Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors 9004125787, 9789004125780

The neokoroi, or "temple-wardens", were Hellenized cities of the eastern Roman Empire who received that title

247 88 6MB

English Pages 481 Year 2004

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Neokoroi: Greek Cities and Roman Emperors
 9004125787, 9789004125780

Citation preview

NEOKOROI GREEK CITIES AND ROMAN EMPERORS

CINCINNATI CLASSICAL STUDIES NEW SERIES VOLUME IX

NEOKOROI GREEK CITIES AND ROMAN EMPERORS BY

BARBARA BURRELL

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2004

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Burrell, Barbara. Neokoroi : Greek cities and Roman emperors / by Barbara Burrell. p. cm. — (Cincinnati classical studies ; new ser., v. 9) Originally presented as the author’s thesis (doctoral—Harvard, 1980). Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12578-7 1. Cities and towns, Ancient—Turkey. 2. Greeks—Turkey—History—To 1500. 3. Emperor workshop—Rome. I. Title. II. Series. DS155.B87 2003 939’.2—dc22

2003065214

ISSN 0169-7692 ISBN 90 04 12578 7 © Copyright 2004 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

In memory of Florry and Harry Burrell Bluma Trell George Hanfmann

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS Illustrations and Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Map of the Neokoroi Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Introduction: Methodology i. General Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii. Forms of Evidence 1. Literary Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Numismatic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Epigraphic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Archaeological Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv. How to Use This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3 6 7 11 11 12

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION

i.

ii. iii. iv.

v.

Koinon of Asia Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia (Tiberius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia (Gaius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia (Nero) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia (Antoninus Pius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 7. Aizanoi in Phrygia (Commodus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia (Commodus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 9. Philadelphia in Lydia (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 10. Tralles in Lydia (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 11. Antandros in the Troad (Caracalla) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 12. Hierapolis in Phrygia (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 13. Magnesia in Ionia (Severus Alexander) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia (Tetrarchy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Bithynia Chapter 15. Nikomedia (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 16. Nikaia (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Galatia Chapter 17. Ankyra (Augustus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cities of Pamphylia Chapter 18. Perge (Vespasian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 19. Side (Valerian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 20. Aspendos (Gallienus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Macedonia Chapter 21. Beroia (Nerva) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 38 55 59 86 100 116 119 126 130 133 135 142 145 147 163 166 175 181 189 191

viii

vi. vii.

viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. xv.

contents Chapter 22. Thessalonike (Gordian III) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Pontus Chapter 23. Neokaisareia, Pontus Polemoniacus (Trajan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 24. Amaseia, Pontus Galaticus (Marcus Aurelius) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Cilicia Chapter 25. Tarsos (Hadrian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 26. Anazarbos (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 27. Aigeai (Severus Alexander) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Armenia Chapter 28. Nikopolis (Hadrian?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Thrace Chapter 29. Perinthos (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 30. Philippopolis (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Cappadocia Chapter 31. Kaisareia (Septimius Severus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of Phoenicia Chapter 32. Tripolis? (Elagabalus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia Chapter 33. Patara (third century?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 34. Akalissos (third century?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon of the Cities of (West-Central) Pontus Chapter 35. Herakleia (Philip) (with a note on the synod of theatrical artists) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syria Palaestina /Samaria Chapter 36. Neapolis (Philip) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pisidia Chapter 37. Sagalassos (Tetrarchy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

198 205 210 212 220 230 234 236 243 246 252 253 256 257 260 266

PART II: SUMMARY CHAPTERS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: The Development of Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 39. The Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temples Known Archaeologically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temples Shown on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temples in Urban Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cult Statues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cult Statues on Coins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emperors and their Cult Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emperors in Other Gods’ Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Temples of Gods that Gave Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 40. The Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brokers of Beneficence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agonistic Festivals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neokoria: City versus Koinon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

273 275 305 306 309 312 314 316 317 321 324 326 328 330 331 331 331 333 335 341

contents Chapter 41. The Koina and their Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon and Neokoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Koinon Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competition and Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rivalry and the Orators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roman Views of Rivalry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rival Cities, Rival Emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Later Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 42. The Roman Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Emperors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Augusti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provincial Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter 43. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix 343 344 346 349 350 351 354 355 356 357 357 359 361 366 367 370 372

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375 Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their Families Synoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities Indices Index of Literary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Index of Inscriptional Corpora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 Plates

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

This page intentionally left blank

illustrations and credits

ILLUSTRATIONS AND CREDITS On page xix: Map of the Neokoroi cities: by John Wallrodt and Marcie Handler. Temple and Temenos Plans: by Maroun Kassab and Irina Verkhovskaya. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Ankyra: Temple of Augustus and Rome. Ephesos: Temple of the Augusti. Miletos: Temple of Apollo at Didyma. Pergamon: Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan. Ephesos: Temple (of Hadrian?) (hypothetical). Pergamon: Round temple in Asklepieion. Kyzikos: Temple of Hadrian. Sagalassos: Temple of Antoninus Pius. Sardis: Temple of Artemis. Sardis: Pseudodipteros. Tarsos: temple at Donuktaâ. Neapolis: temple on Tell er-Ras. Aizanoi: Temple of Zeus. Ephesos: Temple of Artemis. Magnesia: Temple of Artemis Leukophryene. Miletos: temenos, Temple of Apollo at Didyma. Ephesos: temenos, Temple of the Augusti. Pergamon: temenos, Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan. Ephesos: temenos, Temple (of Hadrian?). Sagalassos: temenos, Temple of Antoninus Pius. Aizanoi: temenos, Temple of Zeus. Magnesia: temenos, Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.

Sculpture Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29.

Pergamon: fragments of colossi of Trajan or Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no.281/282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Pergamon: colossal head of Trajan, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Pergamon: colossal head of Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Ephesos: colossal head of Titus, Izmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. 670. Photo: Brian Rose. Ephesos: reconstruction, colossus of Titus. Drawing: Robert Hagerty. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, front with headdress. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

xi

xii

illustrations and credits

Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32. Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40. Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Fig. 43. Fig. 44. Fig. 45.

Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress right side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no.1936.3-10-1, front. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, front from below. Photo: Brian Rose. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, side view. Photo: Brian Rose. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, back. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Lucius Verus, S96.008:110484, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T. Photo: Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, front. Photo: Brian Rose. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, left side. Photo: Brian Rose. Sardis: fragment of colossal head of Faustina the Younger? S61.027:2. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University. Sardis: colossal fragment with diadem, S61.27:1. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

Coins All coins are reproduced at actual size; obverse is at left/top, reverse at right/bottom. Fig. 46. Fig. 47. Fig. 48. Fig. 49. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

50. 51. 52. 53.

Fig. 54. Fig. 55. Fig. 56.

Pergamon coin type 2 a) BMCRE 228. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 4 e) London 1979-1-1-1590. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 6 b) BMC 254. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 10 a) London 1894.7-6-38. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 13 d) BMC 266. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 14 a) BMC 262. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 17 a) BMC 267. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 18 a) London 1901.6-1-41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 19 a) BMC 308. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Pergamon coin type 21 a) SNGParis 2209. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Pergamon coin type 22 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.43356. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society.

illustrations and credits Fig. 57. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Fig. 67. Fig. 68. Fig. 69. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

70. 71. 72. 73.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

74. 75. 76. 77.

Fig. 78. Fig. 79. Fig. 80. Fig. 81. Fig. 82. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

83. 84. 85. 86.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.

xiii

Pergamon coin type 23 k) New York, ANS 1944.100.43357. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Pergamon coin type 24 f) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Münzsammlung, Munich. Smyrna coin type 1 a) Vienna 17731. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Smyrna coin type 2 a) BMC 110. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Smyrna coin type 7 a) BMC 403. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Smyrna coin type 11 f) BMC 389. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Smyrna coin type 12 a) Paris 2689. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Smyrna coin type 24 b) Paris 2779. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Miletos coin type 1 a) Paris 1912. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ephesos coin type 1 a) London 1972.8-7-12. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 5 a) Paris 684. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ephesos coin type 7 d) London 1961.3-1-234. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 13 a) BMC 292. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 16 a) BMC 269. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 17 a) Vienna 32385. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Ephesos coin type 18 f) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Ephesos coin type 21 a) Paris 899. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ephesos coin type 23 a) BMC 305. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 24 a) BMC 306. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ephesos coin type 26 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Kyzikos coin type 1 b) London 1961.3-1-172. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Kyzikos coin type 4 a) Berlin 955/1904. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Kyzikos coin type 6 a) SNGParis 780. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Kyzikos coin type 8 a) London 1919.4-17-147. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Kyzikos coin type 10 a) Paris 498. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Kyzikos coin type 11 c) Vienna 16188. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Kyzikos coin type 13 a) Vienna 16137. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Kyzikos coin type 14 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.42792. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Kyzikos coin type 15 a) BMC 199. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Kyzikos coin type 16 c) Vienna 30574. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Sardis coin type 2 a) Paris 1248A. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Sardis coin type 5 b) Oxford. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Sardis coin type 6 a) BMC 171. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Sardis coin type 7 a) Oxford 17.57. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Sardis coin type 8 a) Vienna 19587. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Aizanoi coin type 2 a) Paris 241. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Laodikeia coin type 2 a) Paris 1611. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France.

xiv

illustrations and credits

Fig. 96. Fig. 97. Fig. 98. Fig. 99. Fig. 100. Fig. 101. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

102. 103. 104. 105.

Fig. 106. Fig. 107. Fig. 108. Fig. 109. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115.

Fig. 116. Fig. 117. Fig. 118. Fig. 119. Fig. 120. Fig. 121. Fig. 122. Fig. 123. Fig. 124. Fig. 125. Fig. 126. Fig. 127. Fig. 128.

Laodikeia coin type 3 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Laodikeia coin type 5 a) Paris 1617. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Laodikeia coin type 11 a) Berlin Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Laodikeia coin type 8 a) Berlin 664/1914. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Laodikeia coin type 9 a) Boston MFA 1971.45, Theodora Wilbour Fund in Memory of Zoë Wilbour. Photo: copyright 2002 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Philadelphia coin type 1 e) New York, ANS 1971.279.56. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Philadelphia coin type 2 a) BMC 94. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Tralles coin type 1 c) Paris 1698. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Antandros coin type 1 a) Athens, Numismatic Museum. Photo: Kenneth Sheedy. Hierapolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Hierapolis coin type 2 a) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Hierapolis coin type 4 h) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Magnesia coin type 1 a) Vienna 34601. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Nikomedia coin type 2 y) London 1928.5-5-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 3 b) BMCRE 1097. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 4 a) BMC 9. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 5 a) Vienna 39125. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Nikomedia coin type 7 a) BMC 32. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 8 b) Paris 1342. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Nikomedia coin type 9 b) London 1920.1-11-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 11 a) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Nikomedia coin type 12 a) Paris 1347. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Nikomedia coin type 16 a) London 1961.3-1-123. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 17 a) Berlin 5206 JF. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Nikomedia coin type 21 a) Berlin 703/1878. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Nikomedia coin type 22 a) Paris 1357. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Nikomedia coin type 24 a) Berlin, von Rauch. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Nikomedia coin type 26 a) Paris 1401. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Nikomedia coin type 27 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.42315. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Nikomedia coin type 28 c) Berlin, Bonnet. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Nikomedia coin type 29 a) Vienna 15815. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Nikomedia coin type 31 a) London 1970.9-9-46. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikomedia coin type 32 a) Paris 1418. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France.

illustrations and credits Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

129. 130. 131. 132.

Fig. 133. Fig. 134. Fig. 135. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

136. 137. 138. 139.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146.

Fig. 147. Fig. 148. Fig. 149. Fig. 150. Fig. 151. Fig. 152. Fig. 153. Fig. 154. Fig. 155. Fig. 156. Fig. 157. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

158. 159. 160. 161. 162.

Fig. 163. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

164. 165. 166. 167.

xv

Nikomedia coin type 37 a) New York, ANS 71.279. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Nikomedia coin type 50 n) Vienna 34453. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Nikomedia coin type 51 a) Oxford 11-7-1938. Photo: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Nikomedia coin type 56 a) London 1961.3-1-131. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Nikaia coin type 1 a) New York, ANS 73.191. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Ankyra coin type 2 a) SNGParis 2407. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ankyra coin type 3 a) London 1975.4-11-188. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Ankyra coin type 7 a) SNGParis 2484. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ankyra coin type 8 a) SNGParis 2530. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ankyra coin type 10 c) New York 58.44.14. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Perge coin type 1 b) Berlin 974/1901. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Perge coin type 2 e) SNGParis 554. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Perge coin type 3 k) Vienna 28792. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Perge coin type 5 a) SNGParis 617. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Side coin type 1 a) BMC 111. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Side coin type 5 a) London 1970.9-9-167. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Side coin type 8 a) London 1969.10-21-7. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Side coin type 10 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Side coin type 11 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.50964. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Side coin type 13 b) SNGParis 882. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Aspendos coin type 1 a) London 1921.4-12-117. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Beroia coin type 1 b) Berlin, Fox. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Beroia coin type 2 e) Berlin 698/1929. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Beroia coin type 6 a) Paris 160. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Beroia coin type 7 b) Paris 161. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Beroia coin type 8 a) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Beroia coin type 10 a) Paris 164. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Beroia coin type 11 a) Paris 193. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thessalonike coin type 4 a) London 1972.8-7-5. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Thessalonike coin type 8 b) Paris 1507. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thessalonike coin type 9 a) Paris 1508. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thessalonike coin type 10 a) Vienna 10084. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Neokaisareia coin type 1 a) Paris 1277. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Neokaisareia coin type 3 a) Berlin 7909. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Neokaisareia coin type 6 a) London 1973.1-12-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Neokaisareia coin type 11 b) Paris 1972.922. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Amaseia coin type 1 f, obv.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41180. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Amaseia coin type 1 g, rev.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41179. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Amaseia coin type 2 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.41218. Photo: Sean O’Neill.

xvi Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

illustrations and credits 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174.

Fig. 175. Fig. 176. Fig. 177. Fig. 178. Fig. 179. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

186. 187. 188. 189.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

190. 191. 192. 193.

Fig. 194. Fig. 195. Fig. 196. Fig. 197.

Tarsos coin type 1 a) BMC 159. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Tarsos coin type 3 b) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Tarsos coin type 5 a) SNGParis 1462. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Tarsos coin type 5 c) SNGParis 1463. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Tarsos coin type 8 a) SNGParis 1473. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Tarsos coin type 9 a) SNGParis 1514. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Tarsos coin type 12 a) London 1919.8-22-10. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Aigeai coin type 7 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.53037. Photo: Sean O’Neill. Perinthos coin type 1 a) BMC 33. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Perinthos coin type 4 f) Vienna 8892. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Perinthos coin type 10 a) BMC 41. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum. Perinthos coin type 11 a) Munich. Photo: Staatliche Münzsammlung, Munich. Perinthos coin type 12 d) New York, ANS 1967.152.225. Photo: copyright 2002, American Numismatic Society. Perinthos coin type 16 a) Paris 1201. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Perinthos coin type 19 a) Paris 1191. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Perinthos coin type 21 a) Paris 1216. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Philippopolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Dressel. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Philippopolis coin type 2 a) Vienna 32498. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Philippopolis coin type 3 a) Vienna 9047. Photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Philippopolis coin type 5 b) Paris 1355. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Kaisareia coin type 1 a) Berlin 709/1914. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Kaisareia coin type 2 b) Berlin, Löbbecke. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Kaisareia coin type 4 b) Paris 602. Photo: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Kaisareia coin type 7 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Photo: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz. Neapolis coin type 1 a) BMC 138. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

Charts The Emperors of Rome and Some Members of their Families Synoptic chart of Neokoroi Cities

illustrations and credits

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS If this book is the body of my work on the neokoria, the skeleton was my dissertation for the Ph.D. in classical archaeology, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman East (Harvard 1980, unpublished). That contained lists of coins and inscriptions as well as a brief chronological analysis of each neokoros city, and still lives a sort of samizdat afterlife, in copies made by scholars for their own or their libraries’ use. Despite its bulk, it never attempted to give a unified historical picture of the origins, development or even the meaning of the title, which is why I have chosen to leave it on the shelves of the archive where it belongs. The book you now hold is very different, as I hope anything would be if given the benefit of twenty years of new finds, reinterpretations, and the author’s more mature understanding of the subject. From the beginning, my intention has been to bring together the most diverse forms of evidence and to give each form its proper weight and interpretation. If my expertise has faltered, it is my own responsibility, as my advisors have been irreproachable. They include the late George Hanfmann, my principal advisor, as well as the late Emily Vermeule and David Mitten at Harvard University. I also received advice and support from the late Martin Price both at the American Numismatic Society and at the British Museum, from Holt Parker both at home and abroad, from Kent Rigsby again and again, and most of all from Brian Rose, sine quo non. The late Bluma Trell of New York University provided the initial inspiration; her interest and enthusiasm never flagged while she lived, and I doubt that they do even now. I have also benefited from the conversation and correspondence of Simon Price, Werner Eck, Kenneth Harl, Ann Johnston, Dietrich Klose, Michael Peachin, Glen Bowersock, and Thomas Howe, and from the gentle chiding of all the press’ anonymous readers. I would like to thank Michiel Klein-Swormink and Gera van Bedaf for shepherding the book through the press, Shirley Werner for wearing out her erudite eye in its copyediting, and Susan Stites for the indices.

Thanks to the generosity, patience and trust of the following librarians, curators, and keepers of coin collections, I have been allowed to call for the most recondite books with wild abandon, and to examine and catalogue as many coins as I wished, though I rivaled even the indomitable Professor Trell in my demands for more trays. My deepest gratitude goes to: Jean Susorney Wellington, Michael Braunlin, and the entire staff of the Classics Library, University of Cincinnati; William Metcalf, Frank Campbell, and the late Nancy Waggoner of the American Numismatic Society, New York; Cornelius Vermeule and Mary Comstock of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the entire erudite and courteous staff of the Department of Coins and Medals, the British Museum, London; the late Colin Kraay of the Heberden Coin room, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; Mmes. H. Nicolet and S. de Turckheim of the Cabinet des Medailles, Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris; Dr. G. Dembski of the Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna; Mmes. A. Krzyzanowska and Ewa Duszczyk of the Narodowe Museum, Warsaw; and Drs. H. D. and S. Schultz of the Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen, Berlin. I am grateful to John Wallrodt and Marcie Handler for help with computing issues and to Maroun Kassab and Irina Verkhovskaya for producing the temple plans. Thanks for illustrations are due to: Brian Rose; Kenneth Sheedy; Sean O’Neill; the late Robert Hagerty; Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen von Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Beate Salje and Ilona Trabert); the Athens Numismatic Museum (courtesy Eos Tsourti); the American Numismatic Society (courtesy Sebastian Heath and Elena Stolyarik); the Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University (courtesy Elizabeth Gombosi); Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris (courtesy Michel Amandry); the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (courtesy Lizabeth Dion); the British Museum (courtesy Janet Larkin, Department of Coins and Medals, and Keith Lowe, Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities); the Heberden Coin

xviii

acknowledgements

Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University (courtesy Roslyn Britton-Strong); Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri (courtesy Halil Özek); Kunsthistorisches Museum, Wien (courtesy Gunther Dembski); Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut (courtesy Gudrun Wlach); Staatliche Münzsammlung, München (courtesy Dietrich Klose); and Staatliche Museen von Berlin/Preussischer Kulturbesitz (courtesy Ilona Trabert, Antikensammlung, and Bernhard Weisser, Münzkabinett).

I would also like to thank the American Numismatic Society, in whose summer seminar I started this project; the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa, whose grant of the Mary Isabel Sibley Fellowship originally enabled me to travel and study in the European collections; and finally, the University of Cincinnati Department of Classics and Louise Taft Semple Fund, whose patience and generosity allowed me to bring this project to completion.

acknowledgements

xix

This page intentionally left blank

introduction: methodology

1

INTRODUCTION: METHODOLOGY

i. General Introduction This book tracks a singular phenomenon: that cities of Hellenic culture in some eastern provinces of the Roman empire (map p. xix) called themselves ‘neokoroi,’ usually translated ‘temple wardens,’ to signify that they possessed a provincial temple to the cult of the Roman emperor. Though the phenomenon is confined only to a certain place and time, a full pursuit of the circumstances and history of the neokoroi can, I believe, illumine many misunderstood issues regarding the imperial cult in the larger sense, as well as relations between the provincial cities and their Roman rulers, and among the cities themselves. Any theoretical approach to such a study is pulled in different directions by polarities of generalization and particularization. One may tend to generalize because individuals of our species have certain tendencies in common, and these tendencies make human history repetitious. Moreover, the current prestige of the hard sciences privileges the search for general laws, as in physics, in the behavior of human beings. On the other hand, each human is formed by particular circumstances of the history that came before, and that human also contributes to the formation of a particular present and future. This study tends toward the particular, making the canonical bows toward Clifford Geertz’ technique of ‘thick description,’ where close observation of certain institutions can illumine an entire culture, and toward Marc Bloch and the annalistes, who showed the importance of scales of inquiry, and how such inquiry could be done despite the lack of precise sources and the inability to interrogate living informants.1 This particular inquiry also traces developments over time, from the end of the 1 For an excellent history of recent interactions between theories of history and the social sciences, see McDonald 1996. I have been guided by the examples of Geertz 1973; Bloch 1973; and S. Price 1984b; the latter’s observations inform my work everywhere.

first century B.C.E. to the end of the third century C.E., a period for which sources exist but are varied and intermittent. Writing about it, then, is like surveying at night; there is a general darkness, though occasional moonlight allows some understanding of the terrain, and once in a while a fortunate flash of lightning illuminates some crucial detail fully. The neokoroi were cities Greek in structure, though not necessarily in genealogy, and neokoros is a Greek title. The word originally designated an official whose basic responsibility was the care, upkeep or practical daily functioning of a sacred building, and whose duties could include the control of entry, safekeeping of valuable items, and the enactment of ritual or sacrifice; a more detailed discussion will follow below. In the first century C.E. we begin to find this role attributed to entire peoples or cities, and then more specifically to cities that maintained a provincial temple to the Roman emperor. This book will examine the title neokoros as it was applied to those cities, and what it meant to them politically, socially, and in practical terms. Understanding those cities’ governmental system is vital to understanding how neokoria (the state or institution of being neokoros) can be studied. Structurally the cities were Greek poleis, and their inscriptions document independent decisions made by a council (boule) and the body of adult male citizens (demos, sometimes meeting as an ekklesia), plus variously named magistrates.2 The actualities behind this structure are more complex. Though legalities varied depending on the precise status of each city, the power to decide foreign, and increasingly internal, policy was vested in Roman hands, ultimately in the emperor himself. More immediately the provincial governor and various imperial officials were on the spot making decisions, adjudicating disputes, and seeing that taxes were paid. In this they generally had the cooperation of 2

Lewin 1995.

