Artemis and Asiarchs 339 minority, however, points to difficulties with the identification of high priests and asiarchs, and some would tentatively understand the asiarchs as municipal dignitaries (14). At this point some clarification may be in order: the imperial cult was normally not imposed by Roman rulers upon the provinces (Caligula is the notorious exception). The initiative came rather from the respective provincial assembly (in the province of Asia it was the koinovn th'" ΔAsiva" that represented the Greek cities in the province). This assembly applied, usually to the Senate, for permission to institute an imperial cult and to build a temple (cf. e.g. Tacitus, Ann. 4,15.37-38.55- 56). For the population — especially the elites — of the provinces, this was a means of expressing their loyalty to the Roman emperor, but also of integrating this new rule with its unprecedented super-human power into their traditional conceptual world of the Greek city-state. The modern distinction between religion and politics is thus rather unhelpful for comprehending the phenomenon of the imperial cult (15). HOËT-VAN CAUWENBERGHE) (Travaux et Recherches; Lille 2005) 15-30; EAD., “Sommi sacerdoti”, 548-550; F. KIRBIHLER, “Les grands-prêtres d’Éphèse: Aspects institutionnels et sociaux de l’asiarchie”, Pathways to Power. Civic Elites in the Eastern Part of the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Athens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 19 december 2005 (eds. A.D. RIZAKIS – F. CAMIA) (Tripodes 6; Atene 2008) 107-149. (14) Cf. C.G. BRANDIS, “Asiarches”, Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. G. WISSOWA) (Stuttgart 1896) II.2, 1564-1578; D. MAGIE, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ (Princeton 1950) II, 1300; R.A. KEARSLEY, “Asiarchs, Archiereis, and the Archiereiai of Asia”, GRBS 27 (1986) 183-192; ID., “M. Ulpius Apuleius Eurykles of Aezani: Panhellene, Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia”, Antichthon 21 (1987) 49-56; ID., “Some Asiarchs of Ephesos”, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1979 (ed. G.H.R. HORSLEY) (Macquarie University 1987) 46-55; EAD., “A Leading Family of Cibyra and Some Asiarchs”, Anatolian Studies 38 (1988) 43- 51; ID., “Asiarchs: Titulature and Function. A Reapprisal”, Studii Clasice 26 (1988) 57-65; ID., “Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia”, Epigraphica Anatolica 16 (1990) 69-80; FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros, 92-113; R.A. KEARSLEY, “The Asiarchs”, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting (eds. D.W.J. GILL – C. GEMPF) (Grand Rapids, MI – Carlisle 1994) II, 363-376; S.J. FRIESEN, “Asiarchs”, ZPE 126 (1999) 275-290; ID., “Highpriests of Asia Minor and Asiarchs. Farewell to the Identification Theory”, Steine und Wege (FS D. KNIBBE) (eds. P. SCHERRER – H. TAEUBNER – H. THÜR) (SÖAI 32; Wien 1999) 303-307; S. WITETSCHEK, “Paulus und die Asiarchen. Apg 19,31 im Streit der Historiker”, Gephyra 2 (2005) 59-72, esp. 66-68. (15) Cf. S.R.F. PRICE, Rituals and Power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) esp. 234-248; H.-J. KLAUCK, Die religiöse Umwelt des