoai we would encounter are those surrounding the temenos of Athena. The monumentalisation of Athena's terrace belongs to an architectural programme started under Attalos I and completed by the monumental gate of Eumenes II. 61 However, the annexes of the sanctuary did not have an economic purpose but hosted the Pergamon library, archive, and art collections. 62 The second relevant building is the long two-storey Marktbau located immediately south of the wall of Athena's terrace, on the street connecting the citadel with the agora. A commercial function has been convincingly proposed for this building, but its chronology has come under question. Its construction is traditionally dated to the second half of the 3 rd century (reign of Attalos I), but a recent hypothesis has suggested that the building might be part of the city plan of the late Classical period. 63 In any case, this building was later destroyed and replaced, probably under Eumenes II, by a smaller structure composed of twelve rooms, 57 Robert 1984, 496-499;Kaye 2016, 350-355. 58 Gauthier 1989, 47-48, no. 3 (= SEG 39.1285; 213 BC), ll. 9-11: ἀπολύο|μεν δὲ ὑμᾶς καὶ τοῦ ἐνοικίου οὗ τελεῖτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἐργαστηρίων, εἴ|περ καὶ αἱ ἄλλαι πόλεις μὴ πράσσονται. Cf. commentary to PHRC 003. Kaye 2016, 551-553 concinvincly challenges Gauthier's hypothesis that Hellenistic kings built stoai in Asia Minor cities as a way to multiply royal income; rather, the situation in Sardis must have been exceptional as the king had plausibly confiscated the workshops (as he had done with half of private houses, and possibly with the gymnasium) as part of the punishment of the rebellious city. 59 60 The use of the income generated by a stoa for activities related to a sanctuary is testified by the decrees I.Didyma, no. 479-480. These texts reveal that the shops hosted in the massive stoa dedicated by Antiochos I on the agora of Miletos (299/8 BC) were rented to pay architectural works at the sanctuary of Apollo at Didyma. However, this case only offers a partial parallel to Pergamon: income produced by the stoa was directly administered by the city through its treasurers and prytanis and the architectural planning in Didyma was subject to the political decision of the Demos (I. Didyma,no. 479, 61 See the overview by Coarelli 2016, 61-77, with the previous references. 62 Ohlemutz 1968, 57-58. 63 Compare Rheidt 1992, 279 (under Attalos I)   a b c the so-called Zwölfkammerbau. 64 The shape of this later edifice and its division in a series of modular spaces opened on the final section of the main street to the citadel provides a first possible match for the ergasteria mentioned in our inscription. On the other hand, this building was not topographically linked with any known sanctuary of the Pergamon citadel. Conversely, both criteria of the economic function and spatial link with a major sanctuary are fulfilled by a third monumental complex: the stoai embracing the upper agora, which hosted the sanctuary of Zeus. 65 To date, the eastern part of Pergamon's upper agora has received limited archaeological investigation and the function of the architectural spaces located in this area remains obscure: they might have hosted some yet unidentified public buildings of Attalid Pergamon, such as the prytaneion whose location near the agora is implied by the ritual activities regulated in the decree IvP I, no. 246, issued for Attalos III upon his return from a victorious military campaign. 66 Conversely, the economic function of the south-western stoa is accepted by scholars and has contributed to the image of the 2 nd -century agora of Pergamon as a multi-functional space combining religious (Zeus' sanctuary), political (the Nomophylakion), and commercial activities.
Although the evidence does not solve every doubt about the identification of the ergasteria mentioned in IvP I, no. 40, I believe the south-western stoa of the agora provides a more suitable match than the Zwölfkammerbau because of its immediate spatial association with the temple, which may reflect their functional link. This lends more weight to the identification of the god with Zeus. However, since it is commonly accepted that both the Zwölfkammerbau and the Hallenbauten of the upper agora were erected under Eumenes II, 67 at first sight our identification of the workshops contradicts the accepted date of our inscription under the reign of Attalos I.