2

introduction: methodology

each city’s own elite, who competed among themselves to take on offices and services, and often laid out their personal fortunes, in order to be preeminent among their fellow citizens, to stand in the esteem of the Romans, and to rise in power and status, sometimes to the ranks of Roman authority itself.3 A city’s relationships with other cities could be conducted on good terms or in jealous rivalry, but only within the narrow confines that Rome allowed to each city’s nominal autonomy. Attempts to go beyond those limits could be met by some reassertion of control by the imperial government, and the very presence of an overarching power beyond the city and the province assured that one party or the other in any dispute could appeal to that power, further eroding any independence that the cities tried to assert. In discussing the neokoroi I have often found it necessary to refer to these cities as if they were people, who thought, weighed possibilities, and even had emotions like jealousy and pride. This is primarily an outgrowth of contemporary speeches and histories that exhorted, blamed, or categorized cities for such human traits; neokoros was after all a person’s title applied to a city.4 But it also masks a lack of specific knowledge of such matters as who initiated the quest for an imperial temple and when, whether there was debate on where to put it, down to who decided what order the columns should be. Generally, we know that the cities of the Roman empire were run on the lines of urban oligarchies, and that an elite often made decisions without much consultation of the rest of the city’s male voting population, still less of nonvoters. They felt little need to inscribe their day-to-day accounts on stone for public reference, so we know little of the details of their operation, but much of magniloquent decrees and votes of thanks. Provincial cities often banded together in an organization known in the East as a koinon.5 Though the name translates as ‘league’ or ‘commonality,’ it was not a subset of official imperial administration, nor did its geographic lines have to correspond exactly to the borders of a Roman province. Instead a koinon was an organization of cities of similar

3 4 5

Quass 1993. For anthropomorphic cities, Lendon 1997, 31, 73-89. The basic work is still Deininger 1965.

ethnic background and interests within a region, bound together by the practice of a particular cult. Under the Empire the central cult of most koina was that of a living human being, the emperor of Rome. By the end of the first century C.E., some (but not all) of the cities that had a temple for this provincial imperial cult were called neokoroi. It is worth noting that the very title denoted a caretaker, not an ‘owner’ of a temple: ownership, at least in the beginning, was in the hands of the koinon, which assigned its chief priests to preside over the temples in neokoroi cities, often an increasing number of temples as emperor succeeded emperor. Koina also represented the cities in other aspects of their relationship with Rome, e.g. embassies and legal proceedings. Simon Price’s seminal book, Rituals and Power, altered the landscape of inquiry concerning the worship of rulers in the Roman East. We have gone beyond former attitudes: the Judeo-Christian concern for what was believed rather than what was done, and its accompanying disdain for flatterers who would call a man a god; and beyond a simple faith in Realpolitik, which can only ask who profits, whether politically or economically. We have come to a more anthropological approach, which seeks to understand how the Hellenes handled their Roman world. Price, however, chose to be cautious, to privilege the balancing act between seeing the emperor as man or god in rituals private and public, great and small. But in this study, which is at the level of the koinon and the province, we shall see less contradiction: the living emperor was addressed as a god, sometimes second only to the chief and patron gods of the cities in which he was worshipped. He had his own temple, which was referred to as his. His successors, perhaps his predecessors, and other members of his family, often including his consort, joined him in that temple; this was recognized by calling it a temple of the Augusti, or of the Greek equivalent, the Sebastoi. Thus the city where that temple was established could be called neokoros of the Augusti. Despite this fact, the individual emperor who was the prime object of cult was not forgotten: for example, what was at first called the temple of the Augusti in Flavian times at Ephesos was later referred to as that of the god Vespasian. What is more, where another god shared the temple, (s)he was often a personification or a placeholder, whose name could drop from common ref-

introduction: methodology erence, as the name of the goddess Rome slipped away from mentions of the temples of Augustus at Pergamon and Ankyra, and Tiberius and Trajan could stand alone in depictions of their temples at Smyrna and Pergamon, with no sign of their cult partners Livia and the Senate or Zeus Philios. The reverse is never true: the provincial temples initially dedicated to Rome and Augustus are never called simply temples of Rome. Looking at the neokoroi is important in itself, but doubly important in the light it sheds upon what modern scholarship calls ‘the imperial cult.’ Under that rubric have been lumped all aspects of the worship of emperors, living and dead, in East and West, by Romans and non-Romans of all sorts, organized by province, by city, and down to individuals. Often the practice, and even the vocabulary, of one of the above differs widely from that of another. Despite a common thread of Hellenic speech and culture, a Sebasteion built by decree of the Athenians may well have been different, and served different functions, from one built by Ephesians, Alexandrians, Aphrodisians, or Palmyrenes. Towns and individuals may have set up altars or statues to the emperor without even bothering to seek permission of a governor, much less the nod of authorities at Rome. In narrowing our focus to the neokoroi, however, we study a less mixed phenomenon, composed of events that are internally comparable, though subject to development over time. Honors proposed for an emperor passed through the sieve of each koinon and reached some sort of consensus among its cities small and large, rich and poor, cosmopolitan and isolated. Even after this was achieved, the conduct of the provincial imperial cult was too large in scope, too important to the image of the Roman authorities at which it was aimed, to pass unexamined by them. What few sources we have emphasize ceremonious deliberation by the Roman Senate and careful consideration by the ultimate recipient, the emperor. Thus applications for provincial imperial temples, and subsequent neokoriai, were subject to review on at least three levels: emanating from a city that offered a home for the cult, they had to also be acceptable to the other cities of the province as grouped in their koinon, to the emperor, and to the Senate. This is as close to a homogeneous group of events as the modern term ‘imperial cult’ covers. In fact, a study of the neokoroi can serve as a laboratory to examine this dialogue among cities, koi-

3

non, Roman emperor, and Senate, and how they arrived at results satisfactory to, or at least accepted by, all. As will be seen, there were mechanisms that encouraged the establishment and the spread of neokoria. Rivalries among cities in the same koinon might make each one strive to be neokoros, or if disappointed at first, to become the next one. At the same time, province-to-province comparisons could be made when provincial embassies met one another. This was frequently the case at a succession, for example, where ambassadors from all over the Empire brought an initial tribute of crown gold and declared their first honors to a new emperor. But it was well into Tiberius’ reign that his acceptance of Asia’s offer of a temple to his cult prompted the province of Hispania Ulterior to offer him another one. He refused, not necessarily because he was a difficult man to please, though Tacitus portrays him as such, but because he could make that refusal a symbol of his modesty before the Senate.6 This refusal would have then informed other aspirant provinces how not to approach this particular emperor, and the dialogue could go on. Still, only certain koina of the Greek-speaking East are known to have named their cities neokoroi.7 It is possible that this circle of organizations was influenced by events in the koinon of Asia, where the earliest uses of ‘neokoros’ as a city title are known. In other areas, most notably mainland Greece, no neokoroi have yet been found. But it is vital to note that our pools of evidence only represent a fraction of what once existed, and may yet be increased: a previously unknown inscription or coin could add new names and historical circumstances to our knowledge of the neokoroi at any time. ii. The Word ‘Neokoros’ Before going further, it is essential to examine the word ‘neokoros,’ both etymologically and in the context in which it was adopted as a title for cities. The 1888 thesis of Buechner assembled the ancient sources, though it must be supplemented by recent discoveries.8 6 Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939, discussed below. 7 See also Lendon 1997, 160-172. 8 Buechner 1888, 2-21.

4

introduction: methodology

The first part of the compound comes from ‘naos,’ temple, specifically a built structure or house for the god rather than a sacred but unroofed enclosure.9 Though the most common spelling of nevkÒrow comes from the Attic form of this part, spelled with an omega, there are many alternative spellings. The ‘-koros’ is more problematic, and has been the source of disagreement since the days of Byzantine lexicographers. Hesychius derived it from the verb meaning ‘keep in order,’ specifically ‘sweep,’ while the Suda stated that it did not mean ‘sweep,’ but ‘maintain.’10 Buechner accepted the former, citing Euripides’ Ion (one of whose tasks was to sweep the temple of Apollo) as an example of a neokoros. Euripides, however, never calls Ion ‘neokoros,’ but only xrusofÊlaj, a guard for gold, and tam¤aw, a steward.11 More recent etymologies are closer to agreeing with the Suda than with Hesychius. They find ‘-koros’ to mean ‘one who nourishes, maintains,’ from which the particular meaning ‘sweeper’ is a secondary derivation.12 In addition, archaeological finds indicate that ‘-koros’ appears in Greek as early as the Mycenean period: linear B tablets mention a ‘da-ko-ro’ and a ‘da-mo-ko-ro’.13 Neither is a sweeper; in fact, both appear to be high officials, the latter possibly a governor of half the realm of Pylos. Later historical and literary sources document a great variety of offices that human neokoroi could carry out, including both priestly duties and practical ones. Many neokoroi performed sacrifices, accepted them on behalf of the god, and received a portion.14 A poem by Philip of Thessalonike (Neronian period) has some neokoroi choosing a sacrificial animal for Artemis.15 Another poet, Automedon (first century B.C.E.), derides a neokoros who, after the sacrificial procession, carries off all the sacrifice for himself, leaving nothing for the

god.16 Plutarch classed holiness and the work of neokoria as ways of pleasing a god, though individual neokoroi he mentions also did such things as play dice with the god they served, fool a Sabine, and whip slaves and Aetolians away from a sanctuary.17 The second-century orator Aelius Aristides was devoted to Asklepios, and frequented his sanctuary at Pergamon not just in person, but in his dreams. One should be careful, therefore, not to take the visions and portents collected in the Sacred Tales as literal reality—it is unlikely, for example, that anyone actually put a ham hock in the temple of Asklepios to practice sacred incubation.18 Still, Aristides knew the two neokoroi of the Asklepieion well, and he conveys a picture of some of their responsibilities.19 As well as helping Aristides and other patients to carry out their therapy, they held the keys to the temple itself, and were in charge of crowns and other valuables that were dedicated to Asklepios. In many sanctuaries, neokoroi had responsibility for money or valuables. At the Hellenistic Amphiareion at Oropos, the neokoros collected the pilgrims’ fees, issued them tickets, listed their names and cities on wooden tablets, saw to their purification, and set up inventories of their offerings.20 In 394 B.C.E. Xenophon left a portion of the wealth from sale of captives in the safekeeping of one Megabyzos, neokoros of Artemis at Ephesos; later Megabyzos came to Olympia and returned what had been entrusted to him.21 As it happens, Megabyzos was the standard name given to the (eunuch) chief priest of Artemis; a fourth-century base for a statue of “Megabyzos son of Megabyzos, neokoros of Artemis in Ephesos” has been found in Priene.22 It is possible that ‘neokoros’ was the title that the chief priest used in his practical or financial func-

16

Greek Anthology 11.324. Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 351E; Romulus 5.1; Roman Questions 264D, 267D. 18 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.43. 19 Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.11, 44, 58, 76; Oration 48/Sacred Tales 2.30, 35, 46-49, 52; Oration 49/Sacred Tales 3.14, 2223; Oration 50/Sacred Tales 4.46. 20 Roesch 1984. 21 Anabasis 5.3.6-7. 22 Elliger 1992, 126-127. Chief priest: Strabo 14.1.23. Eunuch: Pliny, Natural History 35.93, 132; Roller 1999, 253. Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 231, did not comment on whether the Megabyzoi were eunuchs or how one could be son to another. 17

9

Chantraine 1968-1980, 3:734 (naÒw). Hesychius, Lexicon s.vv. naokÒrow, neokÒrow, nevkÒrow, also zãkorow; Suda s.vv. KÒrh, KÒrow, nevkÒrow, but also zãko10

row, nevkorÆsei.

11 Buechner 1888; Euripides, Ion lines 54-55; for his tasks, 102-183. 12 Chantraine 1968-1980, 2:565-566 ( kore- and kor°v). 13 Ruijgh 1986. Earlier theories: Heubeck 1968; Olivier 1967, with commentary by Palmer; Petrusevki 1965. I thank Greg Nagy for the initial reference. 14 Savelkoul 1988; Hero(n)das, Mimiambi 4. 15 Greek Anthology 9.22.

introduction: methodology tions; but in any case, in Ephesos the office of neokoros was responsible and respected. Women also served as neokoroi, often for female deities but sometimes for male. Pausanias, writing in the second century C.E., noted that the office of neokoros of Aphrodite at Sikyon was given to a celibate woman, and elsewhere called the virgin Herophile, the sibyl who prophesied to Hecuba at Troy, the neokoros of Apollo Smintheus.23 Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, writing in the first century C.E., categorized the role of the Vestal Virgins at Rome as that of neokoroi.24 And just to show that virginity was not integral to a woman’s becoming neokoros, in a poem by Pankrates (pre-first-century B.C.E.), a neokoros of Artemis suggests to the goddess that her twin four-year-old daughters should succeed her as neokoroi.25 It would take another monograph to chase down the complete history of various nevkÒroi, naokÒroi, and zãkoroi, all of different statuses, serving different temples in different ways at different times, across the Greek world. Our main purpose here, however, is to discern how the word ‘neokoros’ was transferred from humans and made to officially designate a city which had a specific kind of temple, a provincial temple for the cult of the emperor.26 We will now focus on neokoroi officials of around the first century of the common era, the time when ‘neokoros’ was adopted as a title for cities. Though there is little further evidence for a chief priest also being neokoros for Artemis at Ephesos in Roman times, the neokoria of Artemis Leukophryene, chief goddess of Magnesia, was certainly a high office; one neokoros, graced with many sonorous honorifics, served as chief ambassador for the city and set up a statue of Drusilla, sister of the emperor Gaius (Caligula).27 At Smyrna, one postVespasianic neokoros of the patron goddesses Nemeseis held pretty much all the highest city offices as well.28 The Greco-Egyptian cult of Serapis often had neokoroi, both at Alexandria and in other cities.29 Though it was perhaps a humble office in 23

Description of Greece 2.10.4, 10.12.5. 24 The Nature of the Gods 52 l. 7. 25 Greek Anthology 6.356. 26 Careful readers will have already noted that I consider the ban on split infinitives a Latinizing affectation, foreign to English. 27 Kern 1900 no. 156. 28 IvS no. 641. 29 Vidman 1970, 53-60.

5

the Hellenistic period, by Roman times only persons of high rank were neokoroi of the great Serapis at Alexandria. Also in Egypt were the neokoroi of temples of the god Augustus at Alexandria and at Canopus; aspirants to this very honorable post were chosen by lot, as the emperor Claudius had decreed.30 The neokoroi of the provincial imperial cult in Asia were also quite eminent. Under Tiberius, Pergamon’s neokoros of the goddess Rome and the god Augustus was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius and gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, which involved considerable expenditure.31 The neokoros of the temple of Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), before taking that office, had already been chief priest of Asia, i.e., head of the koinon, twice. The chief priest of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (q.v.) in 89 C.E. was one of the city’s greatest benefactors, and stepped into the office of neokoros the year after his chief priesthood. Two Jewish authors transferred the term ‘neokoros’ to the context of their own religion. Philo, writing around the time of Gaius, used it specifically for the tribe of Levi, especially in their functions as priests (under supervision of the high priest), guardians, gatekeepers, purifiers, and general caretakers of the temple at Jerusalem.32 Josephus, who issued the Greek version of his Jewish War ca. 75-79 C.E., called certain functionaries who were responsible for the purification of the Jerusalem temple neokoroi.33 More importantly, in his account of his own speech to the holdouts in the siege of Jerusalem, he conferred the title on an entire people, referring to all the Jews as neokoroi.34 At the times he referred to, however, the Jews were either in exodus or in exile and no temple yet stood, implying that the Jews’ ward over their temple (which he indeed called ‘naos’ elsewhere) was a spiritual one.35 The first known inscription to call a city, rather than a person, neokoros is earlier than Josephus’ book, dating to 38 C.E. In it Kyzikos (q.v.) is de-

30 H. I. Bell 1924, no. 1912 line 60, esp. p. 35; Oliver 1989, 77-88 no. 19. 31 IGRR 4:454. 32 On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120; On Flight and Finding 90, 93, 94; On Dreams 2.273; Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174 (where priests and Levites fight over proteia!), 276; On Rewards and Punishments 74; and Questions and Answers on Genesis frag. 17. 33 Jewish War 1.153. 34 Ibid. 5.383, 5.389. 35 E.g. Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106 on Solomon’s temple.

6

introduction: methodology

scribed as “ancient and ancestral neokoros of the family” of the “greatest and most manifest god Gaius Caesar.” The use of the word is probably metaphoric, implying that Kyzikos held a shrine to a relative of Gaius, whether his great-grandfather Augustus, his grandfather Agrippa, his sister Drusilla, or several of the above. That this early example of a city as neokoros refers to the imperial cult is significant, as the two would soon be closely associated. Saint Paul visited Ephesos (q.v.) around the years 52-54 C.E. According to Acts of the Apostles 19.35, a riot was fomented against him, and the people flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” They were there addressed by the city’s secretary, the grammateus, who is quoted saying “Who does not know that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?” Here as in the Kyzikos inscription, the term ‘neokoros’ is used as a metaphor. It expresses the city’s wardship of Artemis’ image and her temple, and acclaims it as a point of civic pride. But only a short time after, in 65/66, the word would appear on the city’s coins, and it is possible that at this point it meant what it came to mean later, that Ephesos possessed a koinon temple for the cult of the emperor, in this case for Nero. At that time, it would become, not just a metaphor, but an official title vied for by cities and regulated by the Senate and the emperor himself; and the main subject of this study. Equating a city or a people with a temple official is not a far-fetched comparison. Greek cities were often personified, usually as females; the title metropolis exalts them as mothers, and a few were even called nurses.36 A city could also be represented by its people, the Demos (personified as a male); or simply by the collective body of its citizens, as is normal on its coins. The term ‘neokoros’ was not specific to female or male; it was often applied to an official high in honor; and it was concerned specifically with care for a temple. There may have been other terms available to express a city’s being a center of cult for its koinon, but for one reason or another they were not chosen while ‘neokoros’ was.

36 L. Robert 1980a, 400-402, of Ionopolis. Other nurse cities: Syracuse in the fifth century B.C.E., Pindar, Pythian 2.2; Ephesos in 162-164 C.E., IvE 24; Miletos in 361-363 C.E., SIG4 906A, from Cyriacus of Ancona. Also see above, n. 4.

For example, calling the city ‘sacred’ or ‘shrine’ (hieron/a) would not only have involved long-winded explanations (‘for the provincial cult of the Augusti’?) but could have caused confusion with cities that were already ‘sacred and inviolable.’37 The word ‘neokoros,’ by contrast, had the concept of ‘temple’ central to its meaning, and was thus precisely adaptable when a city received more than one koinon temple: it became twice, three times, and even four or six times, neokoros. On the great majority of coins that will be discussed here, it is the group of (male) citizens who are neokoroi. Most inscriptions, however, call the (feminine) city, the polis, neokoros. A few inscriptions of Ephesos (q.v.) specify the demos as neokoros while the council or boule is ‘philosebastos,’ ‘friend of the Augusti’; and in three out of the four inscriptions that document neokoria at Hierapolis (q.v.), the council is neokoros, while in the fourth the people are so designated. At Side (q.v.), the council of elders (gerousia) may once be neokoros, while on coins that city’s patron gods also take the title. Finally, in the exceptional case of an inscription found at Herakleia (q.v.), it may be not the city itself but the synod of theatrical artists who are neokoroi. iii. Forms of Evidence 1. Literary Evidence Examination of the neokoroi cities has to draw upon diverse forms of evidence, each of which must be studied and interpreted in its own way. The rare words on the subject written by ancient Roman and Greek historians make up the narrative links among all the other forms and come closest to explaining neokoria. Where preserved, they are precious. On the other hand, none is strictly contemporary and all are liable to the flaws of written history in general: authorial bias, scholarly misinterpretation, incompleteness, and sheer silence on the very points which modern scholars are agog to know. In fact, historians’ accounts concerning neokoria are extremely scarce. For the early years of the Empire, we have a few accounts of the foundations of the imperial cult in certain provinces, written by later historians. These events are treated as notable, but 37

Rigsby 1996, 34-36.

introduction: methodology their effect in other provinces is not mentioned, and once such honors became typical, historians apparently felt no need to continue documenting them. Thus in all but a few cases, we see the results without hearing all of the dickering behind them; we know some titles and temples, but have scant record of the imperial letters, senatorial decisions, or debates in the koinon that gave rise to them. Indeed, we have no idea where the decision that cities with provincial imperial temples could be honored as ‘neokoroi’ came from, though it probably occurred in the late Neronian or Flavian period. Since all our literary evidence is partial, we must also guard against the tendency to make the few facts that we receive from it loom larger in our reasoning than the many factors that left less evidence for their operation. For example, since our historical sources tend towards a biographical approach to history, concentrating on the individual emperors and their personalities, we may be led to use some quirk of a particular emperor to explain why certain cities became neokoroi in his reign and others did not. The emperor’s inclinations may have made neokoroi in some cases, but the evidence in others is equivocal, and in any case it is dangerous to investigate no deeper than what little our historical sources leave to us. One of the most valuable sources, and an eyewitness for certain crucial events of the late second and early third century, is Cassius Dio. His histories are only partially extant, however, and must be reconstructed from epitomes. I cite them according to the Loeb edition, which is still the one most readily available.38 2. Numismatic Evidence Coins issued by the cities that were neokoroi have exactly the opposite advantages and disadvantages of literary evidence. They are not only contemporary but by far the most abundant form of evidence. Cities of Rome’s eastern provinces issued bronze coinage not only for economic functions, but as a symbol of autonomy and civic pride.39 The obverse 38 Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, trans. E. Cary (London 1914-1927). 39 In general, see Harl 1987; Butcher 1988. Iconography of the obverse image: Bastien 1992; here my terminology differs from his only in using the term ‘diadem’ instead of ‘stephane’ for empresses’ crowns. Coinage in precious metal was more directly controlled by the Roman central authority. Though independently an important topic, the monetary func-

7

of such coins was generally devoted to a standard bust of the current emperor or a member of his family, while the reverse gave the city’s name and titles (including neokoros), thus offering an exact correlation between imperial chronology and civic titulature. Since many cities issued coins often and in abundance, they can be checked against each other for confirmation of the title as well. From the start, we should note that beyond the standards for depiction of the emperor’s image and the listing of his titles on the obverse, there seem to have been no firm rules about what a city could choose to put on its bronze coinage. Reverses could boast the city’s name, titles, magistrates, and any one of a wide range of images, including the city’s chief gods; its founders and legends; its festivals; its alliances; monuments, including temples, fountains, harbors, mountains, or bridges; and honors toward the emperors. Large-size and special issues were frequent, especially from the late second to early third century, and these were often showy coins, produced with care and exactitude. Some illustrate the temples by means of which a city became neokoros, often in great detail. Not every city had its own mint, but most probably contracted either with a centralized workshop or with itinerant craftsmen. The same obverse dies were sometimes used for different cities, and even reverse dies, which had to be specially cut to include the city’s name and titles, may have been made by craftsmen who didn’t know what that city’s chief gods or temples looked like.40 The reverses, of course, were tailor made to include the name of the city and some image of civic pride, but sometimes these images were very specific, sometimes more conventional. Before we can examine in detail the coin evidence from each of the neokoroi, it is essential to discuss how coin types, especially architectural ones, can be interpreted, and to what extent these small depictions might represent an ancient reality. Some scholars have trusted ancient numismatic images to represent reality; others have not.41 Each side has approached the debate from a preconceived positioning of coins issued by cities of the Roman provinces is not directly relevant to this inquiry. 40 Kraft 1972, from which Brandt 1988; but see the comments of L. Robert 1975, 188-192, and J. Nollé 1992, 78-97. 41 For: M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33; Vermeule 1987, 9-22. Against: Drew-Bear 1974; J. Nollé 1997. For a thoughtful analysis, Burnett 1999.

8

introduction: methodology

tion based on a limited number of cases: one found certain monuments well represented by certain detailed coins, and so decided that coin images are trustworthy; the other found varying representations that contradict certain monuments, and so rejected coin images. Certainly these images cannot be taken as literally as if they were photographs: all are minuscule, with only those details that could be conveyed by a die-cutter’s chisels and punches. Some craftsmen may not have known or cared much about the image, or may have been copying it from other coins. Plainly there was some standardization of images, especially prevalent on repetitive issues of small-sized coins. On the other hand, even if a diecutter lacked knowledge and was not motivated by patriotism, coining was certainly supervised by members of the city’s elite class, who could supply both. Their care is evident in many (though again, not all) of the coins that were produced. We can never tell whether those who ultimately handled the coins (mainly the citizens whose name adorned the reverse, but with some circulation among neighboring cities, judging from site finds) understood all the messages that the coinage tried to convey, but certainly the coins were manufactured as if they did. Otherwise there would have been little point in coining anything but unchanging types and legends. Given that the images on coins did often change, the messages they carried, like the legends, were designed to be readable and recognizable. Therefore the coins must have conveyed some element of reality that made their types recognizable; but that element did not have to be visual exactitude, like a photograph’s. It could instead be symbolic. The way that cult images are portrayed best shows the symbolic nature of coin types. When a god or personification appears independently on a coin, her/his attributes and gestures identify her/ him to the intended audience: the radiate Helios raises his whip, while Dionysos spills his kantharos toward an attendant panther. Thus many of the coin images are rather static and repetitive; yet the ancient audience seems to have had no trouble with interpretation when the god picked up an unusual attribute like a temple, or when she/he joined hands with another city’s god or an emperor. The images on coins are not photographic copies of particular cult images, they are representations of a god or a personification that can move and act.

Coin types can copy particular cult images, and this imitation helps to make them recognizable. But they can also hew to conventions dictated by the medium of coinage itself: for example, the chief cult image at the Artemision of Ephesos was for untold centuries the famous Anatolian dressed image, but for much of its coining history Ephesos portrayed Artemis as a huntress instead, using the Hellenized style typical of other contemporary coinage. And after all, in a city containing many temples and shrines, a god could be worshipped in many different forms. So by what rules can we recognize when an image on a coin approaches the true reflection of a statue or statues that once stood within a koinon temple to a particular emperor, and when it does not? First, the coin type should show the image(s) standing within the temple; otherwise it is likely that a representation of the active and living emperor, not of his statue, is meant. Then, the more care devoted to conveying the image, and the more details added that are not strictly conventional, the more chance that the representation is based on visual reality. Another good indication of visual literalness is when the same image, with its particularities, continues to be conveyed on later coins and in other emperors’ reigns. Large, carefully produced and wider-circulating coin issues may show the emperor in his temple beside his cult partner, while smaller and more local issues show only the more important one of the pair, the emperor: thus silver coins of the province Asia show both Augustus and Rome in their temple at Pergamon, while Pergamon’s bronze coins show Augustus alone. Coins issued soon after the construction of a temple often show it and its image with more exactitude than later ones. For example, under Tiberius, Smyrna’s coins show his image in his new koinon temple as a veiled and togate priest; but under Caracalla, when Smyrna wanted to show all three of its koinon temples together, the image in the one labeled with Tiberius’ name is in more conventional military guise. It must be conceded that a disastrous earthquake had knocked down this particular temple in the interim, and it is possible that the old togate image had been lost and a new cuirassed one introduced in its place. But it is also possible that on the later coin, which offered very little space within the temples for detailed representation, the military image was used as shorthand for ‘an emperor.’ Again, the symbolic aspects of how coins repre-

introduction: methodology sent temples can obscure the purely visual information that we wish to obtain. A god’s or emperor’s image can appear in a shrine whose details change, and we cannot tell whether the new depiction is simply a symbol for ‘cult’ or ‘shrine’ or whether it represents an actual temple with different details emphasized on different issues. A four-column shrine of Zeus, with either an arched or a flat lintel, appears on coins of Aizanoi before the city’s temple of Zeus was built, probably in Hadrian’s reign. Is this a temporary shrine or shrines, or simply a symbol for the temple the god had not yet received? Often coins show a temple’s lintel as arched, or its number of columns reduced, in order to show the cult figure(s) within more clearly. On the other hand, at Aigeai the arched lintel of the temple of Asklepios is shown so consistently that it becomes a point of identification, appearing even when the cult image is absent. In this case, we have some reason to believe that the representation could convey a recognizable visual feature of the temple, either an actual arched lintel, a niche, or a baldachino. The first of the two most important coin types for this study arrays all the temples for which the city was neokoros, sometimes accompanied by the city’s patron god in or out of her/his own temple. Images of emperors, probably representing cult statues, are very often represented within these temples. When two or more temples that made a city neokoros are illustrated on coins, they are generally shown as identical to one another. This need not indicate that a city’s second temple had to be a copy of the first, but is again symbolic: two temples of similar function are shown as similar in appearance. The most wide-ranging work on architectural coin types, by Price and Trell, appends exhaustive catalogues of known examples.42 From these lists, the cities that issued coins showing two or more identical temples are: Abdera in Spain (two temples), Perinthos (two), Beroia and its Macedonian koinon (two), Thessalonike (four), Neokaisareia (two), Nikaia (two), Nikomedia (two or three), Kyzikos (two), Ephesos (two, three, or four), concord between Ephesos and Magnesia (two, but with each city’s Artemis within), Hierapolis (three), Laodikeia (two or three), Pergamon (two or three), Sardis (two, three, or four), Smyrna (two or three),

42

M. Price and Trell 1977, 241-287.

9

Tralles (two), Ankyra (two), Side (three), Anazarbos (two), Tarsos (two), Damascus (two, carried by Victories); and Neapolis (two, with Mt. Gerizim). Further such types may be expected to appear as more coins are found and published: recent appearances include a coin of Antipatris under Elagabalus, including what appears to be two tetrastyle temples facing one another (but this may represent the city’s sacred spring between the two shrines); and several issues of concord (between Ephesos and Alexandria, and between Smyrna and Pergamon).43 Still, by now it will have become obvious that twenty out of the twenty-four cities mentioned, or all except Abdera, Damascus, Antipatris, and Alexandria, are known to have been neokoroi. Of course Price and Trell realized this, not only pointing it out within their text but identifying such temples as imperial or ‘neokorate.’ In almost all cases the number of temples matches the number of neokoriai, and changes when it does. The seeming exceptions are cases where the shrine of a patron god is included among the temples that conferred neokoria, all of them being important sources of civic pride: so Ephesos sometimes adds the temple of Artemis, Sardis the temple of Lydian Kore, and Tralles the temple of Zeus, but none claim more than the proper number of neokoriai. Side and Hierapolis, however, showed two additional temples with the one for which they were neokoroi, and Nikaia used a type of two temples, probably imitated from its rival Nikomedia, after it had lost its sole neokoria. Laodikeia was probably unique in being once neokoros but of two emperors, Commodus and Caracalla, whose separate temples were grouped with a third of a patron god. Kyzikos as twice neokoros sometimes shows two peripteral temples, at other times only one with its shrine of Demeter and Kore; but Kyzikos presents many problems. The other important type for this study is that which shows a patron deity or city goddess holding a temple, the personification of the city as neokoros.44 The preeminent discussion of these types is almost a century old but it still has application today. Of the ten cities Pick named, eight were neokoroi. The two that are not known to have been

43 Meshorer 1993, 142-144 no. 6; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, nos. 549-551, 2133-2144. 44 Pick 1904.

