Dignas, Beate, and Kai Trampedach, eds. 2008. Practitioners of the Divine: Greek Priests and Religious Figures from Homer to Heliodorus. Hellenic Studies Series 30. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebook:CHS_DignasB_and_TrampedachK_eds.Practitioners_of_the_Divine.2008.
5. Priests—Dynasts—Kings: Temples and Secular Rule in Asia Minor*
1. Archelaus at the Corycian Cave
2. Temple States and Kings
In this case, too, the priest—in effect acting as the plenipotentiary of the king—was master only over the temple servants (who were markers of the Pontic and Cappadocian temple states as well as of Pisidian Antioch), while he commanded the temple territory as well as his personal territory (as a fief?).
By describing Pompey’s break with tradition precisely, Strabo sheds a brighter light on the traditional order of Comana than any other source. Central for our question concerning the rule of the priests in the temple states is the fact that Archelaus required a double competence—after the Pontic king had gone—in order to rule over a territory which exceeded the temple land and included a population which did not consist exclusively of temple servants. On the one hand, he became priest of Ma and master of the temple servants; on the other, he became leader (hēgemōn)—a strongly artificial title—of the remaining inhabitants of the territory. Effective rule over both groups could obviously not be achieved with the traditional priestly office in a temple state alone. This, however, allows only one conclusion for the pre-Pompeian period: even under the Mithradatids, the priests never possessed sovereignty over those who were not temple slaves; moreover, it was not within the horizon of expectations of the participants, for otherwise the artificial title of Archelaus would simply have been unnecessary. In these circumstances we cannot speak of a traditional connection between sacred authority and territorial rule in the temple state of Comana. Archelaus, who, unlike the priests in the kingdom of Pontus, was expected to exercise real rule under Roman auspices, had to be more than a priest.
Yet this notion collides head-on with Strabo’s report, which makes it unequivocally clear that the end of the traditional priesthood came only with the reduction of Antiochia to a Roman colony in the time of Augustus (Strabo 12.8.14).  If one accepts the interpretation of a temple state put forward above, the problem solves itself: for the question, in what power-relationship the new polis stood to the old temple state, does not pose itself strictu sensu. Because the priest of Men could not exercise an overarching territorial rule just as his colleagues in Pontus and Cappadocia could not, and because the temple with its land and slaves was not dissolved in pre-Roman times, both units coexisted in the same place, like other combinations which were or would become common elsewhere in Asia Minor. Given the configuration we know about, anything else can simply not be expected.
3. Priest-Dynasts: Pessinous and Olba
Despite a whole series of mistakes and imprecisions,  Strabo here provides a framework within which other evidence can be accommodated. Several relevant points can thus be made:
- The temple rule of the Teucrids was organized as dunasteia, as a hereditary rule, based at the sanctuary of Zeus Olbius. The master of the temple was at the same time priest and dynast. 
- Rule over a cult meant the rule over a territory, which Strabo here seems to conceive as the whole of Rough Cilicia.
- Near the sanctuary was a city, Olba, which the cult could be understood to belong to.