A palaeographic reassessment of the stone may prove decisive for a better contextualisation of the dossier. The opinion expressed by the first editor of the stone, M. Fränkel, who dated the inscription to the reign of Attalos I (240-197 BC) on palaeographic grounds, has won general consensus among later scholars. However, in a recent reappraisal of the writing features of Attalid inscriptions between the late-3 rd and the mid-2 nd century I have pointed out that various arguments make a slightly later date equally acceptable, and even preferable. 68 To begin with, high-quality royal texts often display a conservative writing. Occasionally, the lettering can even take a clearly archaising style, as for the stele with the letters of Attalos II and Attalos III about the priests of Dionysos Kathegemon and Zeus Sabazios,published in 135 BC (IvP I,no. 248). 69 Secondly, IvP I, no. 40 shows two ways of writing alpha, with both straight and slightly bowed crossbar (Fig. 2). Comparison with texts written between the end of Attalos I's reign and the beginning of Eumenes II's reveals that this double form of A can be interpreted as an intermediate phase between 65 This hypothesis was already briefly evoked by Robert 1984, 499;cf. Bielfeldt 2010, 175-176. However, to date this identification has been at odds with the dating of the inscription IvP I, no. 40 to the reign of Attalos I, whereas the agora stoai are dated to Eumenes II's. 66 IvP I, no. 246; see Caneva 2018 for a reappraisal of this text; on the ritual honours for Attalos connected with the agora and the prytaneion, see esp. Caneva 2019, 175-177 and2020a, 155-157. On epigraphic sources mentioning the prytaneion of Pergamon, see Miller 1978, 204-205. For an overview of the attempts to identify the site of the building, see Caneva 2019, 17, n. 100. On the possible political function of the eastern side of the agora, cf. Bielfeldt 2010, 169-183;Sielhorst 2015, 141. 67 Rheidt 1992, 263;Bielfeldt 2010, 177;Rheidt 2015, 303, Pirson 2017, 70. 68 Caneva 2020b As pointed out by Welles 1934, 264, this dossier shares various palaeographic features with texts from the mid-3 rd century. the texts of the reign of Attalos I, where A is generally written with a straight crossbar, and those of the full 2 nd century where A consistently displays a broken crossbar. These observations make it plausible that the priesthood's regulation is contemporaneous to Eumenes II's dedication of the stoai on the agora. By matching the archaeological and epigraphic data, I argue that the letter IvP I, no. 40 is likely to concern the regulation of the priesthood of Zeus. It reflects the achievement, under Eumenes II, of a grand architectural programme inaugurated by his father. Similar to the architectural chronology of the monumentalisation of Athena's terrace, it is plausible that the reorganisation of the western part of the agora as a sanctuary of Zeus, inaugurated by Attalos with the erection of the temple, was completed by Eumenes with the consecration of stoai that hosted activities associated with the sanctuary itself. In this case, the mainly religious and cultural functions of Athena's stoai were replaced by professional and commercial activities more in line with the purpose of the agora. Moreover, although the plan of Zeus' temple can be ascribed to Attalos, it is plausible that his son took care that the completion of the architectural project was accompanied by the promotion of the social prestige of Zeus' new priesthood.
The last point to consider is the sortition system by which the priest was selected. Given the prestige accorded to the priesthood and the economic value of the structures and goods which it supervised, it is difficult to assume that every citizen of Pergamon shared the same chance to have access to this office. The egalitarian ideology of 5 th -century Athens would be out of place in the hierarchical socio-political milieu of a Helle nistic city, even more so considering that Pergamon was a royal residence. Regardless of the duration of the priestly charge, about which we have no precise information, 70 I would argue that the sortition system worked on the basis of a shortlist of candidates previously scrutinised and deemed suitable for their economic wealth and social prestige. 71 If this is the case, then the mechanism leading to the attribution of this highly attractive priesthood would also fulfil the purpose of supporting the consolidation of a civic elite characterised by a strong bond of gratitude and loyalty towards the dynasty. In this respect, the king set the premises for an aristocratic egalitarianism that granted powerful families in Pergamon equal access to the priesthood of Zeus and strengthened their identity as a closed circle of privileged peers personally associated with the king.