10

introduction: methodology

neokoroi are the koinon of Lesbos and Kolybrassos in Cilicia. Some of the temple-bearer types show an attempt to make the god hold as many temples as the city had neokoriai; Nikomedia went so far as to put one on its goddess’ head after both her hands were full. Smyrna’s Amazon, however, always held only one. The majority of temple bearers are generic city goddesses, as at Perinthos, Philippopolis, Nikomedia, Side, Aigeai, Tarsos, and Ankyra. But often a patron deity stands for the city, as Demeter does for Nikomedia, or Athena for Side and for Ankyra. In a few cases we see the emperor for whose cult the neokoria was granted holding his own temple, as Septimius Severus does at Perinthos, while Caracalla hands a second temple over an altar to the city goddess of Kyzikos, who already holds the first. At Philippopolis, Elagabalus and Apollo Kendrisos hold the temple they shared between them. Side, which also used a type of three temples while calling itself only neokoros, again went beyond its exact titulature with a type showing the city goddess holding two temples. There is also a verbal equivalent to the deity who holds a temple: the coin’s legend simply calls the deity, not the citizens, neokoros. The city goddesses Thessalonike, Perge, and Side are so named, while at Side the gods Apollo and Asklepios are also neokoroi. It must be remembered, however, that no matter how close the correlation between cities known to have been neokoroi and those that used either multiple-temple or temple-bearer reverses for their coins, it is not exact. There do not appear to have been many rules about what a city could put on its coinage, and it was common for reverse types to be imitated. Also, only rarely do coins like the special issues of Pergamon or Smyrna proclaim the city three times neokoros and label the three temples with the names of the emperors they honored. The overwhelming majority of coin types are generalized and schematic, their legends laconic sets of titles. Unlike historical accounts, they give no indication of why or how neokoria was awarded. Some, without imperial portraits, can be difficult to date; on others the title drops off and we cannot always tell whether it was because it was taken away from the city, or only not mentioned on the coin, perhaps superseded by some other honor. Other limitations must be considered when using coin evidence. The greatest is the accident of pres-

ervation: though coins must have been issued in their hundreds of thousands, only a small proportion of them escaped being melted down and reminted. Of those, only a small proportion have survived to be found, and of those, only a smaller proportion have made their way into museums or publications. Museum collections contain choice specimens acquired over many years, but sometimes omit humbler examples that could provide crucial information. The collections of small and local museums are rarely published, while those of individuals are difficult to locate and authenticate. The abundant coins found in excavations are often in poor condition and illegible, or have not yet been published; and many sites are unexcavated. Since we have such a minuscule fraction of the possible information, the publication of even one new coin can overturn an hypothesized chronology. Problems also lurk in the older publications of ancient coins. Though scholars such as Eckhel and Mionnet (see below) made the first great strides in collecting, analyzing, and publishing the coins of Rome’s eastern provinces, misreadings of legends and misinterpretations of types published without illustration were frequent. In addition, coins with recut legends and even outright forgeries occasionally went unrecognized. In order to avoid incorporating such errors, I have kept mainly to coins in public collections that I could examine directly, in clear photographs, or in casts of both obverse and reverse, for in case of a doubtful reading only such coins can easily be checked. The increasing number of published corpora of various cities’ coins, and of volumes in the Sylloge nummorum Graecorum series, has helped immeasurably. On the other hand, with some few exceptions I have avoided using coins from unpublished private collections and auction catalogues. Beside the obvious ethical considerations, I prefer to rely upon coins that have been examined critically by disinterested scholars, and preferably by more than one. Where I have made exceptions to these guidelines (notably in chapter 11, Antandros, and chapter 32, Tripolis), I have hedged the cities with question marks, and have included them at all mainly to make scholars aware that there is a possibility of neokoria that still needs to be proved or disproved. No doubt I have missed many interesting examples, but I hope that I have missed compromising my conclusions as well. Also omitted are examples where the word ‘neokoros’ is obscure or restored. My aim has been to be correct,

introduction: methodology not universally inclusive: one misprint, misreading, or recut coin can introduce a falsehood, whereas a gap in the story can be noted and filled in by later scholarship. My method of citing coins was chosen as the most appropriate and expeditious for the purposes of this study, and is not meant to be a full numismatic publication. All coins that mention the title ‘neokoros’ are listed at the end of their city’s chapter. Coins with a reverse type that I find relevant to the neokoria (generally involving a temple or temples, an image of the emperor, or reference to festivals in his honor; almost always with the word ‘neokoros,’ but occasionally not) are cited in the body of the text as ‘coin type 1,’ et cetera. They are grouped according to general congruence of obverse and reverse types, not according to die identity or denomination; variations are listed in the description in parentheses. It should be noted that coin types mentioned in the body of the text are listed again, but not picked out specifically, in the lists of coins at the end of each chapter, but only if they mention the title ‘neokoros’ in their legends. 3. Epigraphic Evidence Though monumental inscriptions on stone usually contain more words than do the legends on coins, they may or may not say more about the neokoria. Some inscriptions, especially imperial letters, are invaluable for giving precise and contemporary accounts of grants of neokoria, but the overwhelming majority of inscriptions that call a city neokoros simply include it as one of a list of titles, as their main purpose was to honor someone for benevolence, not to document neokoria. If we are fortunate, the inscription can be dated by the name of an emperor, a governor, or some person otherwise known, but that is not always the case. Inscriptions offer a great proportion of the evidence on the neokoroi cities, but even that evidence is only part of the story. Some cities appear to have set up more inscriptions than others. Of those that were set up, honorifics far outnumber records of civic deliberations or finances; much more is known of the elite than of commoners, more of city than of village or countryside. Also, most of the evidence available to us comes from the major cities, those with longer records of excavations and more complete publications; this is likely why Ephesos tends to predominate. The accidents of preservation also apply: stones

11

can break, leaving only fragments difficult to interpret, or be built into walls, or burnt up for lime. Correct restoration of the lost parts of inscriptions is a task that requires the combined talents of a cryptographer and a computer memory. The late Louis Robert had these talents in abundance, and fortunately the neokoria was among his innumerable interests.45 For the most part I have trod in his footsteps and in those of other experts, only occasionally straying off on my own. At the end of each city chapter, I collect a list of all inscriptions that call that city neokoros, consecutively numbered and in rough chronological order where independently datable. If not datable, they are listed after datable inscriptions with which they share the number of neokoriai; and fragments follow more complete examples. Except where noted, they come from the city under discussion. This study is neither an epigraphic nor a numismatic catalogue; it cites only published inscriptions (with a single exception),46 and does not quote them unless they are discussed in the text. The original publication should always be consulted in case of questions. Unlike my organization of coin types, which are numbered consecutively as each is cited within a chapter, and then also gathered together at chapter’s end, all inscriptions that call a city neokoros are both listed in chronological order and consecutively numbered at the end of each chapter. This means that the chapter’s text may refer to inscription 2, inscription 7, and then inscription 4, as the sense demands; the reader may then refer to the list at the end of the chapter for more information. 4. Archaeological Evidence As we have seen, the Greek word for ‘temple’ is inherent in the word ‘neokoros.’ It was in the nature of both Greek and Roman religion to provide most gods with a house, and each cult with a particular place and paraphernalia for its rituals. Insofar as any of these survived to manifest itself in the archaeological record, they provide valuable evidence on the realia of the cults for which cities became neokoroi. In fact a good deal of archaeological material has survived and can be analyzed. 45

See the reference list for particular works. The exception is Sardis inscription 6; my thanks to Crawford H. Greenewalt, Jr., Director of the Sardis expedition, for permission to refer to it. 46

12

introduction: methodology

Perhaps most important are the temples themselves, as their size, placement, materials, and decoration can indicate what role the cult for which a city was made neokoros was meant to play within the city’s structure, for the other members of the koinon, and for others who might participate in its festivals or visit its site. Then there are the other possible architectural features of a sanctuary, such as altars, porticoes, and other subsidiary structures. It should be noted that, unfortunately, the less prepossessing the structure, the less chance that it has been studied and published. Thus the bulk of the evidence consists of standard Greco-Roman temples and their parts, with little other evidence (e.g. possible headquarters for chief priests, neokoroi, or hymnodoi; gardens or groves; pits for the remains of sacrifices) yet available. One problem is how to identify a temple as one that made its city neokoros. The ideal way of recognizing such a structure would be the discovery of an inscription on it that calls it a provincial temple, mentions its designation for a particular emperor or emperors, and names the city neokoros. Unfortunately this happy situation is rare to nonexistent. Many kinds of structures bore dedications to the emperor(s), but only a few of those structures were temples, and of those even fewer can be proved to be the temples that made their city neokoros. Identification of such precincts is generally based on a concordance of literary, numismatic, epigraphic and archaeological evidence. In theory, one way of confirming the identification would be by finding the remains of imperial cult statues set up in the temple. Their style, date, and mode of representation could also provide valuable insight into how the emperor was to be presented in provincial imperial cult. But thousands of imperial statues, singly or in groups, standing, seated, or equestrian, in varying dress or lack of it, stood in cities all over the empire; very few of them can be allied with neokoria. It was a common practice to set up portrait statues (eikones) of emperors and their families in both sacred and non-sacred spaces without any connotation of worship. Thus imperial statues and statue bases found around a neokoros city or even in a temple precinct do not necessarily indicate that the temple made the city neokoros. Furthermore, some of the true cult statues (agalmata) may have been made of metal, ivory, or other precious and/or perishable materials, and thus have not survived. We shall see three cases,

however, where remains of imperial statues of colossal size, therefore more likely to be agalmata, have been found within or close to a temple in a city that is known to have been neokoros at or around the time when the statues were made. All had certain parts sculpted in stone, and it is these parts that survive. iv. How to Use This Book Part I, the core of the book, consists of thirty-seven chapters, one for each city for which neokoria is documented. In some cases documentation is as small as one coin or a few words added to an inscription, but so long as the coin is real and the superscription ancient, that city can be confirmed as neokoros. Early authors included many cities among the neokoroi that are not discussed here, mostly due to misreadings, forgeries, or recut legends of coins.47 In each case I have searched and found either that the earlier evidence had been disproved or that no evidence can be found to confirm the attribution. The most accessible list of neokoroi cities is still that in Pauly-Wissowa.48 Since its publication in 1935, evidence for Akmonia and Juliopolis as neokoroi has been disproved.49 On the other hand, new evidence has been found for Sagalassos, Antandros, Miletos, Nikaia, Aspendos, Patara, and Akalissos, and this will be presented in the chapters on those cities. Some new data on the neokoroi can lead to new interpretations of larger historical issues. For example, chapter 33 on Patara removes a person (but not a name) from the fasti of Lycia; chapters 4 and 1, on Ephesos and Pergamon respectively, contribute evidence for the troubled reign of Macrinus; there is even a small modification to the observations of Louis Robert in chapter 4 (though normally I find that disagreeing with Robert is a sure sign that a scholar is wrong). In addition, the examination of the architecture of temples of the neokoroi finds little evidence of the aediculated ‘marble style’ previously held to be associated with the imperial cult. 47 Eckhel 1792-1839, vol. 4, 288-306, lists the misreadings of Vaillant 1700; Mionnet 1806-1808, 105. 48 Hanell 1935. 49 L. Robert 1975, 168 n. 73; French 1981, 45-46; recutting of a coin of Hierapolis to read Juliopolis.

introduction: methodology This study’s structure aims to be both chronological and geographic. The thirty-seven city chapters are organized by koinon, listed according to which koinon received its provincial imperial temple first. Asia leads the list, though in fact Asia and Bithynia both got theirs in 29 B.C.E. Within each koinon chapter, cities appear chronologically, according to the date they received the first temple that would make them neokoroi. This organization seemed to tell a clearer story for the development of neokoria than, for example, an alphabetic order within ethnic/geographic region, judicial district, or minting circle. For each city, any neokoriai after the first are discussed within the same chapter, so a full historical analysis is provided at the end of the book to unify the picture across all the neokoroi cities. As the data for each neokoros city are fully documented in the footnotes to that city’s chapter, the summary chapters of Part II (including the historical analysis) do not repeat them. Once the city chapters have laid out the facts, summary chapters allow a more synthetic analysis of a number of themes in Part II. Chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ is a chronological examination of the development of the provincial imperial cult among the neokoroi, and the way each emperor treated the cult and the title. ‘The Temples,’ chapter 39, covers the actual buildings whose possession made their cities neokoroi, their equipment, staff, and placement in the urban fabric. Chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ expands on the neokoroi cities themselves, their relationships and rivalries, their elites and benefactors, the coins they minted and the festivals they celebrated in connection with the neokoria. Then follows an examination of the koinon and the officials associated with its temples in ‘The Koina and Their Officials,’ chapter 41; finally, chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ gives the view from Rome, including the roles of the Senate, of provincial governors, and that taken by emperors whose worship made cities neokoroi. This organization was devised so that the book could be easily consulted in a number of different ways. Those who are interested only in one neokoros city can go directly to its chapter and find all they need. Those with broader regional interests may browse the chapters within one koinon. For a picture of the chronology, or for one particular

13

emperor’s actions regarding the neokoroi, ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38 in the Summary section, and chapter 42 on ‘Roman Powers,’ would be places to start, while any questions raised there regarding individual cases can be chased back into the relevant city chapters. The summaries of Part II also collect the data for those interested in particular topics. For example, an overview of the cult statues found in temples of the neokoroi is available in the ‘Temples’ chapter, 39, while contests celebrated by the neokoroi are considered in the summary chapter 40 on ‘The Cities.’ This structure is necessarily, indeed deliberately, repetitive. It is designed to allow the reader to see the same evidence in several different contexts, and to trace the interrelations among cities as well as between city and koinon, koinon and emperor, emperor and Senate, Senate and city. A synoptic chart shows which cities became neokoros, how many times, and when, and another gives a list of emperors’ names, regnal dates, and the names of members of their families who are mentioned in this study. A good place for the reader to start would be by consulting the chart of neokoroi; after that, individual interests should lead each one on. Terminology sometimes has to shift uncomfortably between the demands of English and of Greek. Where Greek spelling varies, I have transliterated original documents without change (as in the names of festivals). City names are Greek, though larger geographical areas have retained their more familiar Latinate spelling. I have abjured the anglicized ‘neokorate’ as inaccurate, referring instead to temples that conferred neokoria, or to koinon temples, i.e. temples instituted by the koinon. Abbreviations are given at the head of the bibliography; otherwise, footnotes refer to books by author and date, except where they are editions of ancient authors. Fonts were chosen to conform fairly closely to (though they could not exactly duplicate) those of the primary evidence—thus the lunate sigmas typical of coins of the period. Where translations of literary works and inscriptions have been made and are not otherwise noted, they are mine. My sincerest thanks to my readers and editors; any errors that may have escaped them are my own.

This page intentionally left blank

introduction: methodology

PART I: CITY-BY-CITY SECTION

15

This page intentionally left blank

chapter

1

17

– pergamon in mysia

SECTION I. KOINON OF ASIA Chapter 1. Pergamon in Mysia: Koinon of Asia The early history of the neokoria at Pergamon is the early history of the provincial imperial cult in Asia.1 Though the title itself was not used for Pergamon until the end of the first century, the first of the three temples that would ultimately make Pergamon neokoros was the temple of Rome and Augustus. First Neokoria: Augustus The fullest account is Cassius Dio’s chronicle of the winter of 29 B.C.E., when the victor of Actium, later to be known as Augustus, permitted the consecration of sacred precincts in the provinces of Asia and of Bithynia: Ka›sar d¢ §n toÊtƒ tã te êlla §xrhmãtize, ka‹ tem°nh tª te ÑR\m_ ka‹ t“ patr‹ t“ Ka¤sari, ¥rva aÈtÚn ÉIoÊlion Ùnomãsaw, ¶n te ÉEf°sƒ ka‹ §n Nika¤& gen°syai §f}ken: a´tai går tÒte a| pÒleiw ¶n te tª ÉAs¤& ka‹ §n tª Biyun¤& proetet¤mhnto. ka‹ toÊtouw m¢n to›w ÑRvma¤oiw to›w parÉ aÈto›w §poikoËsi timçn pros°taje: to›w d¢ dØ j°noiw, ÜEllhnãw sfaw §pikal°saw, •aut“ tina, to›w m¢n ÉAsiano›w §n Pergãmƒ to›w d¢ Biyuno›w §n Nikomhde¤&, temen¤sai §p°trece. ka‹ toËtÉ §ke›yen érjãmenon ka‹ §pÉ êllvn aÈtokratÒrvn oÈ mÒnon §n to›w ÑEllhniko›w ¶ynesin, éllå ka‹ §n to›w êlloiw ˜sa t«n ÑRvma¤vn ékoÊei, §g°neto. §n gãr toi t“ êstei aÈt“ tª te êll_ ÉItal¤& oÈk ¶stin ˜stiw t«n ka‹ §fÉ ~posonoËn lÒgou tinÚw éj¤vn §tÒlmhse toËto poi}sai: metallãjasi m°ntoi kéntaËya to›w Ùry«w aÈtarxÆsasin êllai te ¸sÒyeoi tima‹ d¤dontai ka‹ dØ ka‹ {r“a poie›tai. TaËta m¢n §n t“ xeim«ni §g°neto, ka‹ ¶labon ka‹ o| Pergamhno‹ tÚn ég«na tÚn |erÚn »nomasm°non §p‹ tª toË naoË aÈtoË timª poie›n.

In the meantime Caesar, besides taking care of affairs generally, gave permission that there be established sacred areas to Rome and his father Caesar, whom he named the hero Julius, in Ephesos and in Nikaia; for these were at that time the preeminent cities in Asia and in Bithynia respectively. He commanded that the Romans resident there honor those divinities, but he 1

S. Price 1984b, 56, 67, 133, 137-138, 156-157, 178, 182, 187, 252-253.

permitted the foreigners, whom he called Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. From that beginning, the latter practice has been carried on under other emperors, not only in the Greek provinces but in the others as well, insofar as they obey the Romans. For in the capital itself and the rest of Italy none of the emperors, no matter how worthy of fame, has dared to do this; still, even there they give divine honors and build shrines as well to dead emperors who have ruled justly. These events happened in the winter, and the Pergamenes got permission to hold the contest known as ‘sacred’ in honor of his temple. Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9.

Dio, like most historians of his time, was not a great investigator of archives or inscriptions, but used earlier historical works as his sources.2 This passage, however, seems to be quoting from an actual document, or at least using the same terminology as such a document, at certain specific points. For example, Augustus “named [his father] the hero Julius” (Ùnomãsaw) or “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] called Hellenes” (§pikal°saw) (italics mine). Some of this terminology is unusual in Greek but would fall naturally into Latin: the usual term for what Dio translated ‘hero’ (¥rva) is ‘divus,’ while Dio’s ‘foreigners’ (j°noiw), or non-Romans, is likely to have been his translation from the Latin term ‘peregrini.’3 It is also worth noting that ¶ynow, his word for ‘provincia,’ was not the term in general use at the time of the events he described, but only after the second century.4 In other words, it is likely that Dio was taking his account directly from a Latin source. Moreover, this section follows one that has been 2

Reinhold 1988, 6-9; Rich 1990, 4-11. Dio named the temple of Divus Julius in the Forum “the heroön of Julius” (51.22.2-3) and the praetor peregrinus the jenikÒw (53.2.3); Freyburger-Galland 1997, 159 and 215-226 on Dio’s language in general. 4 Mason 1974, 13, 70, 124-125, 136. Mason (16) comments on Dio’s tendency to translate from the Latin quite literally. 3

18

part i – section i. koinon of asia

categorized as an ‘urban “cluster”’ probably taken from a detailed annalistic historian, and perhaps ultimately based on the acta senatus.5 It is certainly possible that the report of the favorable response to the Hellenes came from the same source, or at least one just as detailed. The response is not repeated without changes; Dio was a historian, not an epitomator. He managed to sneak in a comment in praise of his home city, Nikaia, and the interpretation of the influence of Augustus’ ruling on the later development of imperial cult is all his.6 But the rest of the account may represent Augustus’ response to the embassies of Asia and Bithynia closely, though it is also possible that, as elsewhere, Dio has taken an enactment by a magistrate or by the Senate and put it into the mouth of the man whom he saw as actually wielding the power.7 As Dio portrays its history here, provincial imperial cult originated not in a command from above, but in a petition from two provinces that volunteered it; and specifically from the provincial organizations, the koina, that were to make this cult their main concern.8 The evidence for the involvement of the koina is twofold. First, they were the only representative bodies known to have dealt with the imperial cult throughout each province.9 That the new cults were to be province-wide is clear from Dio’s statement about “the foreigners, whom [Augustus] called Hellenes.” This designation does not comprehend all Hellenes everywhere, as only Asia and Bithynia are under discussion, and Dio carefully distinguishes the Asians from the Bithynians, referring to arrangements for four separate cities in two provinces. It is most likely, then, that petitions came from, and responses were given to, the koinon of the Hellenes of Asia and the koinon of the Hellenes of Bithynia (the latter of which will be dealt with in chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia’).10 As will be discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ it is probable that the koinon of Asia in fact asked for the privilege of building a

temple to the ruler himself, as it had for a long line of rulers and even magistrates before.11 Augustus’ answer to those petitions, however, gave pious primacy to the cult of his deified father, to be practiced in Ephesos. Dio’s assessment that this city was preeminent in Asia is likely his own, but there was good reason for choosing Ephesos: it was the seat of the governor, and a port likely to have many Romans in residence to practice the cult of Rome and Caesar.12 Pergamon, however, had been the center of the province’s Hellenistic administration, and was a logical center for the koinon of the Hellenes to choose for the location of its cult of Augustus. The Hellenes were not turned away from the worship of the deified Caesar, but were allowed the worship of the living ruler as their main focus. For Dio, writing from the viewpoint of a Roman senator of elite Hellenized background in the third century C.E., a line of demarcation was intended to separate the Roman, who worshipped the deified dead, from the non-Roman, who could also worship the living ruler, though that line was in actuality rather blurred.13 Dio made no distinctions between eastern and western provincial practice: any province subject to the Romans could so honor the current emperor. Yet Dio did not mention a crucial detail. Suetonius wrote of Augustus’ modesty in accepting honors: “Though he knew it was the custom to vote temples even to proconsuls, in not one province did he accept one unless it was in the name of Rome as well as in his.”14 In Dio’s account, the goddess Rome is the cult partner of Julius Caesar, not of Augustus; yet the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and other historians tells us that she was present in Augustus’ cult as well. Perhaps the addition of Rome was an afterthought to the original decision of 29 B.C.E. In some later cases the name of Rome dropped out when Augustus’ cult was mentioned.15 Or perhaps Dio himself omitted her because her presence would have obscured the point he made 11

5

51.20.1-4; Swan 1987, 272-291. 6 Reinhold 1988, 154; Piatkowski 1984 is a rather broadbrushed treatment. 7 Swan 1987, 279. 8 Ameling 1984, 124; Ziethen 1994, 54, 92-93, 221-222, treated this embassy as if it came from the city alone, ignoring the koinon’s role. 9 Deininger 1965, 16-19. 10 Habicht 1973, 55-56. For the formulae used to refer to the koinon see L. Robert 1967, 47.

See, for example, Cicero, Letters to his brother Quintus 1.1.26: the cities of Asia voted money for a “temple and monument” to Cicero and his brother. 12 Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321. 13 Whittaker 1996, 93-99, held that the presence of the goddess Rome in both cults assisted in blurring the line. See also Clauss 1996; Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 17-18. 14 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3: “Since the deified Augustus did not forbid that a temple to himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon...” 15 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

at the end of this passage, that Augustus’ was the model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio must have known, later emperors did not consider themselves obliged to honor the goddess Rome in the temples that were dedicated to them. Though Dio at first speaks only of ‘sacred areas,’ he specifies that the Pergamenes got a sacred contest “in honor of [Augustus’] temple.” The site of the temple at Pergamon has not yet been identified, but there is a good deal of evidence for its development. According to an inscription of Mytilene, it was under construction by 27 B.C.E., when it was being built ‘by Asia,’ that is, by the province as a whole, represented by the koinon.16 Presumably it was standing by 19 B.C.E., which is the date of the earliest silver cistophori of Asia (here type 1a) that show its full facade. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP IX TR PO V (IV, a) Head of Augustus, r. Rev: COM ASIAE; six-column Corinthian temple on stepped podium, ROM ET AVGVST on the entablature. a) SNGvA 6560 b) BMCRE 705 c) BMCRE 70617 (series dated 19-18 B.C.E.). From at least 9 B.C.E. onward, the temple of Rome and Augustus served as a collecting place for documents of importance to the koinon, and the documents themselves specify how and where they are to be set up in this chief shrine of the province.18 It is likely that the temple’s central role in both the province and the city was reflected in its grandeur and artistry, of which these coins must be a pale reflection. Telephos, a Pergamene scholar who wrote a guidebook to the city and a history of its kings, also produced a work in two books on the Sebasteion in Pergamon.19 Later Asian silver cistophori show the same temple, but with the number of columns reduced to two. This numismatic simplification permitted the cult statues, or at least a pair of statues closely associated with the temple, to be shown within.20

19

COIN TYPE 2. Obv: TI CLAVD CAES AVG Head of Claudius, l. Rev: COM ASI; Two-column temple on stepped podium, ROM ET AVG on entablature; within, female at r. crowns cuirassed male at l. 1) BMCRE 228 (= RPC 1:379 no. 2221, minted at Ephesos; illus. pl. 18 fig. 46).21 As the entablature again bears the names of the two divinities, the long-gowned female figure on the right who holds a cornucopia in her left hand should be Rome, in her nonmartial aspect of a city goddess.22 Though her headdress is not clear, a later relief from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias shows Agrippina the Younger with the same attributes and costume and her son Nero in the place of Augustus, and on that relief Agrippina wears a diadem.23 Rome, however, raises her right hand and the crown toward Augustus, whereas the later relief shows the act of crowning accomplished, with the mother’s hand resting on her son’s head. In the original Pergamon group Augustus is in military dress and holds a long sceptre in his right hand; in the best examples, one can see the paludamentum wrapped around his hips, in the style of the Primaporta statue, and the extreme contrapposto, with weight supported on the right foot, that makes him appear to propel himself away from Rome while still looking back at her.24 The temple depicted is that at Pergamon, even when the coins were minted in other cities of the province; that is, Pergamon’s temple, as the first provincial temple to be established, served as a symbol of the koinon of Asia. Shortly after the first silver cistophori were issued, but still during the reign of Augustus, the temple of Rome and Augustus also appeared on humbler bronze coins issued by the city of Pergamon: COIN TYPE 3. Obv: %EBA%TON Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: XARINO% GRAMMATEUVN Six-column temple. a) BMC 237 b) BMC 238 c) SNGCop 464 (RPC 1 no. 2358, dated between 10 and 2 B.C.E.).

