Dionysiac Associations among the Dedicants of Hosios kai Dikaios Revisiting Recently Published Inscriptions from the Mihalıççık District in North-West Galatia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four new epigraphic finds from the Mihalıççık District encourage us to reconsider the role that villages and associations played among those who made dedications to the divine pair Hosios kai Dikaios. According to the distribution of the evidence, the cult originated and remained concentrated on the north-east of Phrygia Epiktetos, but spread all over western Asia Minor and even beyond. After surveying the documents known previously especially thanks to M. Ricl (1991; 1992a; 2008) and classifying elements of the dedication formula, slightly improved readings and interpretations are offered for the five inscriptions (re-) published by H. Güney (2018a): twice, the imperial slave Chryseros is attested as fulfilling vows to the gods together with his fellow villagers (nos. 2, 3); three other instances, however, involve associations: perhaps a Β̣[ακχῖ]ον, the obscure Παρ[---]διᾶται, and the Κταηνοῖ, further specified as the Βα<κ>χῖον τὸ περὶ Τύραννον (nos. 4, 5, 1). The combined evidence catalogued by Ricl and Güney adds up to some 185 dedications to Hosios kai Dikaios, including, in their views, 17 cases that originated from village communities, compared to only two by associations. The present study argues instead that the ascertained evidence for villages is only six and that this is on par with the documentation of associations. All six of the latter can be identified as Dionysiac thiasoi.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".