Multiplication: New priesthoods between Eumenes II and Attalos III
The evidence from the decades between Apamea and the end of the dynasty (188-133 BC) testifies to the multiplication of priesthoods playing a central role in the relationships between civic elites and the royal court in Pergamon. The early history of the link between Dionysos and the dynasty probably dates back to Attalos I. 72 Although the epiclesis Kathegemon is distinctively associated with the cult of Dionysos in Pergamon, the growing importance of this god under Attalos I can be explained in relation to a plurality 70 But see commentary to CGRN 124: the fact that the priest must restore the workshops or pay for restoration when exiting the charge excludes the hypothesis of a life-long priesthood. 71 According to Welles 1934, 116, the eligible social categories could be defined in the lost section of the text. On the preliminary evaluation of candidates for civic offices in Hellenistic Asia Minor, see Dmitriev 2005, 157-159. On the combination of pre-selection and sortition as a suitable method to appoint public charges in aristocratic systems, see Horster 2012, 168-173. 72 On prophetic texts associating Attalos I and Dionysos, see Diod. 34.13 (oracle from Delphi; cf. Suda, s.v. Attalos) and Paus. 10.15.2-3 (prophecy of Phaennis, from Epirus); Michels 2011, 131-133. To this period (possibly to the yeas 220s) dates the dedication of the statue of a dancing Satyr to Dionysos and Attalos I by a distinguished royal collaborator, Dionysodoros of Sicyon (SEG 39.1334, with improvements in Lebek 1990on Dionysodoros, Savalli-Lestrade 1998, 125, no of motivations and geographical contexts. The prophecies recorded by Diodorus and Pausanias, which establish a mythical kinship between Attalos I Dionysos, point to Delphi and Epirus respectively. Moreover, the fact that in the period c. 228-204 Attalos controlled the city of Teos, the traditional seat of the Technitai of Dionysos from Ionia and Hellespont, may have played a role in the growing interest of the king in this god. The architectural programme of the temple of Dionysos in Teos dates to these years, 73 thus it is roughly contemporaneous to Dionysos' temple erected on the Theaterterrasse in Pergamon. Dionysos' cult and its special association with the dynasty gained momentum under Eumenes II. At this time, Teos entered once again the sphere of influence of Pergamon and the evidence about the Dionisiac guild of artists shows the denomination "Technitai of Dionysos from Ionia and Hellespont and of Dionysos Kathegemon." 74 A detachment of the guild may have had its seat in the Attalid capital at this time, but the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon existed in Pergamon independently from the Technitai. The above-mentioned epigraphic dossier IvP I, no. 248 was published by the city of Pergamon inside Athena's sanctuary to display three royal letters of religious content, one from Attalos II to his cousin Athenaios (I) in Cyzicus (142 BC) 75 and two from Attalos III, respectively addressed to the cities of Cyzicus and Pergamon (135 BC). 76 These letters provide crucial information about the existence and functioning of the lifelong priesthood of Dionysos Kathegemon. In particular, they reveal that this priest was directly appointed by the kings. Euemenes II had granted the priesthood of Dionysos to Athenaios' son-in-law Sosandros, a high-ranking courtier who could claim the prestigious status of syngenes of the royal family and syntrophos of Attalos II. 77 After carrying out his priestly tasks in a commendable way, on one edition of Dionysos' festival Trieteris, Sosandros fell ill and his son Athenaios (II) was appointed by Attalos II as a substitute to guide the procession and accomplish other rituals. After Sosandros' death, Attalos II and his nephew Attalos III considered Athenaios 73 Attalid control over Teos was briefly interrupted by Achaios in the years c. 222-218. On Teos under Attalos I, see Allen 1983, 46-48;Le Guen 2001, I, 204;Adak 2021, 252. On the construction of Dionysos' temple in Teos, Adak 2021, 251, with the previous references. On the interaction between Attalos, civic institutions, and the Dionysiac Artists in late-3 rd century Teos, see Le Guen 2001, 202-203, no. 39 (= SEG 2.580;c. 210 BC), where the city purchases a plot of land and consecrates it as a tax-free property of the Technitai; half of the sum necessary for this procedure is taken from a royal fund contributing to the costs of civic management:  I, 253-256, nos. 49-52, and II, 30-31;Michels 2011, 130-131;Chameroy -Savalli-Lestrade 2016, 267-268. 