16

Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 166-168 no. A26. RIC 1:61 no. 15; Sutherland 1970, 102-104 group VII; RPC 1:378-379 nos. 2217, 2219. 18 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. 19 Suda, s.v. TÆlefow; Jacoby 1950, no. 505. 20 Misunderstanding of this numismatic abbreviation led Mellor 1975, 141-142, to reject the use of coin evidence as a whole, specifically for the existence of the provincial temple at Nikomedia (q.v.). He was followed in this by Tuchelt 1981, who reduced both provincial temples to altar courts thereby. For the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-14, and above. 17

21 The same reverse image, with few variants, appears on cistophori of Vespasian (BMCRE 449), Domitian (BMCRE 254 bis), Nerva (BMCRE 79) and Trajan (BMCRE 711); each is described as the reigning emperor, but the unchanging image and legend in the entablature show that it is still Augustus within the provincial temple at Pergamon. For the Flavians, see RPC 2:132-134, esp. nos. 859, 875. 22 Di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997, no. 193. 23 Rose 1997a, 164-169 cat. no. 105; figs. 207, 208. 24 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 81-82.

20

part i – section i. koinon of asia COIN TYPE 4. Obv: PERGAMHNVN KAI %ARDIANVN Bearded male in long chiton (the People of Pergamon) raises r. hand to crown a similar figure (the People of Sardis).25 Rev: %EBA%TON KEFALIVN GRAMMATEUVN Two-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 360 b) BMC 361 c) BMC 362 d) BMC 363 e) London 1979-1-1-1590 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 47; temple incorrectly described as fourcolumn in RPC 1 no. 2362; dated ca. 1 C.E.). COIN TYPE 5. Obv: %ILBANON PERGAMHNOI Togate M. Plautius Silvanus, proconsul, crowned by a male in short chiton.26 Rev: %EBA%TON DHMOFVN Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 242 b) BMC 243 c) BMC 244 d) BMC 245 e) BMC 246 f) SNGCop 461 (RPC 1 no. 2364 and p. 401).

Due to the smaller size of the coins, the number of columns is usually reduced and the figure of Rome is omitted. The omission of the cult partner who symbolized Augustus’ modesty probably would not have been acceptable on the cistophori, which circulated throughout the province. The bronze coinage was meant to circulate more locally, so certain abbreviations were allowed to pass. As already mentioned, the goddess Rome had a tendency to drop out of references in later years; this is natural, as she was rather a makeweight, included in the cult by Augustus’ choice, not by the Asians’.27 The temple continued to appear on later bronze coins of the city, generally in the same form. Type 6, issued in the sixth year of the proconsul Petronius’ term in Asia, both imitated and challenged contemporary coins that were being issued by Smyrna to celebrate its new provincial temple of Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate (q.v.).28 Pergamon chose to place Tiberius and Julia (= Livia) ‘Augusti,’ instead of Julia and the Senate, on the obverse, while Augustus in his Pergamene temple replaced Tiberius 25 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 152-155; Kampmann 1996, 14-19, 118-119; Pera 1984, 17-19 believed it possible that the occasion for this coinage was to celebrate the two cities’ individual cults of Augustus, but the provincial temple was an appropriate type for the concord of two Asian cities. 26 Thomasson 1984, col. 208 no. 14; Stumpf 1991, 99-103 dated Silvanus’ proconsulship of Asia to 4/5 C.E. 27 Fayer 1976, 108 n. 4. 28 Thomasson 1984, 211 no. 35 and Stumpf 1991, 120-122 dated Petronius’ proconsulship between 28 and 36 C.E., his last year being 34 at earliest; but RPC 1 dated this coin type to ca. 30 C.E. For Smyrna, Klose 1996, 58.

in Smyrna’s temple on the reverse; and similar types continued under subsequent rulers. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: %EBA%TOI EPI PETRVNIOU TO q Draped bust of Julia r. and laureate head of Tiberius l., turned toward one another. Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 253 b) BMC 254 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 48) c) BMC 255 d) BMC 256 e) SNGCop 468 f) SNGCop 469 (RPC 1 no. 2369) g) SNGLewis 1337. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KLAUDION KAI%ARA %EBA%TON Head of Claudius r. Rev: %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 257 (RPC 1 no. 2370, dated ca. 50-54 C.E.) COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AGRIPPINAN %EBA%THN NERVNA %EBA%TON Draped bust of Agrippina r. and head of Nero l., turned toward one another. Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) Berlin 118/1882 (RPC 1 no. 2372, dated ca. 55 C.E.). COIN TYPE 9. Obv: KAI%ARA DOMITIANON DOMITIAN %EBA% Draped bust of Domitia r. and laureate head of Domitian l., turned toward one another. Rev: YEON %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI; PO Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) SNGvA 7500 b) Voegtli 1993, no. 368 (RPC 2:144 no. 918). After his discussion of Augustus’ grants to Asia and Bithynia, Dio stated that the Pergamenes also received permission to hold the contest called ‘sacred’ in honor of Augustus’ temple. This contest is presented as an addendum to the petition made by the two provinces, and it indicates some significant differences between Asia and Bithynia, though their requests were presumably made at the same time. Dio made no mention of a similar contest for the Nikomedians, and as he was by origin a Bithynian from Nikaia, he would have been well aware if one were asked or granted. It may be, therefore, that only the Asians’ request included a festival; it is even possible that this part of the petition came from a Pergamene embassy additional to that of the koinon. But Dio implies that the contest of sacred status was supplementary and in honor of the temple, not an invariable result of it. The contest itself, generally known

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

as Rhomaia Sebasta, appears in inscriptions from about 20 B.C.E. to the early second century, though after Augustus’ death it could have been called simply the Koina of Asia (an extended title which included provincial contests held in other cities beside Pergamon), or more specifically the Koina of Asia Augusteia.29 If the great tax document from Ephesos has been correctly restored to refer to this festival, Augustus confirmed its tax-free status for a thirty day period, both for Pergamon and its harbor of entry Elaia.30 Dio did not discuss the personnel of the proposed temples, so information on them must be gathered from other sources. In Asia, the highest official of the imperial temple, and probably of the koinon as a whole, was the chief priest. In Augustan times he bore the title of the single provincial temple in Pergamon, ‘chief priest of the goddess Rome and of the emperor Caesar Augustus [with various titles added], son of the god [Julius].’31 The longer Augustan title dropped out of use when temples to other emperors at other cities were added to the provincial imperial cult; these too would have chief priests, though the chief priest of the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon probably maintained his primacy.32 There has been some controversy over these later titles associated with the chief priesthood of the provincial temple(s) and headship of the province. Rossner held that ‘chief priest of Asia’ and ‘Asiarch’ were alternate ways of expressing the priestly and official duties of the heads of the koinon, and that the wife of the chief priest or Asiarch could receive the title of chief priestess of Asia.33 All these titles could be modified by the addition of the place where the provincial temple(s) were located. For example, an inscription dated to around 100 C.E. refers to one Tiberius Claudius Sokrates as “chief priest of Asia of the temple in Pergamon.”34 Kearsley rejected 29

Magie 1950, 448, 1295-1297 n. 57 (the latest document is that concerning the games for Trajan and Zeus Philios, see below); Moretti 1954, 282; Deininger 1965, 54-55; and L. Robert 1968, 267 on the oakleaf crown awarded to the victors. Fayer 1976, 113-118 and 123-125 disagreed with the identification of Koina with Rhomaia Sebasta, and Magie 1950, 1296 believed that Augusteia was a civic festival, but now see Wörrle 1992, 351, 359. 30 Engelmann and Knibbe 1989, 125-129 sec. 57, perhaps dating from the celebration of 8 or 12 C.E. 31 Fayer 1976, 112-113. 32 Campanile 1994b contains the most recent bibliography. 33 Rossner 1974. For further discussion, see chapter 41 on the koina and their officials, below. 34 IGRR 4:1239, from Thyateira.

21

the identity of chief priests and Asiarchs, opining that ‘Asiarch’ was a municipal office, and that the appearance of chief priestesses in inscriptions means that women could fulfill all the functions of, that is, substitute for, chief priests.35 Kearsley’s work has been criticized by Campanile, Wörrle, Herz, and Engelmann, most of whom have emphasized the enduring value of Rossner’s conclusions.36 Herz described the office of the chief priestess as worship of the Augustae, a role which usually the wife, but in her absence any female relation, of a chief priest/ Asiarch could fulfill; but this claim has not been proven. The chief priest could also give (or perhaps had to give) provincial contests: thus Anaxagoras, of the time of Claudius, was “[chief priest] of Asia and agonothetes for life of the goddess Rome and the god Augustus Caesar.”37 There was also a neokoros of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, presumably an official caretaker serving under direction of the chief priest, documented as late as the second century.38 The position was not a humble one, however: under Tiberius, the neokoros was also (municipal) priest of Tiberius and gymnasiarch for the Sebasta Rhomaia games, positions that involved considerable expenditure.39 A citizen of Thyateira later served as “panegyriarch of the temples in the most illustrious metropolis of the Pergamenes,” presumably for presiding over a festival for the koinon temples at a time after they became plural, after Trajan (below); it is not certain how early this office would have been instituted.40 By the mid-third century, the city of Philadelphia (q.v.) requested that it be released from its contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of the chief priesthood and panegyriarchy. This shows that the panegyris was held in the metropoleis of the province, and like the chief-priesthood, was funded 35 Kearsley’s articles include bibliography and new citations: Kearsley 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, and 1996. Also separating the two offices: Friesen 1999a and b. 36 Campanile 1994a, 19-25; Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz 1992; Engelmann 2000. Herz 1992 held, however, that the first chief priestess of Asia was only appointed after Drusilla the sister of Gaius was made diva in Rome in 38 C.E.; this seems unlikely, as Livia was already a cult partner in the provincial temple at Smyrna (q.v.) from 26 C.E. 37 IGRR 4:1608c, from Hypaipa, 41 C.E. Also see IGRR 4:1611b, C. Julius Pardalas, also at Hypaipa, and Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8.10, M. Antonius Lepidus; both of the time of Augustus. 38 Fayer 1976, 125. 39 IGRR 4:454. 40 Clerc 1886, 416 no. 25.

22

part i – section i. koinon of asia

by the koinon (see summary chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in Part II). Attached to the provincial temple at Pergamon was a choir of up to forty men who were “hymnodoi of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.” They had come together for the first time to sing the emperor’s praises voluntarily and without pay. This so impressed Augustus that he made the choir permanent and hereditary, to be supported by a levy on the entire province. One of their chief duties was to sing at provincial celebrations of the birthday of Augustus and those of subsequent emperors, and they maintained their own private cult of the emperors in the hymnodeion.41 In Claudius’ time it was decreed that hymnodoi should come from among the ephebes of the Asian cities, but the choir at Pergamon was exempted42 and hymnodoi of the god Augustus continue to be mentioned well into the second century C.E.43 Pergamon adopted the title ‘neokoros’ by around 100, perhaps ten or more years after it had been incorporated into the titulature of Ephesos.44 Inscriptions 1-4 simply call the Pergamenes neokoroi, while 6-10, of the first fifteen years of the second century, add ‘first’ to the city’s titles. A particularly interesting bronze coin type, perhaps datable to Trajan’s time and thus contemporary with these inscriptions,45 may in fact be one of the first to use the title ‘neokoros’ for the city: COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI%ARA %EBA%TON Radiate head of Augustus, r. Rev: PERGAMHNVN NEV (or K%V) Four-column Corinthian temple on stepped podium, disc in pediment; within, cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale. a) London 1894.7-6-38 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 49) b) Warsaw 59700 b) New York, Newell.

41 The main document is an altar dedicated to Hadrian Olympios that lists the names of about 35 hymnodoi with their officers, celebrations, and fees: IvP 260-270, no. 374; Fayer 1976, 125-127; S. Price 1980, 30 n. 15. 42 Halfmann 1990. For the Pergamene exemption, see the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, dated to 44 C.E., IvE 17-19. 43 IvP no. 523 (= IGRR 4:460) (Antonine, mentioning a priest of the goddess Faustina). 44 IdA 158-161. Dräger 1993, 113 dangerously assumed, and 119 stated as a fact, that Pergamon called itself neokoros of the emperors by the time of Domitian or before, but no such document has yet been found; see also 176-180. His treatment of titulature, 107-121, though a worthy effort, was flawed by such false assumptions throughout. 45 RPC 1:400 no. 2357.

The radiate bust, brassy fabric, and broad letter forms of this coin indicate that it is post-Augustan. Unfortunately the abbreviation for ‘neo(koros)’ is not clear on any of the coins, but the placement of the die-cutter’s drill holes should indicate that the initial letter was indeed N; and the alternative makes no sense.46 If it could be confirmed by a clearer example, this would be the only coin to show Pergamon as simply neokoros. Other coins likely from Trajan’s time also glorified Augustus and his temple: COIN TYPE 11. Obv: PERGAMHNOI %EBA%TON Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: AUTOKRATORA KAI%ARA Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within; monogram in exergue. a) SNGCop 462 b) Berlin, von Rauch c) Berlin, Löbbecke (RPC 1:400 no. 2355). COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUTOKRATORA %EBA%TON KAI%ARA Laureate head of Augustus, r. Rev: %EBA%TON PERGAMHNOI Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 236, misdescribed (RPC 1:400 no. 2356). The latest known inscription to use the single neokoria, without enumeration, is Pergamon inscription 10, which is dated by the proconsulship of C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus to ca. 109/110.47 Quadratus, a Pergamene who had risen to the highest rank among the Roman senatorial aristocracy, did not forget his home city. He would soon take on the expenses of a festival founded in honor of Pergamon’s second provincial temple. Second Neokoria: Trajan Pergamon, site of the first provincial imperial temple in Asia, inaugurated a new era in the provincial imperial cult in the reign of Trajan: it was the first city to receive a second provincial imperial temple. The event was unprecedented, though not unlookedfor. Augustus had allowed one such temple in one city per province. Later Pergamon, along with ten other cities of Asia, petitioned the Senate for permission to build a new temple of Tiberius. The city’s 46 Personal communication of the late M. Price concerning the London example. 47 Eck 1970, 171; Eck 1997b, no. 1; Halfmann 1979, 112115; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 95; Stumpf 1991, 267-269; Weiser 1998, 289.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

chief inducement, its possession of the temple to Rome and Augustus, backfired: the Senate considered that temple to be honor enough.48 The same restriction prevented Pergamon from gaining another neokoria under Gaius: Augustus was held to have ‘preempted’ (prokateilÆfasi) Pergamon.49 Thus when the city was granted a second imperial temple by Trajan, it set a precedent that would be followed eagerly throughout Asia: the precedent of multiple neokoriai. The title ‘neokoros’ was in fact the only one among many (e.g. ‘metropolis,’ ‘most illustrious,’ ‘first of the province,’ ‘greatest,’ ‘most beautiful’) that could be multiplied for the same city (i.e. a city could be twice neokoros but not twice metropolis), an aspect which added to its attractiveness in the century to come. The second provincial temple was dedicated to Zeus Philios and Trajan. This aspect of Zeus, undocumented at Pergamon previously, was probably brought in to share the cult with Trajan much as the goddess Rome had been brought in to share cult with Augustus.50 Zeus was a natural choice as chief of the gods, who grants rule to kings. The cult name Philios (in Latin, Jupiter Amicalis), focuses on the god’s patronage over the bond of friendship, particularly in the sense of alliance: for example, in the Hellenistic period, Zeus Philios had joined the personifications of Concord and Rome in presiding over loyalty oaths among Asian cities and between them and Rome.51 The god may also have been particularly appropriate to Trajan, as Dio Chrysostomos both named him in his first oration on kingship, and dwelt on friendship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, both perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.52 Indeed, on coins issued to commemorate the concord between Thyateira in Lydia and Pergamon, perhaps at the time of the grant of the provincial temple, an ordinary laureate obverse portrait of Trajan as Germanicus and Dacicus is also titled ‘Philios Zeus.’53 Though this assimilation may have 48

Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’ 50 Stiller 1895; Nock 1930b, 28. 51 Reynolds 1982, 6-11 no. 1; on the aspect of friendship, Thériault 1996, 84 n. 384. 52 Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olympian oration, 12.7576), Oration 3.86-132. A perceptive view of Dio’s possible presentations is Swain 1996, 187-206; also C. Jones 1978, 117. Bonz 1998, 260-267 instead saw an overwhelming ideology emanating from Rome. 53 BMC 145; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 166; Kampmann 1996, 78-79, 126 no. 154, with discussion of an unpublished

23

overstepped the usual boundary drawn between the god and the emperor (who, as will be seen, were represented by distinct images on Pergamene coins), it presages the later identification of Hadrian with Zeus Olympios and Eleutherios throughout the Greek world. The new cult at Pergamon seems to have been consistently compared with and modeled on that of Rome and Augustus in the same city, as is shown by coins and by the inscriptions that document its sacred contests. These inscriptions were found in the area of the temple itself, and probably formed part of its foundation documentation.54 They consist of various letters, orders, and a decree of the Senate concerning the status of and arrangements for the new festival. Judging from Trajan’s titulature (Optimus but not yet Parthicus), they date between August 114 and February 116.55 The grant of the festival was probably contingent upon and secondary to the grant of the provincial temple, just as it had been in 29 B.C.E.56 The first part of the dossier is a letter, probably from the proconsul of Asia. The recipient has been restored as the council and people of Pergamon, a restoration which seems appropriate when compared with the events of 29 B.C.E.; though the koinon made the petition for a provincial temple, the right to celebrate a festival in its honor was given to the Pergamenes. The letter refers to the ‘second’ festival as having the status of sacred, just as the festival for Rome and Augustus was. Next is the Latin decree of the Senate, really an affirmative answer to a petition of the Pergamenes. It declares that the contest in honor of Jupiter Amicalis and Trajan (named in that order) should be eiselastic, that is, that winners should receive the honor of a triumphal entry into their own cities. Also, the new contest was to have the same status as that for Rome and Augustus (also named in that order). The next section, a summary of the emperor’s directions, repeats this statement and calls the contest pentaeteric. The final text, Trajan’s letter to the Per-

49

statue base of the People of the twice-neokoroi Pergamenes dedicated by Thyateira; also Pera 1984, 38-40. 54 IvP no. 269 (IGRR 4:336; CIL 3:7068). Note that these particular documents refer only to contests, not to temples; this is made unnecessarily problematic by Schowalter 1998, 238239. 55 Kienast 1996, 122-124. 56 Cassius Dio 51.20.9; Hanslik 1965, 1094-1100.

24

part i – section i. koinon of asia

gamenes, is very fragmentary, but mainly concerns the success of the petition.57 Despite the fact that the koinon is not mentioned, was this festival on a provincial scale? The term ‘sacred’ and constant references to the precedent set by the festival for Rome and Augustus indicate that it was.58 After all, as Dio documented, permission to celebrate the festival honoring Pergamon’s first provincial temple had also been granted to the Pergamenes, not to the koinon. That the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was provincial is shown by a change in the titulature of the chief priests of Asia after its establishment: the chief priest (or chief priestess, or Asiarch) of the temple in Pergamon becomes that of the temples in Pergamon.59 The only new note is the endowment: expenses for the new contest were to be paid by C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus, the emperor’s ‘most illustrious friend.’ This funding is not necessarily inconsistent with provincial status; there is no evidence at all about who endowed the earlier festival for the temple of Rome and Augustus. There is no reason why even provincial festivals should not have been paid for by some wealthy benefactor, if any could be found.60 Quadratus therefore became agonothetes of the provincial Traianeia Deiphileia, and his son later held the office of chief priest of temples, almost certainly the two provincial ones, in Pergamon:61 INSCRIPTION 11. Habicht, IdA no. 20. The city honors the son of Quadratus. [{ boulØ ka‹ ~ d{mow t}w mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w ne]vk[Òrou pr]\thw [Perg]amhn«n pÒlevw §t¤mhse ÉA. [ÉI]oÊlion Kouadrçton érxierateÊsanta filote¤mvw ka‹ éj¤vw na«n t«n §n Pergãmƒ. . . Habicht, and then Halfmann, doubted that this priesthood was provincial because this inscription was not a decree of the koinon and because the temples are not specifically called provincial.62 Indeed, it was rare, but not unknown, for a member 57

See Oliver 1989, 141-143, also 146-147, other (fragmentary) letters from Trajan to the Pergamenes. For imperial constitutiones on the endowment of games, Herrmann 1980, 347. 58 Despite Ziegler 1985, 65. 59 Rossner 1974, 112, 124, 125, 129, 131 (chief priest); 131 (chief priestess); 117 (Asiarch); 118 (chief priest who is elsewhere known as Asiarch); and 121, 127 (chief priest and chief priestess in the temples in first and twice neokoros Pergamon). 60 For such benefactions in general see Pleket 1976. 61 For the son and the provincial status, see H. Müller 2000, 519-520 n. 6. 62 Halfmann 1979, 34.

of a senatorial family, son of a former consul, to become a provincial chief priest.63 On the other hand, there must have been very few, if any, other chief priesthoods that, like the one cited in inscription 11, included in their duties the supervision of more than one temple; and nothing forbids a provincial chief priest from being honored by his own city. Quadratus the father, as a citizen and benefactor of the city of Pergamon, may have used his influence in the province (as its recent proconsul) and in Rome (as friend to the emperor) to obtain the provincial temple and/or the sacred contest for his city.64 The latter, at least, we know he paid for. It would have been a proper reward for his benefaction to both city and province that his son, as chief priest of the province, should preside over the temples in Pergamon, including the one his father had been instrumental in attaining. Newly discovered inscriptions from Aizanoi commemorate three chief priests and a chief priestess of temples in Pergamon, and show two of the chief priests’ agonothetic crowns decorated with nine or ten (chesspiece-like) imperial busts.65 In addition, a theologos of the temples in Pergamon is known from the Antonine period.66 The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan does not appear on provincial silver as the temple of Rome and Augustus had, but this is because such coinage wasn’t minted at the time. The temple does, however, appear on bronze coins of the city of Pergamon, where a whole series was devoted to both the new and the old provincial temples. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: FILIO% ZEU% AUT TRAIANO(%, d) (%EB, abc) PER(GAMH, d) Fourcolumn Corinthian temple on high Roman podium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed emperor with sceptre. Rev: YEA RVMH KAI YEV %EBA%TV Four-column Corinthian temple on 63 Campanile 1994a, 168-169; the close connection between high-ranking provincials and the imperial cult is emphasized by Quass 1993, 149-151, while the provincial benefactions and magistracies of the senatorial class are discussed by Eck 1980, 291. 64 Halfmann 1979, 112-115 no. 17. White 1998, 346-356 on Quadratus (though fraught with mistranslations throughout). 65 Wörrle 1992, 349-368, 376; Rumscheid 2000, 12-14, 113-114 cat. 1. 66 P. Aelius Paion, poet and rhapsode of the god Hadrian: IvE 22, decree of the technitai of Dionysos; L. Robert 1980b, 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

stepped podium, cuirassed emperor with sceptre crowned by Rome with wreath and cornucopia within. a) BMC 263 b) BMC 264 c) BMC 265 d) BMC 266 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 50). COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT [TRAI]ANO% %EB GERM DAKI Laureate draped bust of Trajan r. Rev: FILIO% ZEU% TRAIANO% PERGAMHNVN Four-column Corinthian temple on high Roman podium, steps up the front, within it seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre and laureate, cuirassed emperor with sceptre. a) BMC 262 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 51). COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EBA%T Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev: FILIO% ZEU% PERGA Seated Zeus with phiale and sceptre. a) BMC 259. COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT TRAIANO% %EB(A, d) Laureate head of Trajan r. Rev. ZEU% FILIO% Head of Zeus r. a) BMC 260 b) BMC 261 c) SNGvA 1394 d) SNGvA 1395. COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUGOU%TO% PERGA Four-column temple, capricorn in pediment, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. Rev: %TR I PVLLIVNO% TRAIANO% Four-column temple, cuirassed emperor with sceptre within. a) BMC 267 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 52) b) SNGvA 1393 c) SNGCop 478 d) SNGRighetti 761. Coin type 13, like the foundation documents from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, draws the comparison between the city’s first provincial temple, that of Rome and Augustus, and the second, of Zeus Philios and Trajan: one on the obverse, the other, so familiar from the cistophori, on the reverse. Type 17, of smaller module, portrays the two temples in a similar way, but due to the reduced size both divine cult partners, Rome and Zeus Philios, are eliminated, indicating in each temple only what the Pergamenes thought to be essential: the emperors, Augustus and Trajan. This type also assimilates the two temples to one another except for Augustus’ zodiac sign in the pediment of his temple; one cannot tell whether this detail reflects an actual feature of the temple or an iconographic marker to identify it more plainly. Coin type 17 may in fact be of later date than the others, as a magistrate named Julius Pollio is known to have served under Septimius 67

Münsterberg 1985, 70.

