As to the relation between the immigrant GauU and the older Phrygian inhabitants in Galatia, evidence fails ; but the analogy of similar conquests and the general facts of this case warrant some probable conclusions. It is not to be supposed that the older population was exterminated or expelled. The tiauhsh invaders were few. The total niunber that lirst entered Asia under Leonnorius and Lutarius is stated as 20,000, of whom only half were fighting men ; the rest were women and children (Livy, xxxviii. 16, borrowing from Poly- bius). Doubtless, other swarms followed, encour- aged by the success of the first ; hut that was the main army. In the continual wars and marches anil raids of the following 46 jears, the number of deaths was probably lar''er than the number of births ; and tne total Gallic population that was settled in Galatia, when its bounils were lixed by Atli'us about 2:)2, cannot have been numerous, in a country nearly 200 miles long, such a jiopula- tion must have been merely a small dominant caste amidst a much larger subject population ; and Van Gclder expresses the general opinion of historical investigators, that the Gallic invaders did not live in cities, or become agriculturists, but employed the natives as cultivators of the land, on condition of jjaying to the Gauls as lords of the soil a proportion of the produce, while the <on- querors occupied thiinselves in war and in pastur- age, taking according to the usual practice one- tliiid ol the land, and leaving two-thirds to the older jiupulation (Civsar, Bell. Gall. i. 31). As Lightfoot, in his edition of the Epistle, p. 9, rightly declares, the population consisted of Phr3-giani., Gauls, and Greeks, to whom were afterwards lulded a considerable sprinkling of Romans and a smaller number of Jews ; and Van Gelder rightly points out that the cities were mainly populated by the Phrygians, who practised the arts of peace and conuucted all trade, while the Gallic chiefs dwelt in their fortilied villages {(ppovpia, castclla), keepinj' up a rude barbaric magnilicence, and the mass of the Gauls led a pastoral and half-nomadic life when they were not engaged in war. As late as it.C. 189 tlie priests of the temple of Pe.ssinus were opposed to ttie Gauls, and welcomed the Roman army of Manlius as deliverers; but that would hardly have been jiossible, unless the city had been really Phrygian and not Gaulish.* Van Gelder,
• Kbrtc (AthfjiUrfi^ ifittheilufvjmd''^ Inst. 1S97, pp. 16 and 30) show's that Petwinus was not conquennt by the tlauls tiU some year between IMl and ltt4 ; and tie puh)i>ilies an inscription of atiout A.D. 80-f>0, whicli shows tliat of the ten leading; priests at Pcssinus five were Qauls and five bolunifed to the ori4;iaai
e4
GALATIA
GALATIA
p. 183, says of such cities as Tavmm, Pessiniis, Ancyra, ' those cities were in Galatia, but were not Gahitian cities; tliey preserved Phrygian cliaracter and Phrygian customs, now all'ected with a Grecian tinge.' All .lews, Greeks, and resident Komans would certainly be dwellers in the cities. In the governing cities, Ancyra, Tavium, Pessinus, a number of Gaulish families doubtless settled, and formed an aristocracy. Ancyra and Tavium, especially, were Gaulish strongholds from 250 onwards (Manlius occupied Ancyra in 189) ; but Pessinus was more purely Phrygian. But, even in Ancyra, indubitably, the mass of the lower and trading classes was Phrygian or Greek.
In B.C. 189 the Galatian tribes are pictured by Polybius and Livy as barbarians, devoid of any trace of Greek culture, lighting naked, without order or tactics, armed with swords and large wooden or wicker shields ; and their pastoral life, remote from cities and intercourse, long preserved their native customs. As the military power and the vigour of the Gaulish conquerors declined in the 2:;d and 1st centuries B.C., they perhaps began to mix more freely with the older popula- tion ; .ind the opinion has been expressed that they even adopted the native religion, on the ground that certain Gallic names occur at tiie great native sanctuaries, implying that Gallic families began to hold priesthoods : in the 2nd century the high priest of Pessinus, bearing the holy oflicial Phrygian title Atis, had a brother Aiorix, and in the 1st century Brogitarus was priest at Pessinus, while Dyteut us, son of Adiatorix, was priest at Comana Pontica under Augustus. But although some Gatilish nobles assumed tlie place and swayed the enormous power that lay in the hands of the priest-kings of the great nati\e temples,* it does not follow that the mass of tlie Gaulish people adopted the Phrygian religion.
Further, it has even been asserted by some recent eoliolars tlaat the Gauls adopted to a large extent the mauuers and customs of the Gr.i^co-Phrygian pojjulatioK, retaining not very much of their Gallic ways and habits in the 1st century after Christ ; but this opinion seems contrary to the evidence, and against natural probability.t The Gauls, though readilj^ civUizable, have not been quick to throw oft" national character and put on foreign character- istics. Moreover, they seem to have long retained the Gallic language, for Strabo mentions tluit all three tribes spoke the same language and had the same manners ; and so late as the 4th century after Christ, Jerome declares that they were bi- lingual, speaking Greek and a dialect like th.at used by the Treveri in Gaul (though changes had occurred).! Now, it is dittjcult to believe that a small caste amid a larger population could have adopted entirely the religion and customs of the surrounding population and yet retained their separate language. The Crst step in Hellenization was always the adoption of the Greek language. Moreover, Strabo, in speaking of their uniformity of character, evidently does not mean that they had all adopted the Grseco-Phrygian manners and ways, but distinctly implies that there was a common GaUie character among the various tribes. The ambition of their chiefs, who found that the shortest way to power lay in adopting the civilized