75 Attalos and Athenaios were cousins via the king's mother Apollonis, who came from an aristocratic family from Cyzicus. See Savalli-Lestrade 1998, 147, for the identification of Athenaios (I) with the homonymous member of the royal council mentioned in Attalos II's letter to Attis, the priest at Pessinous (OGIS 315,. Alternatively, this Athenaios could be the king's youngest brother: see Melloni 2018, 192-193 for an overview of the debate. 76 The three letters are preceded by a decree of Pergamon stipulating their publication on stone. Each letter is discussed separtely by Welles 1934, nos. 65-67. 77 This Sosandros possibly participated in a diplomatic mission for Eumenes II, see IG IX 2, 512. On his military functions, see Polyb. 32.15.10 (liberation of Elaia against Prusias II of Bithynia, under Attalos II).
(II) a valid successor to the priesthood of Dionysos Kathe gemon. 78 A statue base dedicated by Attalos II to Dionysos Kathegemon was meant to honour the god's priest. The name, lost in lacuna, must have been that of either Sosandros or Athenaios. 79 The dossier of Dionysos Kathegemon once again deals with a cult and priesthood that served the city but was directly controlled by the ruling dynasty. The kings appointed the priest of a god of great importance for the royal family and the fact that this charge was assigned to a family of close collaborators and relatives of the kings points to court dynamics as an important factor in the integration of foreign elites in the aristocracy of mid-2 nd century Pergamon. The same process is exemplified by the dossier concerning the management of the cult of Zeus Sabazios. The cult of this Anatolian god had been brought to Pergamon by the Cappadocian Queen Stratonike, possibly under Eumenes II, although the dossier only deals with the period post 159/8 BC: it refers that Attalos II and his nephew Attalos III granted the priesthood of this god to Athenaios II when his father-in-law Sosander was still alive. Later on, Athenaios held both priesthood of Zeus Sabazios and Dionysos Kathegemon. This combination of priesthoods must depend on the prestige enjoyed by Athenaios at court but also on similarities shared by the two cults, such as the celebration of mystery rites. 80 Finally, under the reign of Attalos III, the king took up his mother's role as promoter of the cult of Zeus Sabazios by establishing it in the sanctuary of Athena and requesting that the institutions of Pergamon would register the regulations concerning this cult, including its hereditary priesthood assigned to Athenaios (II), among the sacred norms of the city. The fact that Attalos III saw it normal that his prostagma could almost automatically become a hieros nomos of the city shows how strong Attalid control over the religious life of Pergamon remained until the end of the dynasty. 81 Finally, this overview of the social profile of Athenaios (II) would not be complete without discussing an intriguing text that might shed light on yet another priestly office fulfilled by this high-ranking courtier during the reign of Attalos III. The dating formula of the honorific decree for the gymnasiarch Me[…] displays a long list of priesthoods related to the cult of the dynastic family. The text is fragmentary, but the following priests can be identified: the prytanis and priest (of Philetairos?); the priests of Attalos II Philadelphos, of the Theoi Philadelphoi (Eumenes II and Attalos II), of the Theai Eusebeis (plausibly the queens Apollonis and Stratonike), and one of the living King Attalos III 78 IvP I, no. 248, ll. 5-25 (= Welles 1934, no. 65). On the family of Athenaios, see Savalli-Lestrade 1998, 129, no. 11;146-148, nos. 35-36, and 153, no. 46;Michels 2011, 125-127;Chameroy -Savalli-Lestrade 2016, 240, discussing Athenaios II as a metroxenos, the son of a Pergamene father and a mother from Cyzicus. 79 IvP I, no. 221. What survives of this marble base was found reused in the eastern part of the Byzantine walls. It certainly came from the area between the agora and Athena's terrace, but the place where the statue was originally exposed cannot be better specified. 80 Given the strong royal interest in these two gods, it is probable that participation in their mysteries became important for those who wanted to claim membership of the restricted social circle of court aristocracy. The celebration of Dionysiac rituals in the royal palaces is evoked by some details of the decoration in the peristyle house known as Palace V: see Ohlemutz 1968, 94-96;Salzmann 2018. On the link between Dionysos and Hellenistic elites in Attalid Pergamon, see the dedication of the Bakchoi to Eumenes (cf. n. 74). 81 IvP I, no. 248, esp. ll. 58-60 on the registration of the content of the royal prostagmata among Pergamon's hieroi nomoi.