25

Severus.67 On the other hand, types 13 and 14, issued under Trajan, differentiate the two temples with an interesting detail: the square shapes that flank the steps up the high podium of the temple of Trajan are lacking on the representation of the Greek-style temple of Augustus. This detail can be borne out from the actual remains: the square shapes represent the parastades, wings that flank the stairs of the podium that still supports the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. The temple, sometimes called the Trajaneum, was set in a broad plaza on one of the highest points of the Pergamene acropolis, above the great Hellenistic theater. It was originally excavated and published in the late nineteenth century; a project for restoration and further research lasted from 1974 to 1996.68 Excavations in the substructure of the temple terrace have revealed small rooms or workshops of Hellenistic date, perhaps outbuildings of the palaces of the Attalid kings. No signs of an earlier temple were found, so the cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was likely new to the site.69 Two Hellenistic monuments, one with an inscription of Attalos II (159-138 B.C.E.), were probably displaced by this or other Roman construction, but were reinstalled at the back of the temenos on either side of the temple. The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan stood in the midst of a broad plaza (70 x 65 m.), eventually with a portico on either side and a hall with an elevated colonnade at its back; its basis was an enormous vaulted terrace facing south-southwest over the city (illus. pl. 4 fig. 18). It can be said to have dominated, or perhaps crowned, the city of Pergamon, and the orientation of its axis may have even determined the lines of the city’s contemporary street grid.70 The temple itself (illus. pl. 1 fig. 4) was a large (32 x 20 m.), tall (18 m. high) and richly decorated Corinthian hexastyle with ten columns on its long side.71 It was set up on a Roman-style podium, unreachable except from the front, where the marble68

Stiller 1895; Radt 1988, 239-250; yearly reports in Archäologischer Anzeiger, most recently, Radt 1993, 374-379, and Radt 1999, 209-220, 301-305, 350-351. 69 Radt 1978, 431; Hoepfner 1990b, 279-281, against K. Siegler’s theory of a Doric temple of Zeus; Raeck 1999, 337. Zschietzschmann 1937, 1259-1260, had first posited an earlier cult. Of course, the great altar of Zeus was not far away. 70 On the expansion and regularization of the plaza and addition of the side colonnades, see Nohlen 1984, 238-249. On the city plan, Radt 2001, esp. 49, 53. 71 Stiller 1895.

26

part i – section i. koinon of asia

clad podium swept out on either side to flank a flight of steps; it is this feature that gives the facade its particular appearance on the coins. Only a few marble orthostats remain of the altar that stood before it. The temple’s high podium, its axial setting in an (eventually) colonnaded plaza, and the vaulted substructure of its terrace have all been noted as characteristic of imperial Roman architecture.72 It has even been suggested that the Pergamene architect of this temple was also responsible for the temple of Venus and Rome, though mainly on the basis of sculptural decoration, not layout.73 The one may be called a Roman-style temple in a Greek city, the other a Greek temple in the heart of Rome. There were also Asian precedents, however. Hellenistic temples in Asia Minor, such as the temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, had been placed on the axis of an enframing colonnaded courtyard far earlier than any Roman example, and even the podium temple may have had native Pergamene antecedents.74 The architectural decoration of the temple was suitably imposing, if a trifle bland. Consoles in the frieze combined the acanthus motif of the columns with a rising Ionic-style volute. Between the consoles were gorgoneia, combining a traditional apotropaic function with some overtones of imperial imagery: they had been featured in the friezes of the temples of the Deified Julius Caesar and of the Deified Vespasian in Rome, and a gorgoneion was becoming a standard feature on the breastplate or shield of imperial images.75 No pedimental sculpture was found, but perhaps there was a (metal?) shield in the gable(s), as the coins indicate. Rooftop akroteria consisted of interlaced acanthus shoots with a Victory standing on a globe in the center; the imagery of imperial victory is obvious, especially when emperors on coins and as statues often held such Victory statuettes.76 Coin types 13-15 concentrate on this new temple and its cult images. On them, Trajan’s contrapposto, standing with one knee bent, is not unlike that of 72

Lyttelton 1987, 39 posited that it was modeled on the temple of Mars Ultor in the forum of Augustus at Rome; Gros 1996-2001, 1.182 stressed the Roman elements, though he was incorrect about it also being a Hadrianeion (see below). 73 Strong 1953, 131-142; Felten 1980, 223-225; Boatwright 1987, 127-128; Strocka 1988, 297-299; Liljenstolpe 1996. 74 Waelkens 1989, 84-85. 75 Paoletti 1988, nos. 29, 31, 44; Bastien 1992, 2:341-367. 76 Vollkommer 1997, nos. 267, 56-58, 362-370.

Augustus on the earlier cistophori. Though this portrayal has been interpreted as Trajan “respectfully approaching” the seated figure of Zeus, he is in fact standing still, as the long spear or scepter that he leans on shows.77 The contrapposto posture was standard in male standing sculptures since Polykleitos. The enthroned Zeus is as much a standard iconographic type as the armored emperor; the two figures do not interact as had the earlier statue group, in which Rome crowned Augustus. It is as if they inhabited different planes of status: the emperor is not costumed as an Olympian, but simply as emperor, and the god does not respond to his presence. Among the ruins of the temple’s cella in the vaults of the terrace below were found the marble fragments, not of two, but of three colossal acrolithic cult statues: Zeus Philios, Trajan, and his successor Hadrian.78 It has been postulated that the statue of Hadrian, who was often identified with Zeus Olympios, replaced the statue of Zeus Philios that previously shared the temple with Trajan, or even replaced Trajan himself, but both hypotheses are unlikely. The proof is the following coin issued in the reign of Trajan Decius (249-251): COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K G ME% KUI TRAIANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius r. Rev: EPI % KOMF GLUKVNO% PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Fourcolumn temple on high Roman podium, steps up the front; within, seated Zeus with sceptre and cuirassed emperor. a) London 1901.6-1-41 (illus. pl. 18 fig. 53). On it appears the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, its architecture and cult statues just as they had been in the time of Trajan himself. That no legend was needed to identify it more explicitly indicates that the temple and its inhabitants were readily recognizable to the Pergamenes, and therefore that the cult of Zeus Philios and Trajan was still active well over a century after it was founded. The temple’s appearance at just this time is an obvious bit of flattery to the current emperor, based on the city’s longstanding cult of his namesake; it is therefore unlikely that either the statue of Trajan or the statue of Zeus (still seated) was replaced with a standing, cuirassed Hadrian.

77 78

S. Price 1980, 42. Raeck 1993.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

There had been some doubt about the existence of, and even the room available for, a seated cult statue of Zeus Philios until parts of its face, torso and throne were found.79 Their measurements indicate that the Zeus was on the same scale as the Trajan and the Hadrian, about two and a half times life size. The two imperial statues, however, stood in exactly the same pose as one another, contrapposto with the weight on the left leg, the right arm raised (to hold a spear?), the lowered left hand holding an eagleheaded sceptre.80 The pose reflects an exact mirror image of the Trajan on the coins, but the reversal may be explained if the die-cutter sculpted the dies in the image he saw; coins struck from such dies would come out in mirror-reverse. From the scale of the fragments, the standing statues may have been about 4.8 m. tall. The legs show attachment surfaces for a wooden core in the acrolithic technique, and the surviving bits of marble also include hands, one with a ring marked S, a sword, the head of an eagle sceptre or hilt, and elaborately decorated high boots (illus. pl. 6 fig. 23). Many of the coin types that illustrate Trajan’s statue beside Zeus Philios show the emperor wearing just such high boots. The statues’ exact arrangement remains uncertain. The limited area of the cella (only 8.5 m. wide) was only designed for two colossi, and at least originally, Zeus and Trajan perhaps stood side by side in the temple, in a position similar to that portrayed on the coins. There may even have been a dividing wall down the cella between them, which would explain why the two do not interact much with each other.81 A fragmentary inscription, not yet published, may explain how the colossal statue of Hadrian fit in.82 The inscription seems to be the fragment of a letter from Hadrian to the Pergamenes, dated to the last years of his reign, ca. 135-138. The Pergamenes had apparently asked for permission to build a new imperial temple to Hadrian himself, and though he denied them this request, he allowed his own likeness (‘eikon’) to be set up in the temple of his father. This is presumably how the colossal Hadrian came to stand in the temple, though it must have been a tight squeeze in that cella, especially if there

27

was a cross wall. Pedestals for each standing emperor have been estimated at 2.5 to 3 m. wide, while that of the enthroned Zeus would have naturally been yet larger. Possibly a new pedestal had to be made to accommodate the pair of emperors, though the side-by-side arrangement of two figures standing in exactly the same pose does not seem particularly felicitous. Interestingly, though Hadrian had granted permission only for a portrait and not specifically a cult statue or agalma, the new statue copied the cult statue of Trajan in all its features, and was presumably meant to receive similar respect. The two marble imperial heads are well preserved. Unlike the cult statue of Trajan on the coins, neither wears a laurel wreath; it could have been added in metal, though there are no cuttings in the stone to show it, or even in actual foliage, as imperial statues were often ceremonially crowned.83 Zanker found both portraits to be of an unusual style for Asia Minor, and postulated that they came from a western atelier, but Evers believed that both were local.84 The treatment of Trajan (illus. pl. 7 fig. 24) is very different from, for example, that of the earlier colossus of Titus at Ephesos (see chapter 4, ‘Ephesos’). Where the latter was almost exaggeratedly baroque, the former is more restrained and classicizing. Still, there is a distinct emphasis on the slightly windblown fringe of hair, the linear treatment of the eyes, and the slightly parted lips. Though the Trajan and the Hadrian are all but identical in pose, even turning their heads to the right at approximately the same angle, there are distinct differences in style between the two. Hadrian’s portrait (illus. pl. 7 fig. 25) offers more scope for a baroque treatment, with drilled curls in hair and beard; even the eyebrows are ruffled. Where the sculptor of the Trajan concentrated on broad, smooth planes, that of the Hadrian was more concerned with dramatic effect, breaking up the planes of the face with hollows and wrinkles. The stylistic disparity tends to indicate that the two were not carved at the same time: the head of Trajan fits with the date of the foundation inscriptions, 114-116, but that of Hadrian takes after a prototype dated in 128.85 Therefore the

79

Raeck 1993, figs. 4 and 5. Radt 1988, 239-242. 81 Radt 1988, 247. 82 Raeck 1993, 387; Schorndorfer 1997, 55 n. 212; Radt 1999, 212, 350; to be published by H. Müller, Munich. 83 Pekáry 1985, 118-119; though in this case, of course, it would have taken a ladder to do it. 80

84

Zanker 1983, 18 n. 41; Evers 1994, 89. Trajan: Berlin, AvP no. 281: Gross 1940, 61-62, 93 no. 26, of the ‘decennalia type’ after 108 C.E.; Hadrian: Berlin, AvP no. 282: Wegner 1956, 20, 23-24, 39, 59-61, 94; Evers 1994, 257-259, type of ‘Imperatori 32,’ connected with Hadrian’s becoming pater patriae and Olympios. 85

28

part i – section i. koinon of asia

statue of Hadrian is likely to represent the eikon granted after 135, perhaps ordered from the same studio that sculpted the original cult statue.86 At first, the complex dedicated to Zeus Philios and Trajan consisted only of the temple and the hall backing it on the north; the broad terrace was confined at east and west by plain precinct walls. Some time later, however, porticos were built on the east and west sides of the precinct. Like those of the earlier north hall, their columns had Pergamene-style capitals with leaves, but the level of the side porticoes was lower than that at the back; it is uncertain how the roofing was resolved. Nonetheless, the complex now resembled the forum temples of Rome, except for the fact that it was completely open to the south. There, from the ends of the side porticoes, two buildings jutted winglike. Exploration of the one on the west has revealed a large vaulted hall that may have been used for cultic gatherings, some (third century) podia and wall paintings, and a connection with one of the vaults of the terrace substructure. The underground setting has suggested imperial mysteries, but none have yet been documented for this temple, though they were practiced by the college of hymnodoi of Rome and Augustus.87 Other (cultic?) buildings were attached to either end of the north hall: on its west end, behind the west portico, was another large hall; and a row of small rooms extended from its east end further east, perhaps serving as depots, workshops, or rooms for cult functionaries. The addition of east and west porticoes has been attributed to a visit from Hadrian, either in 124 or in 129.88 The date of construction is not certain, however, but is based on the assumption that only the presence of Hadrian would have prompted such a change in his father’s temple, with the added possibility that the expansion’s entire purpose was the addition of Hadrian’s cult to Trajan’s. Whether Hadrian visited Pergamon in 124, 129, or at any point, is in fact not confirmed by any document.89 Also, no modification was made to the temple itself; only the precinct was elaborated. It is more likely that either the porticoes and their attachments were intended in the original plan, but

86 87 88 89

Evers 1994, 90. Radt 1999, 219-220, 351. Nohlen 1985; Radt 1999, 212, 218-219. Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199.

construction was delayed; or that they were connected with the letter of Hadrian referred to above. It is dangerous to guess the real import of this document before its full publication, but from the snippets that have been cited, we know that the Pergamenes had asked for permission to build a temple of Hadrian, and Hadrian had refused. This was quite late in his reign, after he had permitted temples of Asia to be built in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos; had Pergamon asked for that privilege as well, the granting of which would have made it the only city yet to be three times neokoros? Possibly, or the request may have simply been for a municipal temple; the refusal was apparently addressed to the Pergamenes, not to the koinon of Asia. In any case, Hadrian did allow the Pergamenes to put his portrait in the temple to his father. That portrait was made as similar to the previous cult image of Trajan as was possible, though the temple itself was not changed or expanded. It could be that the Pergamenes chose this moment to aggrandize the temple precinct with new porticoes, one or all of which could have been named in honor of Hadrian. Aelius Aristides recounts a dream about a Hadrianeion that may have been in Pergamon, but it was situated in a place where bathing was possible, as this was not.90 In any case, the apsed end of the east portico of the temenos would have been suitable for an imperial statue, and in fact a replica of a cuirassed torso found in the western annex of the precinct has been set there today.91 The sash and griffins on its cuirass are more typical of one of the later Antonine emperors than of Hadrian, as whom it is sometimes identified, and it is likely that images of later emperors were added and honored within the complex.92 In any case, once all the documents from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan are fully published, we shall see whether the elaboration of the precinct could date after Hadrian’s letter of 135138. The formula ‘first, neokoroi Pergamenes’ was merely changed to ‘first and twice neokoroi Pergamenes’ on inscriptions dated just after the grant: these include inscription 12, which like the documents for the contest is dated by Trajan’s titulature 90 Aelius Aristides, Oration 47/Sacred Tales 1.29. C. Jones 1998, 74. A Hadrianeion did not have to be a peripteral temple: S. Price 1984b, 134, 260 no. 59; Boatwright 2000, 24 n. 30. 91 Radt 1982; a base and dedication by Quadratus are also mentioned. Radt 1999, 218-219. 92 Niemeyer 1968, 49-50.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

between August 114 and February 116, through inscription 15, dated about 120. After that, Pergamon began to use the title ‘metropolis’ as well, and the formula runs ‘metropolis of Asia and first, twice neokoros city of the Pergamenes’ (inscriptions 1618, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, 30-32) from the time of Hadrian to that of Septimius Severus. The qualification that Pergamon was twice neokoros ‘of the Augusti’ seems to be a late variation in the formula, as the one datable inscription with this phrase is Severan (inscriptions 24, 33, 34). The phrase also makes it clear that both Pergamene neokoriai were granted for the imperial cult, not for the worship of other gods, a consideration which is important in evaluating inscriptions 19 and 20. INSCRIPTION 19. Habicht, IdA no. 10. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius. [{ mhtr]Òpoliw t}w ÉA[s¤aw ka‹ d‹w] nevkÒrow pr\t[h ka‹ mÒnh? t]oË Svt}row ÉAs[klhpio]Ë Pergamhn«n p[Òliw]. . . INSCRIPTION 20. Habicht, IdA no. 11. Statue base of Lucius Verus. [{ mhtr]Òpol[iw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w] nevk[Òrow pr\th ka‹ mÒnh?] toË S[vt}row ÉAsklhpio]Ë Pe[rgamhn«n pÒliw]. . . This matched pair of statue bases of the co-emperors, dated to 162 C.E., was found in the Asklepieion of Pergamon. Habicht restored the unprecedented formula ‘metropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros and alone (neokoros) of Asklepios Soter’ on the basis of Ephesos calling itself ‘alone neokoros of Artemis.’93 But the case of Ephesos (q.v.) in fact disproves this restoration, as Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis was granted by the emperor, not assumed by the city. At this point Pergamon never claimed to be more than twice neokoros, and inscriptions 24, 33 and 34, as already mentioned, make it clear that both neokoriai were for emperors.94 Perhaps a better restoration would be d‹w nevkÒrow pr\th ka‹ êsulow (or |erå)95 toË Svt}row ÉAsklhpioË; the right of asylum had after all been guaranteed to the Asklepieion by Julius Caesar, and approved by the Senate in 22.96 93

IdA 158-161. These points were overlooked by Collas-Heddeland 1995, 424-425, who also misunderstood Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis, 422. 95 I owe this suggestion to an anonymous reader; see chapter 10, ‘Tralles,’ inscriptions 1 and 2. 96 Tacitus, Annals 3.63; Rigsby 1996, 377-384 proposed that the original grant was late in the Attalid dynasty but was abrogated after the Mithridatic massacre of 88 B.C.E. 94

29

It was also during the joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus that the title ‘neokoros’ first began to appear regularly on coins of Pergamon, which state a simple ‘twice neokoros’ without much fanfare. The first coins to illustrate the temples with the title were issued under the strategos Claudius Nikomedes for Commodus Caesar: COIN TYPE 19. Obv: M AURH KOMODO% KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: EPI NIKOMHDOU% B NEVKORVN PERGAMHNVN Two six-column temples on stepped podia, each with three dots in its pediment, turned toward one another; between them, armed figure with sceptre and spear on a tall column. a) BMC 308 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 54) b) SNGParis 2150 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. The obverse portrait is that of an adolescent rather than that of a boy, and so should date late in the reign of Commodus’ father Marcus Aurelius, but before the death of his mother Faustina in 175, as the same strategos issued coins for her.97 The issue’s reverse displays the two temples as identical hexastyles in three-quarter view confronting one another. This representation conforms to neither topographical nor artistic reality, as other coins indicate that the temple of Rome and Augustus looked different from the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, and certainly would have been found by now had the former been located anywhere near the latter. The die-cutter used a kind of numismatic shorthand, conveying the concept of two temples of the same status and function (of the koinon, giving the status of neokoros, for the imperial cult) by showing two temples exactly alike. For example, the temple of Trajan is not distinguished by its characteristic parastades on this coin type. As has been discussed in the introduction on ‘Methodology,’ such assimilations are the rule rather than the exception on multiple-temple types, and these types almost invariably represent temples for which the city is neokoros. In the case of Pergamon’s coin type 19, the two temples flank a tall column, atop it an armored male figure holding spear and sceptre, a star to either side. Though von Fritze identified this statue as Commodus, it is unlikely that such a major monument would have been erected for the still-young son of an emperor rather than for the emperor himself.98 The 97 98

Münsterberg 1985, 70. Von Fritze 1910, 77-78.

30

part i – section i. koinon of asia

figure looks imperial, but other cities’ later issues, though perhaps modeled after this type, place nonimperial personages on the column between the temples: issues of Nikomedia (q.v.) from 209-211 show Demeter on the column, and a similar one of the koinon of Macedonia (Beroia, q.v.) may show Alexander the Great. The figure on the Pergamene column may be Marcus Aurelius, but the identification cannot be assured. During Commodus’ sole rule Pergamon issued coins that celebrated imperial victories with the sacrifice of a bull (type 20). That type helps to explain a later issue that has been much misunderstood: type 21, the sacrifice of a bull before an imperial statue. COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUTO KAI M AURH [KO]MO[DO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., mature. Rev: E[PI] %TR M AI GLU[KVNIANOU] PERGAMHNV[N B] NEVKORVN Cuirassed emperor with sceptre crowns trophy, a captive at its foot, on low pedestal; below, sacrifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2166. COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT KAI L %EP %EOUHRO% PER IOU DOMNA %EBA%TH Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. and draped bust of Julia Domna l. Rev: EPI %TRA KLAUDIANOU TERPANDROU; PERGAMHNVN B NEOKORVN Cuirassed emperor, beardless, with sceptre and phiale on high pedestal; below, sacrifice of a bull. a) SNGParis 2209 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 55) b) SNGParis 2208 c) Berlin, Fox d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) New York, Newell. Von Fritze believed that a sacrifice to the emperor could not be held outside of ‘neokorate cult.’ Therefore he had to identify the beardless emperor as either Augustus or Trajan, the two emperors with koinon temples in Pergamon.99 But sacrifice to and for emperors did exist at private and municipal as well as provincial levels.100 Type 20 also shows a sacrifice on a special occasion, in this case an imperial victory symbolized by Commodus crowning a trophy. Type 21 is less specific, but a hypothesis regarding the identification of its images can be worked out from the following observations. Despite the fact that the obverse shows a fully bearded Septimius Severus with his wife Julia Domna, the 99 100

Von Fritze 1910, 77 pl. 8.15. S. Price 1980 and 1984b, 207-233.

image on the reverse is clearly beardless. The same strategos who issued this type also minted a joint issue for Severus’ sons Caracalla (as Augustus) and Geta (as Caesar), thus after 197 and before 209, when Geta became Augustus.101 A beardless emperor could not be Septimius Severus, and a single figure is more likely to be the senior than the junior of his two sons. The sacrifice may have been on some such occasion as Caracalla’s elevation to the title of Augustus after autumn 197, his assumption of the toga virilis in 201, or his marriage to Plautilla in April 202. The sacrifice did not have any direct association with the cults that made Pergamon twice neokoros. Third Neokoria: Caracalla Pergamon was still only twice neokoros by 209, as coins of Geta as Augustus show. The occasion and reasons for Pergamon’s receiving its third neokoria from Caracalla are fairly well documented. Herodian stated that Pergamon was the first city that Caracalla visited in Asia, even before Ilion, though the epitomes of Dio imply the reverse.102 His motive appears to have been to get treatment at the famous shrine of the healing god Asklepios. The visit was probably at the end of 213, before Caracalla went on to winter quarters in Nikomedia; a base dated to 214 was found with its twice-lifesize, veiled portrait of the emperor in the Asklepieion.103 As Pergamon’s coins are distinguished by the names of yearly strategoi, they are fairly easy to group, though more difficult to date.104 The names of three strategoi appear on coins registering Pergamon’s third neokoria under Caracalla. The majority of the coins are of medallic size, suitable for celebratory issues. The coins of M. Caerelius Attalos, however, make the most of the new neokoria, with types showing the three imperial temples and with types of the emperor both in military and in civilian dress presiding at sacrifices before Pergamene temples, especially those of Asklepios (both the stand-

101

BMC 315, e.g.; Kienast 1996, 162-167. Herodian 4.8.3; Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7-8, also 78.15.27 on his ailments. 103 Halfmann 1986a, 227; also Letta 1994b, documenting the emperor’s arrival in Nikomedia on January 1, 214. The portrait: Bergama Museum inv. no. 163, Inan and Rosenbaum 1966, 84-85 no. 60. 104 Münsterberg 1985, 70-71. 102

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

ing and a seated image, see below) and his companion deities.105 The coins of Julius Anthimos, on the other hand, show Caracalla only in military dress and emphasize his triumph; where the emperor hails the city goddess of Pergamon, there is no architectural setting.106 Thus the coins of Attalos are likely to be earlier and to refer to the visit of 213, while those of Anthimos were probably minted later, when the Parthian campaign was in full swing. Only one coin of the third strategos, M. Aurelius Alexandros, is yet known to mention neokoria; it is difficult to place him precisely, but he should not be confused with Tiberius Claudius Alexandros, who was a later strategos, under Elagabalus. COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AUT (KRAT K MARKO% AUR, ac; KAI M AUR %EOUHR, b) ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three temples on stepped podia, each with wreath at apex; outer two six-column, each with cuirassed emperor on pedestal with sceptre within, in one pediment AUG, in the other TR(A, c); center temple fourcolumn, seated male holding snake and staff within, in pediment AN. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer b) New York ANS 1944.100.43356 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 56) c) SNGvA 7513. COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO% AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Three Corinthian temples on stepped podia; lower two four-column (six-column, ij), turned toward each other, a dotted circle in each pediment; higher, center one four-column, AN in pediment, seated draped male holding snake and staff within. a) BMC 327 b) Oxford 36.10 c) SNGParis 2227 d) SNGParis 2229 e) SNGParis 2228 f) SNGCop 500 g) SNGvA 1411 h) SNGvA 1412 i) Berlin, Löbbecke j) Berlin, Löbbecke k) New York, ANS 1944.100. 43357 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 57). 105

For an artistic analysis of the group of issues celebrating the emperor’s worship of Asklepios, see Kadar 1986. For a socio-political slant, see Harl 1987, 53-54. For the protocol of imperial visits, Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182 n. 558, more on literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late antique at Rome than the provinces. 106 E.g. BMC 319, SNGCop 499. Metcalf 1999, 14 took the opposite view of the two magistrates’ chronology, but did not consider all the relevant types.

31

For the purposes of this study the most important of M. Caerelius Attalos’ issues are the multipletemple types. The three temples for which Pergamon was neokoros are shown as architecturally similar, but are identified by minute letters in their pediments as the temples of Aug(ustus), Tra(jan), and An(toninus), i.e. Caracalla. Thus they confirm what has been assumed up to this point, that Pergamon became neokoros for the temples of (Rome and) Augustus and (Zeus Philios and) Trajan. Yet the temples of those two show normal imperial images, while the central temple displays a seated, bearded male figure with his left arm holding up a staff, and a snake curled in his lap. That this is not an alternate image for Caracalla is shown by coin types on which the togate emperor presides at a sacrifice before the same temple to the same seated god: COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT KRAT K M(ARKO%, abdefgh) AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev. EPI %TR M KAIREL ATTALOU PERGAMHNVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN Togate emperor with phiale and scroll turns toward four-column Corinthian temple (above, abcdef; in three-quarter view, gh); in pediment (disc, a; dot, g; AN, f); seated within, a draped male with snake and staff; youth sacrifices bull before the temple. a) SNGParis 2246 b) SNGParis 2245 c) SNGParis 2247 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) New York, Holzer f) Munich107 (illus. pl. 19 fig. 58) g) BMC 324 h) SNGParis 2230. That an emperor should be portrayed sacrificing to himself as divinity makes no sense. Yet coins and inscriptions (below) insist that Pergamon was three times neokoros of the Augusti, and on several coins the initial letters of Caracalla’s name fill the temple’s pediment. A similar case of temple-sharing would soon occur at Smyrna (q.v.), where the cult of Caracalla was apparently moved into the ancient temple of the goddess Rome, and Smyrna too became three times neokoros of the Augusti. Thus it is likely that Caracalla shared a temple at Pergamon with another god, and it is that cult partner to whom he sacrifices.108 This concept may seem odd, but there would be other occurrences: on contemporary coins of Smyrna, the goddess Rome carries in her arms the temple that she shared with Caracalla; and later, 107

Von Fritze 1910, pl. 8.7. Despite Nock 1930b, 24-25, who did not take all the coin types into account. 108

32

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Philippopolis’ coins would show Elagabalus sacrificing before the temple of his own cult partner Apollo, while on Aigeai’s coins, Severus Alexander, holding Asklepian attributes, would sacrifice to Asklepios in the temple they shared (qq.v.). Cult partners, of course, were the rule rather than the exception at Pergamon. Augustus had as cult partner the goddess Rome, and Trajan had Zeus Philios; it was only proper that Caracalla also share his temple. The question is, with whom? One trail, but a false one, led to Dionysos Kathegemon.109 This untenable hypothesis was based on the fact that his Ionic temple on the terrace at the foot of the Pergamene theater was reconstructed in the third century, and that on its entablature the following dedication could be restored: INSCRIPTION 35. IvP 299 (IGRR 4:362; cf. AvP 1.2 no. 229110). Inscription of the epistyle of the Ionic temple of Dionysos Kathegemon on the theater terrace of Pergamon. Restored from nail holes left by the original bronze letters. AÈtokrãtori Ka¤s[ari M. AÈr. ÉAntvne¤n]vi Sebas[t«i { Pergamhn«n t]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. The slightly awkward syntax of this phrase could perhaps be improved by changing it to [{ t«n Pergamhn]«n tr‹w nevkÒ[r]vn mhtrÒpoliw. This is the earliest inscription of the Pergamenes as three times neokoroi yet known. The restoration to Caracalla was based on the fact that he had granted Pergamon its third neokoria, and it was assumed that a new inscription on the temple’s epistyle meant the presence of a new cult partner in the temple. The original god was mentioned in another, fragmentary inscription, likely from a naiskos within the temple itself; von Prott identified him as Dionysos, probably rightly.111 A dedication to an emperor, however, was an honor inscribed on many types of buildings, not a necessary sign that the imperial cult was practiced within. Emperor’s names were added to the architraves of temples as famous as the Parthenon and the Temple of Athena at Priene.112 Among nonsacred buildings at Pergamon itself, the entry to a bath complex was dedicated to an emperor, and an

109

Von Prott 1902; Ohlemutz 1940, 103-117. Conze et al. 1912-1913, 284-285. 111 IvP 300; von Prott 1902, 180-188. 112 Von Gaertringen 1906, no. 157; Carroll 1982, 59-63, though Nero’s name is in the accusative, not the dative, in the latter. 110

exedra to Hadrian.113 The topic of imperial dedications will be dealt with in examining the so-called temple of Hadrian at Ephesos (q.v.). But in the case of Pergamon, the coins that show the third temple for which neokoria was given without the other two and in the most detail depict it as Corinthian, not Ionic like the temple on the theater terrace.114 Von Fritze recognized the seated god as Asklepios, though he still wanted to place him in the temple on the theater terrace.115 Asklepios had been portrayed as enthroned with a snake before him on coins of Pergamon from the Hellenistic period.116 The original cult image of the god at Pergamon may have been based on the famous chryselephantine statue by Thrasymedes at Epidauros, the ultimate source of the Pergamene cult (Pausanias 2.26.8). But though both were enthroned, contemporary coins depict them somewhat differently: the Pergamene god has no dog under his chair; feeds his serpent with a phiale rather than holding his right hand over its head; the snake faces toward the god, not away; and the god’s staff is held behind his lowered left arm, not as an upright prop for a raised arm.117 Recent debate has raged over whether this is a representation of the famous statue by Phyromachos that King Prusias of Bithynia stole in 156 B.C.E.; where in Pergamon he stole it from; and whether it was ever returned.118 These considerations have little import for the question before us, however, as the seated image of Asklepios that appeared in Caracalla’s temple on Pergamene coins was rather different from the earlier Hellenistic coin image. Starting in Antonine times, the seated god has his left arm raised, leaning on his staff, as in the Epidauran image; a marble figurine in the same pose and also probably Antonine was found in the Asklepieion itself.119 There are three variants as well: either the snake curls in front of the god,120 twines 113

IvP nos. 287, 293. Even S. Price 1984b, 253 no. 23, seemed to conflate the two; bibliography of the dispute there. 115 Von Fritze 1908, 28-35; 1910, 50-51. 116 Wroth 1882, 14-16, 20. 117 The Pergamene coin: BMC 73; Penn 1994, 18-19, 5759. De Luca 1990 has noted the differences, where others have not: Stewart 1979, 12-16; Holtzmann 1984; Westermark 1991, 151 no. 11, 155-156. 118 Polybius 32.15.1-6; Diodorus Siculus 31.35; Andreae 1990, 75-77; H. Müller 1992; Andreae 1993, 96-105; Ridgway 2000, 234. 119 De Luca 1990, 26-28 pl. 14. 120 Von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.17 and von Fritze 1908, pl. 3.20 (Antoninus Pius); on a concord coin, the god holds an image 114

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

round his staff,121 or, in the case of the minuscule representations on coin types 22-24, moves up into the god’s lap. It is difficult to tell whether these variants represent different cult images, the same cult image as affected by lack of space on the coins, or simply different ways of depicting Asklepios himself. In fact, the seated god’s appearances on postAntonine coins are far outnumbered by those of a standing Asklepios, who stands as the city’s symbol on its concord coinages, as will be seen. Can the enthroned image, or its temple, be identified? Its combination of the attributes of Zeus and Asklepios brings to mind the Pergamene god Zeus Asklepios, whose temple was mentioned by Aelius Aristides and whose name is preserved in a Pergamene inscription.122 The temple of Zeus Asklepios has been identified as an important building in the sanctuary of Asklepios just outside the city, a building that took the Pantheon in Rome as its model (illus. pl. 1 fig. 6).123 Its stepped porch is four-column and Corinthian like the coins, and leads into a broader and higher pronaos, also gabled; their standard temple format mediates between the viewer and the rotunda which was unprecedented for a temple at that time and in that place. Within the almost 24 m. diameter hall, originally decorated with variegated marble revetment, there is a 2 x 2 m. plinth for a cult statue in a 9.15 m. tall niche opposite the entry. Another marble base ca. 1 x 2 m. was found near the center of the rotunda, but this was probably reused, not in its original position. The temple of the seated god is portrayed on the coins as a standard temple, however, and though the suppression of a rotunda behind a columnar facade may be due to numismatic abbreviation, coins that show the temple in three-quarter view also make it seem a detached peripteron. As yet no sign of imperial cult has been found in the round temple in the Asklepieion. Kranz claimed that the cult statue of the round temple was a standing image, which he identified as the Asklepios of Phyromachos; if this were correct, the round temple with the standing image of Artemis Ephesia instead of the phiale, von Fritze 1910, pl. 9.20 and SNGCop 517 (Commodus). 121 SNGFitzw 4231, von Fritze 1910, pl. 5.15 and 1908, pl. 3.19 (Commodus). 122 IdA 11-14, 102-103 no. 63. 123 Ziegenaus 1981, 30-75; Radt 1988, 260-261; Radt 1999, 230-232; Gros 1996-2001, 1:182-183. For the construction technique, a combination of a Roman brick dome on a more traditional ashlar drum, see Waelkens 1987, 95.

33

would be distinct from the temple of the seated god which Caracalla shared, and which gained Pergamon its third neokoria.124 The standing image, as mentioned above, was more popular on Pergamon’s coins of the imperial period, where Asklepios served as the city’s patron god.125 It was also picked up on the coins of many other cities, not only due to the authority of the Pergamene sanctuary, but to the tendency of the minting centers to standardize iconography from one city to another.126 Putting aside the question of Phyromachos, however, Kranz’s thesis is thrown into doubt by coins of Commodus and Caracalla that show the temple of the standing Asklepios as Corinthian and six-column, while the rotunda’s facade had only four columns.127 In fact, no temple in the Asklepieion has yet been shown to have six columns.128 And though Müller would like to eliminate the current attribution of several temples in Pergamon to Asklepios, there may have been at least one such temple outside the Asklepieion, at least by Antonine times.129 The young Marcus Aurelius made a metaphoric trip to the arx of Pergamon to entreat Asklepios for his teacher Fronto’s good health; though the journey may have been imaginary, that need not make a temple on the heights imaginary too.130 If the rotunda was not the temple of the seated Asklepios and Caracalla, there is yet one more known temple to Asklepios: the one on the rocky scarp in the Asklepieion known as the Felsbarre. This was likely the main temple of the Asklepieion from the third century B.C.E. down into Roman times. Its god was known as Asklepios Soter, and is generally identified with the standing image.131 The

124

Kranz 1990, 130-141. Holtzmann 1984, 866-867; Kampmann 1996, 8-11. 126 Kraft 1972; Kranz 1990 overlooked this point, which led him to overplay Hadrian’s imposition of a cultic program on the Asian cities. For further critique, see Kampmann 1996, 10-11 and Schorndorfer 1997, 51-52; 153-155 on the Hadrianic Asklepieion. 127 Commodus: BMC 295; Caracalla: von Fritze 1910, pl. 8.9. 128 Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 72-73 (Roman temple of “Bauphase 15”); see below for temples on the Felsbarre. 129 H. Müller 1992, 214-215; though perhaps correct that neither Ionic ‘temple R’ nor its Doric predecessor were necessarily temples to Asklepios. 130 Fronto, Letters to Marcus Caesar 3.9; 3.10.2, ed. M. van den Hout (Leipzig 1988); C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Cambridge MA 1982) 1:50-51; M. van den Hout 1999, 115118. 131 De Luca in Ziegenaus and de Luca 1968, 28. 125

34

part i – section i. koinon of asia

temple was also the likely scene of an earlier cult partnership: during the reign of Attalos III (138-133 B.C.E.) a five-ell high cuirassed agalma of the king, standing on a trophy, was installed “in the temple of Asklepios Soter, to be a synnaos to the god.”132 The temple itself, however, is neither six-column (like that of the standing Asklepios) nor Corinthian (like both temples on Caracallan coins); it is another small Ionic temple, tetrastyle prostyle with no peripteron— not very different from the one on the theater terrace, in fact.133 Its stylobate was 13.08 x 6.54 m. measured outside the columns, and its cella was ca. 5.7 x 4.8 m. within. If the agalma of Attalos III is any guide, at least one and likely two statues of heroic size, ca. 2.64 m. tall not counting the base, were once crammed inside the cella, which also featured a rock-cut shaft in its center. On the Pergamene triple-temple coins, even when the center temple is identified by the letters in its pediment and no emperor stands before it to sacrifice, the image within remains that of the divine cult partner rather than that of the emperor. This consistency, of course, would have helped make the temple recognizable to those who handled the coins. It is also likely that what made the god’s image recognizable was that his cult was already well known, and that Caracalla’s cult had been moved into an already existing temple; the emperor’s cult would also be situated in an established temple at Smyrna (q.v.). But if the coin images are to be trusted, archaeological research has not yet found that particular temple at Pergamon. The coins of Julius Anthimos, as mentioned above, were probably minted later than those of M. Caerelius Attalos, and they concentrate on the festival Olympia.134 No direct connection between this festival and the grant of the third neokoria can be established, however. The Olympia at Pergamon may reach back to the time of L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus: friend of Aelius Aristides and builder of the temple of Zeus Asklepios, he was also Pergamon’s priest of Zeus Olympios, the deity whose cult flourished under the patronage of Hadrian.135 The coins of Anthimos likely only refer to a long-established festival at Pergamon, the Olympia Asklepeia, which

back in the reign of Commodus became the Olympia Asklepeia Komodeia. Thus the festival long predated the neokoria that Caracalla granted to Pergamon.136 It may have had something to do with the emperor’s cult partner, but that question is complicated by problems in identifying that god among the various aspects of Asklepios available at Pergamon, as discussed above. The latest known inscription calling Pergamon neokoros, inscription 36, probably dates soon after Caracalla’s visit, as the priestess it honors is recorded as having been greeted three times by ‘the god Antoninus’ (not necessarily deified in the Roman sense, i.e. dead, at the time of the inscription):137 INSCRIPTION 36. IvP 525 (IGRR 4:451; OGIS 513). The city honors a citizen. t}w pr\thw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Seb(ast«n) Perg(a)mhn«n pÒlevw . . . A coin issued under the strategos Anthimos uses all its space to expand these titles to their utmost, as “the first of Asia and first metropolis and first threetimes-neokoros-of-the-Augusti city of the Pergamenes”: COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO% AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU Wreath, within which H PRVTH TH[% A]%IA% KAI MH[TRO]POLI% PRV[TH KAI] TRI% NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN %EBA%TVN PERGAMHNVN POLI%. a) BMC 318. This coin makes it quite clear that Pergamon was claiming more than simple primacy among the cities of Asia. ‘First metropolis’ and ‘first three times neokoros of the Augusti’ may indicate claims of chronological as well as qualitative primacy: the former based on Pergamon’s possession of the first provincial imperial temple to Rome and Augustus, the latter on having obtained a third neokoria before any other city. Some artful wording was necessary here, as Ephesos (q.v.) became three times neokoros before Pergamon did, but that city’s title had been diverted to honor Artemis, not the emperor. As for the other competitor, Smyrna called itself ‘first of Asia, three times neokoros of the Augusti’ on coins of Caracalla’s reign, without any

132

H. Müller 1992, 206-212; idem 2000, 540 n. 113. Ziegenaus and de Luca 1975, 5-16. 134 Von Fritze 1910, 80-82; Karl 1975, 97-100 should be taken with reservations. 135 Halfmann 1979, 154 no. 66; Habicht 1969, 9-11. 133

136 137

L. Robert 1930, 106-108; Moretti 1953, 197-198. S. Price 1984a.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

repetition of ‘first.’138 It is indeed more likely that Pergamon became neokoros for Caracalla before Smyrna did, as Pergamon was one of the first cities he visited on his final tour of Asia. Pergamon’s happy position was soon threatened, however. Macrinus, who was said to have killed his predecessor, withdrew some grants made by Caracalla to the Pergamenes. They insulted him in turn, and he responded by publicly stripping them of honors. The story is told by Cassius Dio, who knew the details well; Macrinus later sent him to keep order in Pergamon and Smyrna.139 Under Macrinus, many of the cities that had been made neokoroi by Caracalla ceased to mention the honor on their coins or inscriptions (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). Smyrna, the other city put under Dio’s authority, had previously minted and cited its neokoros status abundantly, but suddenly stopped minting altogether. Even Ephesos (q.v.), which may have won its case for primacy before the emperor, possibly lost its neokoria of Artemis. But Pergamon seems to have been the city most forthcoming and inventive in its insults to Macrinus, and suffered in proportion. Like Smyrna it issued no coins citing neokoria, possibly no coins at all, in his reign, and inscriptions stripped of the usual magniloquent city titulature may be datable to that time.140 It has even been suggested that the city lost its independent college of hymnodoi of Rome and Augustus, the first and most prestigious of Asia.141 After Macrinus’ death and the condemnation of his memory, however, the titles, including ‘first, three times neokoros,’ returned, and became a standard part of Pergamon’s coin legends, though only a few later types (such as type 18 above, under Trajan Decius) recall the specific temples for which the city was neokoros:

35

in pediment, remains of figure within. a) BMC 336 b) SNGParis 2265 c) SNGParis 2266 d) SNGCop 502 e) SNGvA 1417 f) Berlin, Löbbecke. The city of Pergamon continued to mint with the title ‘three times neokoros’ down to the end of its coinage, in the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. It had been not only the first city in Asia to receive a koinon temple to the ruling emperor, but also the first to receive a second and become twice neokoros; and though its rival Ephesos may have had a head start on its third neokoria, that honor fell under a cloud and Pergamon became three times neokoros soon after. It was not without reason that the city called itself ‘the first of Asia and first metropolis and first three-times-neokoros-of-the Augusti city of the Pergamenes.’ INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:

COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUTOKR K M AUR %EBHRO% ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI %TR K TERTULLOU PERGAMHNVN PRV(TVN, cd) G NEVKORVN Three Corinthian temples; lower two three-column(!), turned toward each other (a wreath over each, d); center one four-column, dot

Neokoros: 1. IvP no. 461 [IGRR 4:447; see Habicht 1969, 139140, 159]. The council and people of the neokoroi Pergamenes honor a citizen. Dated by Habicht to ca. 100. 2. Hepding 1910, 472-473 no. 58 [IGRR 4:1689]. The city honors a citizen; language parallel to that of inscription 1. 3. Hepding 1907, 330-331 no. 62 [IGRR 4:453]. The city honors a citizen; titulature and letter forms similar to those of inscriptions 1 and 2, thus similar date. 4. IdA no. 157. Inscription on architrave and sima of the gate from the city into the Asklepieion. Titulature and date similar to inscriptions 1-3.142 5. IG 12.2 no. 243 [CIG 2189; also CIG 3486 and IGRR 4:1293, a copy from Thyateira]. From near Mytilene; that city honors a Pergamene, calling Pergamon ‘first’ as well as neokoros. 6. Hepding 1907, 335-337 no. 66 [IGRR 4:459]. The council and people of the first, neokoroi Pergamenes honor a Basilissa.143 7. Hepding 1907, 331-333 no. 64. The city honors the son of a chief priest of Asia. Titulature same as that of inscription 6.

138 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’; examples of the Smyrna coin type are BMC 405, 406 and Berlin 619/1914. 139 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. This was not noted by Baharal 1999. 140 Habicht 1969, 18-19, 71-74. 141 Halfmann 1990, 26.

142 Dräger 1993, 178, special pleading to date this inscription as early as Domitian. 143 Gagé 1968, 119 n. 21.

36

part i – section i. koinon of asia

8. Hepding 1907, 333-335 no. 65. The city honors the brother of the honoree of inscription 7; same titulature as inscriptions 6, 7. 9. IvP no. 438 [IGRR 4:375]. The city honors C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus in reign of Trajan. Same titulature as inscriptions 6-8. 10. IvP no. 441 [IGRR 4:385]. The city honors Quadratus as proconsul of Asia in ca. 109/10; see inscription 9. Titulature the same as in inscriptions 6-9. Twice neokoros: 11. IdA no. 20. Pergamon honors the son of Quadratus. Enumeration restored. See discussion above. 12. IvP no. 395 [IGRR 4:331]. Statue base of Trajan, dated by his titulature to 114-116. The Pergamenes are first and twice neokoros. 13. Ippel 1912, 301 no. 26 [IGRR 4:1688]. Honorific dated by the proconsulship of Ti. Caepio Hispo to 117/118 or 118/119.144 The city has the same titulature as in inscription 12. 14. IvP no. 520 [IGRR 4:452]. The city honors a citizen; titulature the same as in inscriptions 12 and 13. 15. IvP no. 397 [IGRR 4:339]. Statue base of Hadrian, dated by his fourth consulate to 120; the city’s titulature is the same as on inscriptions 12-14. 16. IdA no. 38. The council and people of the metropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros city of the Pergamenes honor a citizen; Hadrianic. 17. IdA no. 37. The city honors a citizen; titulature the same as on inscription 16. Hadrianic. 18. IdA no. 23. The city honors a citizen; titulature the same as on inscriptions 16 and 17. Time of Antoninus Pius. 19. IdA no. 10. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius, ca. 162. See discussion above. 20. IdA no. 11. Statue base of Lucius Verus, ca. 162. See discussion above. 21. IvP no. 324 [IGRR 4:360]. Introduction to an oracle on averting a plague, perhaps that brought back from the East by Lucius Verus’ troops.145 Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18. 22. Habicht 1959/1960, 126-127 no. 2. Statue base, dated between 147-150 and the end of the century. Titulature same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21. 23. IdA no. 28. Statue base of Marcus Aurelius’ ab epistulis, dated by the imperial titles to 173-175; the city’s titulature is the same as that of inscriptions 1618, 21 and 22.

24. IdA no. 24. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore of the time of Septimius Severus. Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-23. 25. IdA no. 34. The city honors the philosopher Hermokrates, dated to Severan times.146 Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-24. 26. IdA no. 35. The city honors the Cappadocian sophist Diodotos, dated to the end of the second or beginning of the third century.147 Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-25. 27. Heberdey and Kalinka 1896, 3 no. 8 [IGRR 4:908]. From Kibyra. The koinon honors a chief priest and priestess of Asia of the temples in first and twice neokoros Pergamon. Undated. 28. Ippel 1912, 299-301 no. 25 [IGRR 4:1687]. Dedication by the daughter of the proconsul Quadratus of inscriptions 9-10 (sister of the Quadratus of inscription 11) to her mother. Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18 and 21-26; not securely dated, though assigned by White to 120-128.148 29. Ziebarth 1902, 445-446 [IGRR 4:426]. An honorific restored from the Latin of Cyriacus of Ancona; titulature similar to that of inscriptions 16-18, 2126, and 28. Dated to the middle or the end of the second century. 30. IdA no. 32. The city honors a Pisidian philosopher; titulature the same as that of inscriptions 1618, 21-26 and 28. Undated. 31. IdA no. 30. The city honors a benefactor who was chief priest of Asia of the temples in Pergamon. Titulature the same as that of inscriptions 16-18, 2126, 28 and 30. Undated. 32. IdA no. 42. The council honors a citizen; the city’s titulature the same as that of inscriptions 1618, 21-26, 28, 30 and 31. Undated. 33. IdA no. 54. The council of the metropolis of Asia and first twice neokoros of the Augusti city of the Pergamenes dedicates the statue of a citizen. Undated. 34. Von Prott and Kolbe 1902, 9697 no. 89 [IGRR 4:480]. Fragment; titulature similar to that of inscription 33. Undated. Three times neokoros: 35. IvP no. 299. Epistyle of the Ionic temple of Dionysos Kathegemon on the theater terrace of Pergamon. See discussion above.

146 144 145

Magie 1950, 1583; Syme 1958, 2:665. Historia Augusta, Verus 8; Ammianus Marcellinus 23.6.24.

147 148

Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.25. Ibid. 2.27. White 1998, 354, 364.

chapter

1

– pergamon in mysia

36. IvP no. 525. Honorific for a priestess who had been greeted by Caracalla. See discussion above. Not included among these inscriptions is: IvP no. 524 [IGRR 4:475]. The restoration ...érxier°v]w ÉAs¤aw ka[‹ t}w pr\thw mhtropÒle]vw ka‹ nev[kÒrou tÚ g' patr¤dow] is extremely odd. It is more likely to form part of the cursus of the husband of the priestess honored, thus [érxier°v]w ÉAs¤aw ka[‹ ..........érxier°]vw ka‹ nev[kÒrou toË.........] COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros?: Trajanic?: London, New York, Warsaw (see above, coin type 10). Twice neokoros: Marcus Aurelius: BMC 285, 286, 288, 289; SNGCop 486; SNGvA 1404, 1405; SNGParis 2123-2135; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Lucius Verus: BMC 291-294; SNGvA 7506; SNGParis 2143-2148; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.). Commodus Caesar: BMC 295, 305, 308; SNGvA 1406, 7507; SNGParis 2149-2151, 2155; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), Warsaw. Commodus Augustus: BMC 304, 307; SNGvA 1408, 7508; SNGParis 2165, 2166, 2168-2170; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Septimius Severus: BMC 309, 311-313; SNGCop 495; SNGvA 7509-7511; SNGLewis 1345; SNGParis 2189, 2191, 2193-2202, 2205; Berlin (15 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). Septimius Severus and Julia Domna: BMC 314, 315; SNGCop 497; SNGParis 2208-2211; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston, London, New York (4 exx.). Septimius Severus and Caracalla: BMC 316; SNGParis 2212; Berlin. Julia Domna: SNGCop 498; SNGParis 2213; Oxford, Vienna. Caracalla: SNGParis 2217, 2219, 2221, 2268 (the last misattributed). Caracalla and Geta Caesar: BMC 328-330; SNGCop 501; SNGvA 1415, 1416, 7515; SNGParis 2253; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Vienna.

37

Geta Caesar: SNGParis 2254, 2255. Geta Augustus: SNGParis 2256, 2257; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Vienna. Three times neokoros: Caracalla: BMC 318-327; SNGCop 499, 500; SNGvA 14111414, 7513, 7514; SNGParis 2218, 2223-2225, 22272234, 2236-2252; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston (6 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). Julia Domna: BMC 317; SNGParis 2214-2216; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Oxford. Elagabalus: BMC 331, 332; SNGParis 2258, 2259, 2261; Berlin (5 exx.), Vienna. Julia Maesa: Berlin, Oxford. Severus Alexander: BMC 333-335; SNGCop 502-504; SNGvA 1417, 1418, 7516; SNGParis 2263-2267; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Julia Mamaea: BMC 337; SNGCop 505, 506; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Maximinus: SNGCop 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 22702272; Berlin (2 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 340; Berlin. Maximinus or Maximus (obverse erased149): BMC 338, 339; SNGCop 507, 508; SNGvA 7517; SNGParis 2273; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford. Gordian III: BMC 341, 342; SNGCop 509; SNGParis 22742276; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Vienna. Trajan Decius: BMC 343; SNGvA 1418-1420; SNGParis 2283, 2284; Berlin, London (3 exx.), New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Etruscilla: SNGParis 2287; Berlin, New York. Herennius Etruscus: SNGvA 1421; SNGParis 2288, 2290, 2291; Berlin, Boston, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Valerian: BMC 345; SNGCop 511; SNGvA 1422, 7518; SNGParis 2292, 2293; Berlin, New York. Gallienus: BMC 346-348; SNGCop 512, 513; SNGLewis 1346; SNGParis 2294-2299; Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Salonina: BMC 349; SNGCop 514; SNGRighetti 764; SNGParis 2304, 2305; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Saloninus Caesar: SNGParis 2306, 2307 (misattributed); Berlin, Boston, Vienna. Non-imperial obverse: BMC 235; SNGCop 460; SNGParis 1963 (incorrect); Berlin, New York. 149

Berghaus 1978.