Philometor and Euergetes. 82 Apart from the eponymous prytanis, none of these priestly charges is known from the evidence before the reign of Attalos III. This suggests that the last years of the dynasty were marked by a considerable effort to stress the legitimacy of the king and his family through religious honours. 83 This process went as far as to found more than one priesthood for each sovereign: at least for Attalos II, we can identify two cults, respectively for the king alone and together with his brother Eumenes II in the couple of the Theoi Philadelphoi. For us, the most important detail is that the person holding the priesthood of Attalos III is called Athenaios. This led the first editor of the text, P. von Jacobsthal, to restore the genitive Σωσάνδρου in the following lacuna and identify the priest with Athenaios (II).
To date, this identification remains a hypothesis, yet a plausible one. To begin with, the possibility that a high-standing elite member could gather multiple priestly roles at once finds parallels in the contemporaneous evidence from other cities in Asia Minor. 84 Secondly, we have seen that the priestess Eurydike, who possibly served the cult of Queen Stratonike, might be the daughter of a close collaborator of Eumenes II: this would provide us with a second case where the member of a family belonging to the court elite was chosen for the priesthood of a ruler cult. Comparison with Eurydike's office also prompts another fundamental observation. In a general reassessment of the priests of Attalid ruler cults through the decree IvP I, no. 246, P. Hamon noticed that this text regulated the ritual duties of the priest of Attalos III, but did not mention either the foundation of this office or its criteria of appointment. This led Hamon to conclude that the priest existed before the city passed the decree to honour the king for his victorious military campaign. 85 We can add that Eurydike held a lifelong priesthood, which places the cult she supervised in proximity to the cults of Dionysos and Zeus Sabazios rather than those for Athena and Zeus. Since in 2 nd -century Pergamon lifelong priesthoods were directly assigned by the king to members of court families, by accepting the interpretation of Eurydike's priesthood in relation to the cult of Stratonike we could surmise that the same mechanism regulated the appointment of some, if not all, priesthoods of the ruler cult under Attalos III. By this I do not intend to defend the old idea that Attalid ruler cults were imposed by the king on a passive city. 86 On the contrary, I believe the multiplication of priests dedicated to the religious honours for the Attalids would provide a suitable do ut des strategy to strengthen the bonds between the city and the king. Even more importantly for the present discussion, it would multiply the number of members of the civic elite that could increase their contacts with the court by having access to the prestige of a priesthood closely related to the king. In other words, I propose that the sudden multiplication of priesthoods for the Attalids under the last king was part of a broader trend leading to the multiplication of contacts between the court and civic elites. The same process appears at work when we recall the 82 MDAI(A) 33 (1908), 375, no. 1, ll. 1-5: ἐπὶ  There is another argument supporting the impression that ruler cults offered an efficient mechanism to fruitfully combine Attalos III's need for dynastic legitimacy, the elites' personal aspirations to power, and the political agenda of the civic institutions of Pergamon. Regardless of whether the priesthood of Attalos III belonged to Athenaios son of Sosandros or an homonym, the decree IvP I, no. 246 adds that the holder of this office also served as agonothetes. 87 We do not know whether this was a charge associated with all civic contests or more specifically with the cult of Attalos III. Be that as it may, the liturgical character of agonothesia makes it clear that only wealthy citizens could afford investing part of their economic power in this civic task with the purpose to augment their socio-political capital. 