38

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 2. Smyrna in Ionia: Koinon of Asia First neokoria: Tiberius Less than a decade after the death of Augustus, the Greeks of Asia again petitioned to build a temple to a reigning emperor, this one to Tiberius. In 22 C.E. the Asians had successfully prosecuted C. Silanus for his depredations as proconsul, and the next year they also won their case against Lucilius Capito, a procurator of imperial holdings in Asia who had usurped the powers of a praetor. In return for these favorable judgements, “the cities of Asia decreed a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate. Permission to build was granted, and Nero [the young son of Germanicus] gave thanks to the Senate and to his grandfather [the emperor] on that account.”1 Tacitus, to whom we owe the description of these events, stated specifically that the cities of Asia took the initiative in offering the temple. Both prosecutions had been carried on by the province as a whole; indeed, the most persuasive advocates of all Asia stood against Silanus. Therefore it can be assumed that both the court cases and the vote of thanks were the products of the provincial organization of Asia, the koinon.2 In this the precedent set by the foundation of the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon (q.v.) was followed, as this act too had been the result of a province’s petition, not an imperial ukase. But this time Bithynia, which had previously been coupled with Asia in requesting a temple to Augustus, took no part. Bithynia had no interest in the prosecutions of Silanus and Capito which were the reasons for offering the temple, but it also indicates a point at which the two provinces began to diverge. The koinon of Bithynia apparently remained content with its one provincial imperial

1 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; the quotation from 4.15. Dräger 1993, 98 incorrectly allied this establishment of a new provincial cult with aid given to Asian cities damaged by the earthquake of 17 C.E. 2 Brunt 1961, 206-220, 224-225; Deininger 1965, 56-57.

temple at Nikomedia for the entire first century, whereas Asia may have dedicated new provincial temples for subsequent rulers, perhaps even for each emperor. In regard to the earlier award, no author informs us how Pergamon had been chosen for the honor, but Tacitus is quite explicit about the contest for the temple of Tiberius in 26, three years after the original grant: Caesar, to divert gossip, often attended the Senate, and for quite a few days he heard the ambassadors of Asia disputing about in which city the temple should be built. Eleven cities competed, equal in ambition but differing in resources. With little variety they all recalled their antiquity and their zeal for the Roman people through the wars with Perseus, Aristonikos, and the other kings. But the people of Hypaipa, Tralles, Laodikeia, and Magnesia were passed over as not up to it; even the Ilians, though they boasted Troy as the mother of the city of Rome, were strong only in the splendor of their antiquity. There was some hesitation over the Halikarnassians, who claimed that their home had never been shaken by earthquake in twelve hundred years, and that the foundations of the temple would be in living rock. The Pergamenes (and they were using this itself as an argument) were judged to have been honored enough by the temple to Augustus there; the Ephesians and Milesians were seen as having totally devoted their cities to the worship of Artemis in the former case, Apollo in the latter. So the decision lay between the Sardians and the Smyrnaeans. Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56.

Tacitus reported the ensuing debate in detail, but to sum it up, the Sardians fell back on the two arguments of antiquity and loyalty to Rome, while also tracing a genealogical connection between the Lydians and the Etruscans. Smyrna too related its ancient origins, but relied chiefly on its ties to Rome, which rested on cult, not genealogy, and were both more recent and more tangible than the hazy legends offered by the Sardians. Smyrna, its envoys claimed, had been the first to erect a temple to the goddess Rome, in 195 B.C.E., “when Roman power,

chapter

2

though great, was not yet at its height; for Carthage still stood and there were mighty kings in Asia.” Carthage in 195 was not much of a threat, nor, as it turned out, were the kings of Asia; and Smyrna had built its temple to Rome not through admiration or altruism, but more as a reward for Roman assistance against Antiochos III.3 Yet to mention Carthage and kings before the Roman Senate was to recall for it some of its proudest moments. It was this that appealed to the Senate more than all the contrived genealogies. Add a rather melodramatic episode, when the Smyrnaeans stripped the clothes from their backs to send to Rome’s suffering legions, and the Senate (by a vote of four hundred to seven) decided for Smyrna.4 In Tacitus’ account, the ambassadors of eleven individual cities, not of the koinon as a whole, were pitted against one another and retailed their claims, not in a meeting of the koinon, but directly before the Senate and the emperor.5 Why the Greeks of Asia, who apparently had themselves presented Pergamon as the site for Augustus’ temple, should abdicate choice at this point is a puzzle that needs to be explained. Possibly the koinon had been deadlocked. Its two greatest cities, Ephesos and Pergamon, had both received important cult centers in the grant of 29 B.C.E. The next candidate may not have been so obvious. It is noticeable that after the emperor’s and Senate’s acceptance of the temple, three years intervened before the site for it was debated in the Senate. The koinon may have chosen to let the Senate make the decision in order to break a deadlock, or to avoid lasting resentment among the cities that were not chosen. Once Smyrna was finally selected, the Senate appointed a special commissioner to the proconsul of Asia to take charge of the new temple. This is likely to have been a supervisory position, and does not necessarily mean that Rome was undertaking any of the costs of the foundation. In any case, soon after the decision of 26 C.E. the temple was com3

102. 4

Mellor 1975, 14-16; Fayer 1976, 11; Errington 1987, 100-

Lewis 1991. The vote count is given by Aelius Aristides, Oration 19.13; Aristides’ portrayal differs from Tacitus’ in that ‘the rest of Asia’ got only seven votes, while Smyrna got four hundred, but the address was written in extreme haste (see below). Talbert 1984, 149, 284 defended the accuracy of this count. 5 Ziethen 1994, 97-98, 229 did not note this oddity.

– smyrna in ionia

39

plete enough to appear in detail on coins of Petronius, whose proconsulship lasted the six years between 29/30 and 34/35 C.E.6 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: %EBA%TH %UNKLHTO% (or %UNKLHTOU) ZMURNAIVN IERVNUMO% Draped youthful male bust of the Senate r. and diademed draped bust of Livia l., turned toward each other. Rev: EPI PETRVNIOU %EBA%TO% TIBERIO% Four-column Corinthian temple, disc in pediment; within it the emperor, togate, head veiled, holding simpulum. a) MvS 212-214 no. 26 (59 exx.; here Vienna 17731 is illus. pl. 20 fig. 59).7 The three objects of cult are identified explicitly, Sebaste (Julia Augusta, i.e. Tiberius’ mother Livia) and the youthful Senate on the obverse, Tiberius Sebastos in his temple on the reverse. By no coincidence, Pergamon issued a very similar-looking series of coins (Pergamon type 6) under the same proconsul. They answered Smyrna’s pride in its new temple with pride in its Pergamene precedent, the temple of Rome and Augustus.8 Even the small Phrygian city of Tiberiopolis honored its namesake by emulating the Smyrnaean coin type almost exactly, though it is uncertain whether the coin of Tiberiopolis represents the temple and cult statues in Smyrna or copies of them in Tiberiopolis itself.9 That the personified Senate should share the cult with Tiberius, as Rome had with Augustus, does not seem unnatural, since the Senate’s decision had brought Silanus and Capito to punishment. Indeed Tiberius harped on this very fact in a speech of the year 25 reported in Tacitus, Annals 4.37. A delegation from the province of Hispania Ulterior had asked permission to build a shrine to Tiberius and his mother, using the temple granted to Asia as a precedent. Refusing it gave Tiberius an opportunity to state his opposition to any extension of divine honors for himself beyond the limits set out by Augustus. “Since the deified Augustus did not forbid that a temple to himself and to the city of Rome be built at Pergamon, I who view as law all of his 6

Corsten 1999. MvS (= Klose 1987); see also Burnett, Amandry, and Ripollès 1992 (= RPC 1), no. 2469. 8 Klose 1996, 53-63, esp. 58. 9 BMC 1, pl. 49 no. 6; Kienast 1985, 258-261. On the obverse, Livia and the Senate are called ‘twins,’ perhaps a reference to Artemis and Apollo, although their images resemble those at Smyrna, not the gods. 7

40

part i – section i. koinon of asia

deeds and words have followed his example all the more readily because reverence for the Senate was joined with my own cult.”10 The image of the Senate shown on contemporary coins of Smyrna is a draped bust of a beardless youth wearing a fillet around his head; a similar image, minus the fillet, would frequently appear on coins of Smyrna and of her neighbors down to the later third century.11 The third partner of the cult at Smyrna, however, was no abstract personification but the mother of the emperor, and there was no Augustan precedent for this. Yet if Tacitus’ account in Annals 4.15 is correct, the Asians specifically included her in their proposal for a temple in 23, as they did the Senate. Tacitus made much of Tiberius’ alleged discord with Livia, based upon his standard refusal of special honors voted to her (Annals 1.14, 3.64, 5.2).12 This refusal in fact differs very little from his standard refusal of honors voted to himself, which Tacitus also interpreted to Tiberius’ detriment. Livia was not only the emperor’s mother, but the widow and priestess of the deified Augustus, sole Augusta, member of the gens Julia, and the true dynastic link between the dead emperor and the reigning one, and many forms of divine honor were extended to her.13 Her image at Smyrna wears the diadem of a goddess for the first time yet known.14 Perhaps she had used her influence in the Asians’ behalf, and they were grateful; or perhaps it was simply dangerous and undiplomatic to overlook her. Even the embassy from Hispania Ulterior was careful not to do so, though the Senate never appeared as an object of cult in that request. Tiberius’ image at Smyrna did not take after the precedent of Augustus’ cuirassed portrait in Pergamon. On contemporary coins, Tiberius appears in full toga and with his head veiled, and where the coins are clear, the ladle-shaped simpulum in his right hand can be seen. Thus Tiberius took the role of Roman pontifex maximus; the selection of this aspect may have been directed by Valerius Naso, whom the Senate had placed as commissioner in charge of the Smyrnaean temple.15 The better-pre-

10

See Charlesworth 1939. MvS 23. 12 On Tiberius’ ambivalent attitude toward such honors, especially those in Rome itself, Bartman 1999, 108-112. 13 Mikocki 1995, 151-170 nos. 1-132; Hahn 1994, 34-105. 14 Rose 1997a, 23, 60, 180-181. 15 As implied by Rose 1997a, 181. 11

served coins show the temple itself as Corinthian, but no trace of it has yet been found at Smyrna. As early as the second year of Petronius’ proconsulship, the name of a (chief?) priest of Tiberius Caesar Sebastos, Julia Sebaste, and the Senate appeared in a letter from the proconsul to the gerousia of Ephesos.16 Though the editors believed that the man in question, L. Cossinius or Coussinius, was a civic priest in the Ephesian gerousia rather than at the temple in Smyrna, the fact that Petronius called him his friend hints that he could have been a holder of provincial office; and after all, Ephesians had no provincial temple of their own to serve as yet.17 Civic bodies probably did honor the current emperor and the Senate in their ceremonies, but the specificity of this priest’s three cult objects should indicate that he served either the temple in Smyrna, or at the very least an Ephesian cult modeled on it. Later documents cite a chief priest of Asia specifically assigned to the provincial temple in Smyrna, as distinct from the chief priest of Asia whose responsibility was the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon (q.v.).18 Thus Asia became the one province yet known to have more than one chief priest serving at the same time.19 The documents do not tell us precisely how this double priesthood functioned within the meetings and activities of the koinon, but it is likely that the chief priest at Pergamon retained seniority.20 At least two chief priestesses are specified as having served at Smyrna.21 These were often female relations of a chief priest or Asiarch, though their standing and functions are still disputed. Herz held that they presided over the cult of the Augustae, and that the first chief priestess of Asia was only appointed after Drusilla, the sister of Gaius, became the first woman officially deified in Rome in 38 C.E.22 This is a trifle Romanocentric, however: as 16 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, no. II.9; also corrected by Scherrer 1997, 97. 17 Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1993, 142-143 for the name. 18 Tiberius Claudius Meidias, after Claudius: IGRR 4.1524, from Sardis. 19 Deininger 1965, 37-41; Campanile 1994b. 20 For discussion and more recent literature on chief priests, chief priestesses, and Asiarchs, see Pergamon chapter, above, and the summary on the officials of the koina, chapter 41 in Part II. 21 Both after the time of Hadrian when Smyrna had more than one temple: IGRR 4.1254, from Thyateira, Ulpia Marcella; and Petzl 1987 (= IvS), 727 and 772, Aurelia Melite. 22 Herz 1992, 103-105.

chapter

2

we have seen, Julia was a full cult partner with Tiberius and the Senate in Smyrna’s provincial temple from at least 26 C.E. onward. An inscription dating to the reign of Gaius cites one Juliane, wife of Alkiphron the chief priest of Asia, as the first woman to become chief priestess of Asia;23 but the inscription also praises Juliane for holding a number of other priesthoods and offices (stephanephoria and gymnasiarchy at Magnesia, both more likely to have been taken during her widowhood), and it is not impossible that the couple’s chief priesthood of Asia had occurred a decade or so before. Also, there is some evidence against pairing the gender of the priest with that of imperial cult objects: statues of women wearing agonothetic crowns, one identified by inscription as a chief priestess of the Augusti (not Augustae), show them with both male and female imperial busts on them, just like the crowns of male agonothetai.24 Hymnodoi to sing the emperor’s praises were already a feature of the cult of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon (q.v.). Another such organization of hymnodoi may also have been instituted for the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna. In the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of Asia under Claudius, the duties of hymnodoi were supposed to devolve onto the ephebes, thus saving the cities money; the sole exceptions made were for the hymnodoi of Augustus at Pergamon and, in fragmentary lines, for those of Julia Augusta, whom Claudius had recently deified.25 The edict may be referring to hymnodoi of Julia at Smyrna, even though the other objects of cult at this temple, Tiberius and the Senate, are not mentioned; neither does the edict mention Rome, the cult partner of Augustus, even though later documents at Pergamon (q.v.) confirm that its choir continued to be called ‘hymnodoi of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.’ The emphasis on Julia’s deification may reflect the proconsul’s Roman attitudes, not the cult practiced by the Asians; Tiberius himself had not been deified. But the fragmentary state of this part of the inscription means that nothing is certain. Although the temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate was later to be included among those that gave the city the title ‘neokoros,’ Smyrna did not use that title until late in the first century, perhaps as 23 24 25

Kern 1900, no. 158. Rumscheid 2000, 31-32, 37-38; see ‘Koina’ chapter 41. IvE 17-19; on hymnodoi Halfmann 1990, 21-26.

– smyrna in ionia

41

early as the reign of Domitian (inscriptions 1-3, below). The title does not appear on coins earlier than the reign of Caracalla, perhaps because most of the space in Smyrna’s coin legends was generally devoted to magistrates’ names. Smyrna was, however, the first city known to issue a coin type that specifically refers to that honor: it shows the templebearing city god who represents the city itself as neokoros. This image, extensively studied by Pick in 1904, first appears on coins issued ca. 87/88, under the Domitianic proconsul L. Mestrius Florus.26 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: DOMITIANO% KAI%AR %EBA%TO% GERMANIKO% Laureate head of Domitian r. Rev: EPI L ME%TRIOU FLVROU ANYUPATOU ZMUR Amazon Smyrna seated, holding small temple and double axe. a) BMC 110 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 60) b) Berlin 640/1878 c) SNGvA 7998 d) MvS 238-239 nos. 4-9 (4 other exx.). (RPC 2 no. 1018).27 COIN TYPE 3. Obv: DOMITIANV KAI%ARI %EBA%TV ZMURNAIOI THN A%IAN Veiled draped bust of Asia l., with sheaves. Rev: EPI L ME%TRIOU FLVROU ANYUPATOU Amazon Smyrna seated, holding small temple and double axe. a) Berlin, Fox (MvS 145 no. 74; RPC 2 no. 1020). The city god is in this case the eponymous Amazon founder of Smyrna. In her role as patron and city symbol, she appears from this time to the end of Smyrnaean coinage, carrying her double axe, peltashield, as well as a number of attributes (including small images of other patron gods) as necessary. Klose doubted whether she was in fact the city as neokoros, mainly because she first appears on coins of Domitian’s time rather than that of Tiberius, and because she continues to carry one temple rather than the eventual three that made Smyrna three times neokoros.28 But this simplification may have been the result of an artistic problem: as the Amazon had to carry or wear a number of attributes to be recognizable (axe and shield in her left hand, mural crown on her head, prow beneath her foot), she barely had room to carry one temple, much less an eventual three. The fact that the coin image 26 Pick 1904, 2 nos. 1-2. For Florus, Stumpf 1991, 228-230, with his year of office dated no later than 89/90. 27 Burnett, Amandry, and Carradice 1999 (= RPC 2). 28 MvS 27-28.

42

part i – section i. koinon of asia

appears some time after the grant of a provincial temple does not necessarily indicate that the two were not connected; after all, the title ‘neokoros’ also postdates the building of the temple to Tiberius, and coincidentally also first appears during the reign of Domitian (here inscription 2). Klose posited that the temple Smyrna carried was closely associated with her, but he could not suggest a particular temple, nor what, other than the possession of neokoria, the depiction of a city god carrying a temple might mean. If the tiny temple were meant to be seen as specific, it would be difficult to identify; if it were the city goddess’, for example, why would she be shown carrying it rather than presiding within it? On the other hand, in the symbolic shorthand of coins, a city god holding an (unidentified) temple denotes quite clearly the concept of city as neokoros, temple warden. Eight other neokoroi cities used the temple bearer to illustrate their status, while only two not known as neokoroi used it as well.29 It was Pick’s assumption that the temple-bearing Amazon, and indeed all coin types, must have been minted to refer to some specific event or celebration. Thus he identified the small temple in the Amazon’s hand with a large Ionic octastyle temple (on a type so large and detailed that one can see its Roman-style podium flanked by parastades and decorated with statues) that also happens to appear on coins of Domitian.30 According to Pick, since both coin types (so far as we know) first appeared at this time, they must have both commemorated the building of the same temple, and when the temple-bearing Amazon type was repeated over the years, the reason for the repetition must have been to celebrate festivals in honor of that temple. This no longer jibes with what we know of the episodic nature of provincial minting, and the civic pride that was conveyed by its repeating symbols.31 If we agree with Pick’s thesis that the temple bearer represents the city as neokoros, then the Amazon Smyrna must hold the provincial temple that made the city neokoros, which at the time of Domitian was only that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate. Yet the aforementioned coins of the proconsul Petronius show that temple as of Corinthian order, a representation 29 See the discussion of the coin type in ‘Introduction: Methodology’ part iii.2. 30 Price and Trell 1977, 32 fig. 326; MvS 38-39, 144-145 nos. 71-73. 31 RPC 1:16-17, 43-44.

that cannot be reconciled with the Ionic octastyle temple on its Roman podium. Therefore the coin types under Domitian probably refer to two distinct temples.32 The Amazon Smyrna with her temple became one of the stock characters of Smyrnaean coinage, commemorating Smyrna’s neokoros status rather than some festival or ceremony. This symbolism perhaps also explains why she never holds more than one temple, though Smyrna became more than once neokoros; the type became standardized, and was reproduced as an emblem of the city without much change thereafter. Once the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate had been built, Smyrna’s candidacy for further temples was impeded: according to Cassius Dio, when the emperor Gaius was looking for a site for his own cult in Asia, Smyrna was judged to have been set apart for Tiberius, just as Ephesos was for Artemis and Pergamon for Augustus.33 Trajan appears to have been the first emperor to bypass the tradition (first established in the contest for Tiberius’ temple) of allowing only one provincial imperial temple per city: to the Pergamenes, disappointed by Tiberius, Trajan granted permission for a temple to himself (with Zeus Philios). This precedent operated on the Smyrnaeans’ behalf soon after, when Hadrian allowed them to build a new provincial temple despite the fact that they already possessed one. Second Neokoria: Hadrian With this grant to Smyrna, Hadrian added a further extension to the conditions under which neokoria was given: he was the first emperor known to allow the title and temple to more than one city in a single provincial organization: to Kyzikos, then Smyrna, and later to Ephesos, all in the koinon of Asia. The emperor’s favorable attitude toward Greek culture, his interest in the cities, and his presence in the province were all factors in his grants of neokoria. In the course of his travels he must have heard the best speakers of Asia, the famed orators of the ‘second sophistic’; at a time when the skill or

32 See the discussion of architectural coin types in the Introduction (‘Methodology’), above. 33 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; see chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’

chapter

2

even the behavior of a speaker could determine whether or not a petition was granted, orators’ talents in persuasion often proved invaluable to their home cities.34 In the case of Smyrna, the orator who persuaded Hadrian was one of the most renowned of his time, M. Antonius Polemon. Born in Phrygian Laodikeia, Polemon came to Smyrna’s famous schools of rhetoric as a youth, and as he rose in his profession he used his considerable talents for the benefit of his adopted home.35 One of those talents was pleading causes before the rulers of the Empire: He was of great value to the city in going on embassies to the emperors and defending the community. For example, Hadrian, who had previously favored the Ephesians, he converted to the Smyrnaeans’ side to such an extent that in one day [Hadrian] poured out ten million [drachmai] on Smyrna, from which the grain market was built, as well as the most magnificent gymnasium in Asia and a temple that can be seen from afar, the one on the akra that seems to oppose Mimas. Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.2 (531)

The gymnasium that Philostratos mentions was indeed important. Smyrna inscription 4 preserves part of a list of public and private contributors and the gifts they gave to build and adorn this gymnasium complex, and perhaps other buildings as well. Its magnificence is indicated by some of the gifts mentioned: a basilica with bronze doors, a columned anointing room with a gilt roof, a porticoed palm court with gardens and a temple of Tyche, and a sun room. Toward the end of this catalogue comes the following passage: INSCRIPTION 4. IvS 697. ka‹ ˜sa §petÊxomen parå toË kur¤ou Ka¤sarow ÑAdrianoË diå ÉAntvn¤ou Pol°mvnow: deÊteron dÒgma sunklÆtou, kay'  d‹w nevkÒroi gegÒnamen, ég«na |erÒn, ét°leian, yeolÒgouw, ÍmnƒdoÊw, muriãdaw •katÚn pentÆkonta, ke¤onaw e¸w tÚ éleiptÆrion Sunnad¤ouw [o]b', NoumedikoÁw k', porfure¤taw ' . . . and as many things as we gained from the lord Caesar Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon: 34 Bowersock 1969, 43-58, 120-123; Millar 1977, 234, 384385, 392, 434-435. 35 Gleason 1995, 21-29. Polemon’s fierce rivalry with Favorinus (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 [490]) parallels Smyrna’s rivalry with Ephesos (see below), and draws out the agonistic character of professional as well as intercity relationships.

– smyrna in ionia

43

a second decree of the Senate, by which we became twice neokoroi; a sacred contest; immunity; theologoi; hymnodoi; one-and-a-half million [drachmai]; columns for the anointing room: seventy-two(?) Synnadan, twenty Numidian, six porphyry.

Here the emperor’s gift of columns for the gymnasium itself follows the list of his more important gifts to the city as a whole, notably those associated with the city’s new status of twice neokoros.36 The inscription also confirms that the Roman Senate continued to play an essential role in granting neokoria, as it had in allotting Tiberius’ temple to Smyrna: it was the (second) decree of the Senate that made Smyrna twice neokoros. This decree, however, is portrayed by the inscription as totally within the emperor’s power to grant, just like such material gifts as money and columns. Though the gymnasium inscription and Philostratos’ account differ as to the amount of money Hadrian gave, they are at one in attributing the imperial favors to the good offices of Polemon. The gifts were Hadrian’s but the credit was also Polemon’s, as he was the one who had won the emperor’s favor and had made the request. Thus Polemon can be seen as the intermediary or ‘broker of beneficence’ between Hadrian and Smyrna.37 On the one side, the emperor honored his talents, indulged his requests, and even took him on as a favored traveling companion.38 On the other, Smyrna’s rewards to Polemon were commensurate with the glory he reflected on the city and the gifts he obtained for it from the emperor. He was made agonothetes of the festival he was responsible for obtaining (a privilege that was passed down to his descendants), and was allowed to go aboard the city’s sacred trireme.39 His appointment as Smyrna’s strategos, mentioned on 36 On columns as specifically imperial gifts, see Fant 1993, 156; for the question of whether aleipterion refers to an anointing room or the entire gymnasium, Herrmann 1993b, 234-235 nn. 5, 7. 37 See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. Also Saller 1982, 63, 74-75; although Saller discusses only the brokerage position of Romans, the Smyrnaeans plainly also perceived Polemon as their source of successful access to Hadrian. See Anderson 1993, 24-28 on cities and sophists, a slightly jaundiced view, especially 26 on Philostratos’ picture of Polemon and Smyrna: “...he practically owns the place.” 38 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.4 (532-533); Halfmann 1986a, 109, 200-202; Birley 1997, 159-161, 170. Weiss 1995 defends the Arabic translation of Polemon’s work on physiognomy as a source on his travels with Hadrian. Polemon is also mentioned in a letter of Hadrian to the Pergamenes dated ca. 132 C.E.: Oliver 1989, 150-154 no. 59. 39 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.1, 3 (530-531, 532).