88 The same can be said of the other religious officer mentioned in IvP I, no. 246: the "stephanephoros of the Twelve Gods and of the god King Eumenes." 89 The functions assigned to the stephanephoros enable us to identify a master of ceremonies that could potentially attend and lead any ritual event of the city. The decree focuses on the responsibilities of the stephanephoros concerning the honours for Attalos III: he is mentioned before the civic priests on the day of the royal apantesis, at the moment of the opening of the temples' doors to burn incense and pray for the king's wellbeing and power; during the daily incense offering to Attalos on the altar of Zeus Soter, the stephanephoros takes part in the ritual and is mentioned even before the priest of the king. It is clear that the ubiquity and prominent role assigned to the stephanephoros would make this office a particularly expensive charge. In the eyes of a high-standing elite member, however, these costs could be compensated by the rewarding social and political prestige it would grant to the holder.
To sum up, the multiplication of priesthoods and liturgical offices related to cultic honours for the Attalids should not be seen as the sign of the city's submission to the king. On the contrary, the multiplication of offices honouring members of the dynasty allowed the Demos of Pergamon to achieve two crucial goals at once: gaining negotiation power with the king and satisfying the elites' request for an increased space in the institutional life of the city. Temporary liturgical functions and the possibility of financing public monuments further broadened the spectrum of economic initiatives enabling elite members to advertise their wealth and loyalty to the king and the fatherland.

Confirmation: The priest of Asklepios
The cult of Asklepios is another sphere of the religious life of Pergamon where proximity to the royal house played a crucial role in the construction of local elites and in their interactions with civic institutions, as suggested by the decree attributing this hereditary 87 IvP I, no. 246, l. 12: ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἀ̣ γωνοθέτης. 88  priesthood to the genos of Asklepiades, son of Archias. 90 The date of this decree is debated: some scholars place it in the Attalid period (early or mid-2 nd century) whereas others prefer a lower chronology, soon after the end of the dynasty. 91 What is certain is that Asklepiades' family was part of the Pergamon elite as early as the beginning of Eumenes II's reign. A statue base originally dedicated on one of the major terraces of the citadel (Athena's sanctuary or the surroundings of the Great Altar) represents a certain Aristaichmos son of Archias. The statue was dedicated by an unknown person, son of Asklepiades, to his uncle. 92 Under Eumenes II, Archias son of Asklepiades, priest of Asklepios in Pergamon, was sent to Epidauros as a royal ambassador and his commendable behaviour led this city to appoint Archias proxenos and theorodokos in 191 BC. The text intriguingly acknowledges the role played by Archias' ancestors in importing the cult of Asklepios from Epidauros. This confirms Pausanias' statement about the arrival of the god to Pergamon on the initiative of a certain Archias son of Aristaichmos. 93 By combining the literary and epigraphic evidence, it becomes apparent that the priesthood of Asklpeios must have continuously remained in the house of Archias from the time of the foundation of this cult in the sanctuary in the Kaikos valley. I believe this scenario lends credit to the hypothesis that the decree regulating the hereditary status of Asklepios' priesthood was not issued under one of the last Attalids, when it would be difficult to see the necessity to confirm the old privilege of this powerful family with a strong connection with the court. Conversely, such an initiative would make sense in the difficult period after 133, when the family of Asklepiades may have sought for confirmation of their ancestral privilege in order to keep playing a prominent role in their city. Considering the paramount importance of Asklepios' cult in the late Attalid and post-Attalid pantheon of Pergamon, 94 this decree sheds light on a major aspect of continuity in the composition of the city's elite between the periods before and after the war of Aristonikos.
The final point that deserves attention is that, according to IvP I, no. 246, under Attalos III the cult of Asklepios-his priest and treasure-were directly involved in the civic honours bestowed upon this king. 95 At the end of a victorious military campaign, Attalos encountered the welcoming procession of his citizens in the Asklepieion, where he dedicated a part of the war booty to the god. This dedication must have been accomplished under the supervision of Asklepiades-or one of his ancestors, depending on how much time we assume to have passed between IvP I, no. 246 and IvP II, no. 251who was the civic priest of the god and a member of an elite family enjoying personal bonds with the king. In compliance with the new cultic honours granted to Attalos after this event, the priest of Asklepios became an active participant in the celebration of the civic ritual honours for the king: a cultic statue of Attalos was placed inside the temple of Asklepios, representing the king cuirassed and standing on the war booty; on the occasion of the annual procession commemorating the apantesis of the victorious king, the priest of Asklepios would lead the procession moving from the prytaneion to the "temenos of Asklepios and the King" and celebrate a sacrifice followed by a banquet of the civic magistrates. The celebration was financed by an ad hoc allocation of money from the civic funds used for the cult of Asklepios.

Conclusions
The analysis of the hereditary priesthood of Asklepios and the close link its holders enjoyed with the royal family urges us to overcome a schematic distinction between court and civic hierarchy and functions. It looks like in Attalid Pergamon, the cult of Asklepios always functioned in relation to a lifelong and hereditary priesthood since the foundation of the cult in the early 3 rd century. This privilege is particularly interesting for us because in principle, the state took over the administration of an imported cult once it was added to the public pantheon. The archaeological data show that since its origins, the sanctuary of Asklepios in the Kaikos valley enjoyed dynastic patronage, a detail revealing that this cult very soon obtained public status. The fact that royal promotion of the cult coexisted with the priestly privilege of one family of the Pergamon elite can be justified by the close bonds this family enjoyed with the court. On the other hand, the fact that the priesthood of Asklepios was not merely a private business between the royal house and one elite family is shown by the civic management of the cult. This is made evident by the oath sworn by the city to confirm the hereditary nature of the priesthood, but also by various details from the decree honouring Attalos III: the sum covering the costs of the rituals celebrated by the priest of Asklepios in honour of the king were to be allocated by the civic "treasurer of the inalienable revenues from the fund of the Asklepieion;" moreover, supervising the sacrificial banquet in honour of Attalos was the task of the civic hieronomoi. 96 All in all, the sharing of competences that emerges from the dossier concerning Asklepios' cult perfectly exemplifies the triangular relationship between the ruling dynasty, the administrative institutions of the polis, and the interests of a family occupying an important place in the court and civic elite.
The process turning Archias' priesthood of Asklepios into a hereditary one can be better understood by comparing it with the later establishment of the cult of Dionysos Kathegemon. The importance of Dionysos in the pantheon of Pergamon is closely related to Attalid interest in this god. Therefore, the cult appears to have been firmly under royal control. We do not know the name of the first priest(s) of Dionysos under Attalos I, but we are informed that under Eumenes II, a lifelong priesthood was granted to a relative of the king, Sosandros; his office was later passed over to his son Athenaios (II) by means of a royal appointment, which turned it into a hereditary priesthood. Later on, the same Athenaios also received from the king the priesthood of Zeus Sabazios, another god imported and controlled by the royal family.
The priesthoods of Asklepios, Dionysos, and Sabazios point to the entanglement between the royal family and the highest-ranking members of their court. Moreover, the fact that the family of Athenaios came from Cyzicus shows that cults directly linked with the court could play an important role in the integration of foreigners in the elite of Pergamon. The situation of the priesthood regulated by IvP I, no. 40 is different. This priesthood, probably associated with Zeus, was another important civic office with an appealing set of socio-economic advantages for its holders. In this case, however, royal control did not go as far as to let the king personally appoint the priest, but consisted in defining the functions and criteria of appointment that the city should implement. The priest was selected by sortition, plausibly on the basis of a shortlist of persons coming from prestigious and wealthy families. As seen above, this was by no means a democratic procedure, but rather an aristocratic one by which the king offered distinguished families equal opportunities to increase their social prestige and wealth through a system of rotation for the access to the priesthood. It is interesting to compare this priest with the priestess of Athena Nikephoros. The information we have about these priesthoods sheds light on different aspects of their functioning. Concerning Zeus, we know that the priest was selected by sortition but we ignore the duration of his office. Conversely, it is plausible that the priestess of Athena remained in charge for four years, but we do not know how she was appointed. The fact this cult predates the establishment of the Attalid dynasty makes it possible that the appointment system was more directly controlled by the Demos: perhaps the priestess was elected by civic institutions, but sortition is equally possible and could reflect either pre-Attalid civic traditions or a royal reform.
Comparison between the priesthoods of Zeus and Athena and those discussed above points to what we could describe as a dual system of interaction between court and city in the construction of the civic elites of Attalid Pergamon. Royal control over some priestly offices was more direct, implying that access to priesthoods was reserved for high-standing members of the court by means of royal appointment. The holders of these priesthoods were citizens of Pergamon, although the case of the metroxenos Sosandros shows that proximity to the royal family could favour the integration in the civic elite of persons with mixed origins. Conversely, other priesthoods were accessible to a broader social group composed of elite families that did not necessarily rank among the first friends of the kings. However, it is important to point out that this dual system did not entail a static separation between different social categories. On the contrary, the analysis of priesthoods and liturgies associated with the ruler cults has revealed that the boundaries between court and civic elites were porous: court-related families could use their prestige to obtain prominent positions in the civic institutional hierarchy and, conversely, the multiplication of priesthoods and liturgies provided members of the civic elite with several opportunities to climb the social ladder and gain access to the court.
As a conclusion, it is important to stress once again that the leading families of Attalid Pergamon were not statically divided into two groups belonging either to the court or to the city. Of course, some courtiers were and remained foreigners who could not play an institutional role at the city level. 97 However, the evidence suggests that for its largest part, the civic elite was the result of a mutually enriching interaction and overlap between these two spheres. This also explains why for a long time, the honorific tradition of Attalid Pergamon conceded little space to figures who were not associated with the court: if the honoured persons always displayed some form of contact with the ruling house, it is because this was the socio-political requisite to play a prominent role in the public life of a city that was also a royal residence. On the other hand, late Attalid developments in the logic of visibility and honour for civic elites confirm that the institutions of Pergamon acquired new awareness of their power and prestige and learnt how to use individual ambitions by turning elite members into collaborators in the establishment of positive relationships between the city and the dynasty. This process progressively replaced the previous pattern by which the Demos honoured court members for their merits towards the king and the city (in this hierarchical order), by shifting the focus on the elites collaborating with the Demos for the common goal of gaining contractual power with the king. The resulting bond of reciprocity between civic institutions and elites explains why late Attalid Pergamon looks much more similar to other cities in contemporaneous Asia Minor. Ultimately, this process taught elite families and institutions how to join forces to establish fruitful negotiations with a superior power regardless of whether this operated inside the city (the Attalid dynasty) or outside (Rome). In this respect, the reign of Attalos III displays features that allow us to identify this transitional phase as the political incubator of the future ruling class governing Pergamon between 133/2 and the Mithridatic war.