44

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Smyrnaean coins commemorating Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös, was probably later, ca. 134/135 C.E.40 The gymnasium inscription mentions the contest, ‘sacred’ in status, directly after the neokoria; the festival did not follow automatically from the neokoria, but was stated as a separate grant in honor of it. It is noteworthy that while the neokoria was the result of a decision of the Senate, the festival is included among the emperor’s direct gifts. It was known as the Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia Olympia, and should be distinguished from another Olympia festival in Smyrna.41 As at Kyzikos (q.v.), the qualification Olympia cannot be taken to imply that Hadrian was identified as or shared the temple with Zeus Olympios; both temples were founded before Hadrian’s identification with that god, though as also at Kyzikos, the festival may well have been established subsequently.42 Polemon apparently took full advantage of his position as agonothetes of the festival, and anecdotes describe him throwing inept actors out of the competition.43 In the gymnasium inscription, after mention of the festival and immunity from taxes (probably in connection with the festival),44 theologoi and hymnodoi are listed. These associations performed encomia and hymns of praise to a divinity, in this case likely the emperor. The hymnodoi of Julia Augusta, perhaps those of the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate, have already been mentioned. The new hymnodoi of Smyrna are also mentioned in a letter dated to 124 and directed to imperial agents in Smyrna by a Roman official, perhaps the proconsul or the emperor himself.45 The first lines, unfortunately fragmentary, refer to one neokoros, possibly a number of theologoi, and twenty-four hymnodoi. Keil took the first to refer to the city’s new title, but the enumeration of one neokoros and twenty-four hymnodoi indicates that this neokoros is another official attached to the new temple. Subsequent inscriptions refer to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’

at Smyrna,46 and also a neokoros of the Augusti.47 Thus the letter to imperial legates confirms the gymnasium inscription 4, documents the staff of the new temple of Hadrian, and assures that the cult was founded in or before 124. Halfmann has redated Hadrian’s visit to Smyrna and Polemon’s eloquence to 124, based on the date of the above-mentioned letter.48 Such a visit would suit Philostratos’ description of that one great day when Polemon persuaded Hadrian to spend ‘ten million’ on Smyrna.49 Philostratos’ figure, incidentally, is either an indefinite superlative (‘an enormous amount’) or an exaggeration of the one-and-a-half million mentioned in the gymnasium inscription. The possibility that the latter figure may have included only the money spent on the gymnasium is remote because the figure is listed after grants made to the whole city, rather than to the gymnasium alone. By comparison, the total of private cash donations to the gymnasium was over 190,000 drachmai. Philostratos also makes it appear that Hadrian’s grant paid for the building of the temple; though this would not be atypical of Hadrian’s generosity, one would prefer independent confirmation, as the entire province would normally be expected to contribute toward building a koinon temple. If Hadrian’s gifts were given in 124, the establishment of Smyrna’s provincial cult and temple of Hadrian then antedated his association with Zeus Olympios (after 128/129); the same was so at Kyzikos. The initial dedication was to Hadrian, not to Zeus. This is borne out by the inscriptions, which henceforth call Smyrna ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ the references to ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian’ mentioned above, and Smyrna’s coin types 7 and 8 (below), issued under Caracalla, which specifically identify the temple of Hadrian among the three for which Smyrna was neokoros, and show his cuirassed figure as the cult image within it. A recent attempt to associate this temple with one built by Hadrian for the cult of the deified Plotina conflicts with all this evidence.50 The wife of Trajan does not appear

40

MvS 68-69. MvS 16; IvS 644, 659-661, 668; Moretti 1953, 225; Malavolta 1976-1977, 2063-2064. 42 Contra Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 173-175, who allowed the erroneous attribution at Kyzikos (q.v.) to outweigh the ancient evidence. 43 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5, 11 (534-535, 541542). 44 IvS 697 (2.1:196). 45 IvS 594; J. Keil 1908; Halfmann 1986a, 200. 41

46

IvS 595, 697 = IGRR 4:1436, 1431. IvS 596, 639; MvS 71 assigned the latter’s office to the Caracallan temple of the third neokoria, but the inscription does not specify, and he could easily have served as neokoros in the second temple (or in all the imperial temples?) instead. 48 Halfmann 1986a, 200. 49 Winter 1996, 65, 85-86, 327-328 no. 44; IvS 697 (2.1:196). MvS 21 n. 120 is incorrect. 50 Cassius Dio ep. 69.10.3; Dräger 2000, 214-215. 47

chapter

2

in the temple’s coin images, nor is she ever mentioned in association with the provincial temple at Smyrna or its institutions. Most tellingly, the passage epitomized from Cassius Dio upon which this theory is based praises Hadrian for his piety toward his adoptive mother: but the temple in Smyrna is not a good example of that piety, as it was likely built (at least officially) by the koinon of Asia, and the emperor himself was the preeminent object of worship in it. Klose assumed that a six-column Ionic temple with a disc in its pediment that appeared on coins of Hadrian at Smyrna represented the contemporary provincial temple.51 The problem is that an identical six-column Ionic temple with a disc in its pediment had appeared on a series of coins that Klose dated to just after the reign of Nero.52 Both issues show the temple on a Greek-style stepped podium, distinguishing them from the previously mentioned Ionic octastyle temple on a Roman-style podium that appears on coins under Domitian (see above). Though the Hadrianic coins are larger and better struck than the post-Neronian, they may both represent the same temple, which therefore cannot be confirmed as the temple that made Smyrna twice neokoros. The Caracallan triple-temple coins are also of little help in picturing the temple of Hadrian: like the coins of other cities, these show all the temples for which the city became neokoros as identical, and preserve no individual architectural features. Philostratos is our only other source for the appearance or placement of the temple to Hadrian at Smyrna. In his list of the buildings erected out of Hadrian’s grant he called it “a temple that can be seen from afar, the one on the akra that seems to oppose Mimas.” From his reference to an akra (which can mean either a height or a cape on the seacoast) some scholars have conflated this new temple with another temple documented at Smyrna, that of Zeus Akraios (‘on the heights’).53 But the temple of Zeus Akraios was already in existence before Hadrian made his grant: the god himself had been named on Smyrna’s coinage as early as Vespasian, and in 79/ 51 Klose 1996, 58; MvS 68, 247 nos. 1-13 (15 exx.); the stephanephoros’ name is Pom. Sextus. 52 MvS 67, 132-134 nos. 19-61 (61 exx.); the magistrate is Tiberius Hieronymos Sosander. 53 Cadoux 1938, 202, 248, 254 n. 4; Magie 1950, 584, 615, 1445 n. 46, 1474 n. 15; S. Price 1984b, 258; Boatwright 2000, 157-162.

– smyrna in ionia

45

80, the year of M. Ulpius Trajanus’ proconsulship of Asia, an aqueduct was built leading up to his temple.54 Philostratos does not mention the rebuilding of an older temple, or Zeus Akraios; Polemon’s influence won Smyrna neokoria, and more likely a new temple to Hadrian on another akra. The new temple has also been identified with a “thank-offering temple” mentioned in the gymnasium inscription.55 This terminology recalls Aelius Aristides’ reference to the Hadrianic temple at Kyzikos (q.v.), but there are some differences. Looking at lines 16-20 of inscription 4 itself, the passage in question runs: KlaudianÚw prÊtaniw xrus\sein tÚn ˆrofon toË éleipthr¤ou t}w gerous¤aw ka‹ OI e¸w tÚn xaristÆrion ne ke¤ona sÁn speirokefãlƒ. Claudianus the prytanis [promised] to gild the roof of the anointing room of the gerousia, plus [an amount] towards the column with its base and capital for the thank-offering ‘temple’ (neo).

Other than this one column, there is no other mention of donations of columns or indeed of anything else to such a temple. Another peculiarity is that earlier in the same inscription (line 14) the accusative for ‘temple’ is spelled naÒn, not given its Attic variant, as it supposedly is here. This oddity has not been explained; is a nu missing, and could the text refer to a thank-offering of the youths (ne«n), not a temple? Beyond these considerations, however, it should be remembered that all the other private structural donations listed in the inscription, including a temple of Tyche, seem to be parts of the gymnasium complex. A donation to a separate temple seems out of place. Although there is no hard evidence to prove that a ‘thank-offering temple’ did not exist or was not the temple of Hadrian at Smyrna, these considerations make it more likely that the structure, whatever it was, was in the gymnasium. What can be known, then, about the temple that made Smyrna twice neokoros? Following Philostratos’ account, it was built out of Hadrian’s donation. It was on an akra, which could be either a height or a cape by the sea; Smyrna offers a plenitude of both.56 It could be seen from afar; this implies great

54 Father of the emperor: Thomasson 1984, 216-217 no. 71; MvS 26-27; IvS 680; Dräger 1993, 87-89. 55 H. Jüthner, Breslauer philologische Abhandlungen 8.1 (1898) 27. 56 Though C. Jones 2001 believed that the word used here

46

part i – section i. koinon of asia

size and/or prominent position. A height would be suitable, and so would a position by the sea where ships could spy it from far off. Aelius Aristides portrayed a similar topographical placement for the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos (q.v.). The Smyrnaean temple “seemed to oppose Mimas.” That was the ancient name for the mountainous heights of Kara Burun, the headland that closes off Smyrna’s gulf on the west.57 Just about anything in Smyrna would be ‘opposite’ Mimas in the broader sense, but the verb can imply a challenge as well. That challenge was likely to be in size, though again prominent position, especially position close to the gulf, would add emphasis. Remains of an appropriate temple were found on DeÅirmen-tepe, a height (though by no means mountainous) which is also directly over the gulf, and so may be called an akra and visible from afar; it is in the western part of the city, that closest to Mimas, and has been identified by many as the site of the older temple of Zeus Akraios.58 There in 1824-25 Graf Anton Prokesch von Osten observed the foundations of a large east-facing temple with ten Corinthian columns on its short side and perhaps twenty-three on its flank, of dimensions comparable to those of the Olympieion in Athens, which he dated to the Hadrianic or Antonine period.59 But the building’s marble superstructure was rapidly being plundered for building stone; about a century later, Walter found only a fragment of a fluted column drum.60 A building on such a scale would not only have been suitable for what we know of provincial temples of Hadrian (e.g. Kyzikos and perhaps Ephesos) but may well have been said to “challenge Mimas.” We must sound a note of caution, however. The modern city of Izmir covers most traces of this and of the other temples of ancient Smyrna. No sign identifies this east-facing temple as the temple of Hadrian except its size and order, comparable with such temples as Kyzikos’. And if the identity of the denoted a height, not a promontory, Philostratos in fact used êkra in either sense, with its basic meaning being ‘extremity’ (up or out). Height: Philostratos, Life of Apollonios of Tyana 2.8.5 (the mountain Nysa); promontory: Life of Apollonios of Tyana 5.1.4, 6 (the pillars of Hercules and the cape of Libya, Abinna). 57 Bean 1966, 41; map, 23. 58 Tsakyroglou 1876, 1879, 1.87, 2.70; Cadoux 1938, 17, 248; Bürchner 1927, 750-756; Schorndorfer 1997, 173-175. 59 Prokesch von Osten 1834, Anzeige-Blatt 55-86, esp. 6263; Prokesch von Osten 1836, 1.522. 60 Walter 1922-1924, Beibl. 232.

akra depends on proximity to the temple of Zeus Akraios, the site of that temple is also uncertain; an inscription concerning repairs to its aqueduct was found on Mt. Pagos, the akropolis of Smyrna, not on DeÅirmen-tepe.61 Therefore the second koinon temple of Smyrna cannot be proved to have been found. Polemon continued to act on behalf of Smyrna to the end of his life, and indeed died before he could complete a mission to defend “the temples and their rights” before the emperor Antoninus Pius. When substitute advocates botched the job, the emperor himself inquired whether Polemon had left a speech, and then delayed the hearing until it could be fetched. Upon hearing it, he decided for Smyrna. “Thus Smyrna came away having won first place, and they declared that Polemon had come back to life to help them.”62 The contest on behalf of the temples probably refers to the ones that made the city twice neokoros, in which Polemon had a special interest.63 As the decrees of the Senate mentioned previously should have made their status unchallengeable, Polemon’s defense may have been necessitated by some question of relationships (involving precedence, finance, proper titulature, or any of a number of factors) among rival neokoroi cities in the koinon. Probably shortly before this incident, Ephesos had complained that Smyrna had not given that city its precise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice, and that Pergamon had similarly offended; the quarrel went all the way to Antoninus Pius, who had already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos. The emperor decided that Pergamon was not at fault and Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned Ephesos and Smyrna in future to give each other their correct titles.64 It was probably at this point that 61 IvS 681b; an aqueduct did lead from Kara-Bunar to the west end of Mt. Pagos: Hasluck 1913-1914, 92; Cadoux 1938, 177, 248, 254. G. Weber 1899, 167-174, identified the Zeus Akraios aqueduct as the one originating at Ak-Bunar, despite the fact that it considerably predates the first century C.E., because he had already decided that the temple of Zeus was on the “Mühlenhügel,” or DeÅirmen-tepe. 62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540). 63 Perhaps more likely than a challenge to the right of asylum, which centered on one temple, that of Aphrodite Stratonikis, rather than several; Rigsby 1996, 95-105, esp. 96. 64 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The emperor’s letter is dated in his third consulship, 140-144 C.E.: IvE 1489, 1489a, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295. Polemon was still alive in 143, when Marcus Aurelius heard him declaim: Fronto, Letters to Marcus Caesar 2.5; 2.10 ed. M. van den Hout (Leipzig 1988);

chapter

2

Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating its concord with the other two cities.65 Polemon’s subsequent (posthumous) mission to defend Smyrna’s temples and their rights indicates that the emperor’s letter did not bring the bickering to an end, and that perhaps Ephesos, by questioning the status of Smyrna’s temples, was retaliating for the offence. Much has been made of these quarrels in Antoninus Pius’ reign, and rightly so; but in order to understand them, it is necessary to get all the details correct. Cadoux was the first to conflate Polemon’s posthumous embassy with Antoninus Pius’ decision, and make one result from the other.66 As will be noted, however, in the former Smyrna won, but in the latter Ephesos did. Merkelbach then took Philostratos’ tå prote›a literally to refer to Smyrna’s winning the right to walk first in the festival procession of the koinon.67 It is more likely, however, that Philostratos was referring only to victory in the court case, as translated above. The title ‘first’ does not become common in Smyrnaean inscriptions until the time of Caracalla, and indeed does not appear until late in the time of the second neokoria, the early third century, as on inscriptions 8, 7, and probably 6, below.68 Note the simplicity of an actual inscription under Antoninus Pius: inscription 5 only calls Smyrna ‘the [twice] neokoros city of the Smyrnaeans.’ Dräger and Kampmann, though differing on chronology, both followed Cadoux in connecting the two accounts, and Merkelbach in concentrating on the title ‘first’ and scanting other details.69 Kampmann’s account is somewhat preferable, though she attributed the concord coinage mentioned above to Antoninus Pius’ initial regulation of Ephesos’ titles;

C. Haines, ed. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Cambridge MA 1982) 1:116-119; van den Hout 1999, 77-80. Collas-Heddeland 1995 is unfortunately vitiated by mistranslations and misunderstandings; see Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476. Perhaps the same joint sacrifice appears on coins of Ephesos under Antoninus Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1. 65 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; Kampmann 1996, 29-34, 108-109. 66 Cadoux 1938, 262-264. A similar error in his account of CIG 3175 as connected with the cult in the provincial temple; the neokoros of Zeus in line 3 of that inscription is in fact an official of Zeus’ temple. 67 Merkelbach 1978, 290. 68 Petzl (IvS 603, 672) occasionally restores the title earlier, but almost all unrestored examples date from the time of the third neokoria. 69 Dräger 1993, 115; Kampmann 1996, 29-34; Kampmann 1998, 377-379.

– smyrna in ionia

47

this assumes that he regulated the titles of all three cities, Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, not just Ephesos’, which is all the inscription states. Also, she did not emphasize what stands out in this particular concord coinage: that unlike many others, it was only minted by one party, Ephesos; neither Smyrna nor Pergamon reciprocated, so far as is known. To be slightly cynical, ‘concord’ in this case may represent not an equal accord but what the Ephesians saw as a victory. Such a victory was given to them by Antoninus Pius’ letter: it would make the other two cities give Ephesos its full and correct titles. The Ephesians liked the emperor’s decision so much that they inscribed the letter publicly at least twice. No copies have yet been found at Pergamon or Smyrna. On the other hand, in Philostratos’ account, Smyrna won its case. Neither Merkelbach, Dräger, nor Kampmann noticed that Polemon’s mission was originally on behalf of the temples and their rights, and so is more likely to have concerned neokoria than the title ‘first.’ That victory must be set in the context that Philostratos gave it. Rather than simply favoring Polemon, as Hadrian had, Antoninus Pius had good reason to resent him: once, when Antoninus was proconsul of Asia, Polemon had had him thrown out of his house. The emperor’s decision in favor of Smyrna was not only a tribute to Polemon’s peerless (posthumous) oratory, but to Antoninus’ own civility as a ruler.70 After the time of Hadrian, when Smyrna had received its second neokoria and second provincial temple, the titulature of the chief priests of Asia (and the Asiarchs) reflected the increase: these officials were in charge of the (plural) temples in Smyrna.71 No chief priestesses specifically of (plural) temples in Smyrna have yet been clearly documented. After Polemon’s death, one of the most important orators to make Smyrna his home and his cause was Aelius Aristides. When Marcus Aurelius visited the city, probably in 176 during his tour of the East after the revolt of Avidius Cassius, he went out of his way 70

Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.5-6 (533-535). For the discussion of the nature of Asiarchs and chief priests of Asia, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 on the koina. A chief priest of Asia of the temples in Smyrna, after Hadrian: IGRR 4:586, from Aizanoi; an Asiarch of the temples in Smyrna, after Caracalla: IGRR 4:17, from Eresos; also FiE 3:72, dating an Asiarchy to the end of the second century; and the abundant dossier on M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles, designated chief priest of the temples at Smyrna for the second time under Commodus, and also named Asiarch: OGIS 509, from Aphrodisias, and Wörrle 1992, 352 and 358. 71

48

part i – section i. koinon of asia

to send for Aristides, who had at first held back.72 The emperor treated him indulgently, however, and he eventually acquitted himself well. According to Philostratos’ account of these events, destiny was preparing ahead for Smyrna to be rebuilt through Aristides’ talents, and he could rightfully be called the founder of the city.73 For soon after, when Commodus had been raised to share the title of Augustus with his father, Smyrna was rocked by a disastrous earthquake.74 As soon as the news came to Aristides on his estate, he dashed off a monody on the city’s fall, and then wrote to the two emperors the next day to ask for their aid.75 Marcus Aurelius shed tears over Aristides’ letter and promised to rebuild the city; Cassius Dio confirms that he sent both money and a senatorial commissioner for the purpose.76 Aristides’ letter is rather vague about the scenes of devastation at Smyrna: so many temples, so many gymnasiums, the streets, the agora, the harbor. He is particular to note, however, that the temple that Smyrna had obtained when it was preferred (at a vote of four hundred to seven) to all the other cities of Asia had now sunk beneath the ground; though that temple might be recovered with Asia’s help, only the emperors had the resources to rebuild the entire city.77 This distinction helps to point out that the temple in question was provincial, and the reference to the vote identifies it as that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate. It and the city did not remain in ruins for long, however. Aristides’ subsequent Oration 20 hailed the emperors as the new founders of Smyrna, and praised all the cities of Asia for offering aid to the refugees. Within a short time (before Marcus’ death in 180 C.E.), Aristides could write without blushing that before the earthquake Smyrna had been superior to the other cities, but now it was superior even 72

Gascó 1989 postulated that this was because Aristides had supported Avidius Cassius, though the point in Philostratos’ account seems to be Aristides’ scholarly modesty. 73 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583). 74 Commodus became Augustus in mid-177 C.E., at least before June 17: Kienast 1996, 147-150. Behr 1968, 112 n. 68, however, preferred to date the earthquake shortly after January 177. Eusebius, Chronica 209c dated it to 179, and said that due to it ten year’s tribute was remitted; while the Chronicon Paschale 262 dated it to 178. See Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 237-238 no. 117. 75 The Monody for Smyrna is Oration 18, the letter to the emperors Oration 19. 76 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.9.2 (582-583); Cassius Dio 72.32.3. 77 Aelius Aristides, Oration 19.13.

to itself.78 No further mention was made of the koinon temple that had been given such prominence by Aristides’ earlier letter, but it was probably among the first of the city’s shrines to be reconstructed. Third Neokoria: Caracalla Although Smyrna had possessed a provincial imperial temple since the reign of Tiberius and two since that of Hadrian, the word ‘neokoros’ did not appear on its coinage until its third neokoria, under Caracalla.79 In the interim there had been occasional appearances of the temple-bearing Amazon who had symbolized the city as neokoros since the time of Domitian: COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KRA MAR AU [ANTV]NEINO% Laureate head of Marcus Aurelius r. Rev: %TRA KL PROKLOU %OFI%TOU %MUR Amazon Smyrna in long dress, seated, holding small temple and double axe.80 a) SNGCop 1369 b) Paris 2573 c) MvS 258 nos. 15-17 (2 other exx.). COIN TYPE 5. Obv: L AUR KOMODO% KAI%AR Head of Commodus as Caesar r., youthful. Rev: %TR PO AI ARIZHLOU %MURNAIVN Seated Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.81 a) Paris 2620 b) MvS 266 no. 6 (Athens). COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K L %EP %EOUHRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EP(I, b) %T(R, b) K ROUFINOU %OF %MURNAIVN Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield is crowned by Victory with palm. a) Vienna 35984 b) MvS 268-269 no. 7 (Boston). Smyrna’s inscriptions call the city twice neokoros until 201/202 (inscription 7, below), and coins of Geta as Augustus, issued sometime between 209 and his death at the end of 211 C.E., do not yet claim the third neokoria.82 So Smyrna was one of three 78

Aelius Aristides, Oration 21.11. Two seeming exceptions are in fact falsifications. Paris 2540 and Vienna 11789, coins with obverse portraits of Antoninus Pius, have been recut to read that Smyrna was neokoros (Paris, two temples on the reverse) or twice neokoros (Vienna, three temples, a reworked coin of Ephesos). 80 Pick 1904, 2 no. 3. 81 Pick 1904, 3 no. 4. 82 MvS 294-295, nos. 18-22; Kienast 1996, 166-167. 79

chapter

2

cities (including Ephesos and Pergamon, qq.v.) that became three times neokoros during the sole rule of Caracalla. Celebratory types for the third neokoria were issued under the strategoi Aurelius Charidemos and Tiberius Claudius Kretarios, or without any magistrate’s name at all. Klose believed that two further annual magistrates served after the award of the neokoria and before Caracalla’s death, though their coinage did not proclaim the title; thus he dated the grant of the title between February 212 and mid214 C.E.83 The date should be narrowed to after January 214, as Caracalla was then in the area, and was awarding commensurate gifts to other Asian cities such as Pergamon.84 Pergamon seems to have made a claim to be the first city that was three times neokoros of the Augusti, and it was one of the first places that Caracalla visited upon landing. Smyrna’s honors probably followed shortly after. The emperor need not have been in Smyrna itself to have made it neokoros, but it is not impossible that he did visit such a beautiful and important city. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G NEVKORVN TVN %EB(A, abcdefg) EPI (%TRA, abcdefg) (AUR XARIDHMOU, abcdfgh;85 KL KRHTARIOU, e86) Three four-column Corinthian temples on podia, each with wreath on its apex; within each side temple an emperor with sceptre and TI or AD in its pediment; within the center one seated goddess Rome, in pediment RV. a) BMC 403 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 61) b) BMC 404 c) Paris 2402 d) Paris 2403 e) Oxford 20.75 f) SNGvA 2220 g) Berlin, Fox h) New York, Newell. COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% (M AU ANTVNEINO%, b) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Three four-column Corinthian temples on podia, each with a wreath on its apex; (within each side temple an emperor with sceptre, adefghkl) within the center one seated goddess Rome.87 a) BMC 415 b) BMC 416 c) Paris 2688

– smyrna in ionia

49

d) Paris 2687 e) Oxford 16.86 f) Oxford 21.04 g) SNGCop 1389 h) Vienna 17845 i) Warsaw 58629 j) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer k) Berlin, Löbbecke l) SNGvA 8005. The most explicit types are probably the earliest: under the titles ‘Smyrna first of Asia three times neokoros of the Augusti’ appear the three temples, each with a wreath on the peak of its roof. The three temples, all Corinthian, are assimilated to one another. Each side temple contains a cuirassed figure of an emperor; these are identified by small letters in the pediment as Tiberius and Hadrian. Tiberius’ original image was certainly togate, so unless the old statue had been replaced since the earthquake, he was here either assimilated to the cuirassed figure of Hadrian, or merely conventionalized into a military figure denoting ‘an emperor.’ In the new temple in the center, however, a seated female figure is distinguished, and the letters in the pediment identify her as Ro(me). Yet on the very same coin Smyrna calls itself three times neokoros of the Augusti, with no mention of Rome. The one seeming exception is the following: COIN TYPE 9. Obv: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: YEA% RVMH%; %MURNAIVN G NEVKO Seated goddess Rome holding Victory and spear. a) SNGRighetti 911 b) Vienna 17825 c) Berlin 814/1878 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) Paris 2656 f) MvS 281-282 no. 50 (Rome, 1 ex.). As Pick pointed out, however, the words ‘of the goddess Rome’ on the reverse legend refer to her representation, and are not directly connected with the three-times neokoros title on the coin.88 The existence of the temple to the goddess Rome at Smyrna had been one of the major reasons why the Senate had granted the temple of Tiberius to that city. Established in 195 B.C.E., by this time it had reached an age that must have been considered venerable, though relatively recent when compared to such ancient foundations as the temple of Artemis at Ephesos and the temple of Hera at Samos.89 Yet early in the third century C.E. it was grouped among the temples that made Smyrna neokoros of the

83

MvS 22-23, 70-71; contested by Johnston 1989, 320-321. Halfmann 1986a, 224, 229; see also Letta 1994b on the emperor’s wintering in Nikomedia from January 1, 214. 85 MvS 285-286 nos. 11-13 (3 further exx.). 86 MvS 286 no. 15 (this ex.). 87 MvS 288-289 nos. 24-26 (12 further exx.). 84

88 Pick 1904, 23 n. 31; not observed by Fayer 1976, 167 n. 165; see also MvS 22 (which mis-cites the coin legend), 4041; and pace Johnston 1989, 321. 89 Fayer 1976, 11, 31-32.

50

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Augusti, which assures that the imperial cult was practiced in it. Something similar might have happened at Pergamon (q.v.): the cult of Caracalla was moved into an extant temple, probably that of Asklepios. On the Pergamene coins, however, the small letters in the pediment of the temple in question read “An(toninus).” This indicates the presence of the cult of Caracalla, though the cult statue remains that of the original occupant. On Smyrna’s coins we find no mention of the emperor at all. Yet if Smyrna were neokoros of the goddess Rome, one would expect the fact to be stated explicitly, and it never is. Ephesos, for example, called itself either ‘three times neokoros’ or ‘twice and of Artemis’ during the sole reign of Caracalla, but never ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti,’ as Smyrna did. Moreover, a new temple-bearer type appears under Caracalla and persists in the same way that the Amazon Smyrna had: here again is the goddess Rome. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: G NEVKORVN EPI KRHTARIOU %MURN Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.90 a) BMC 410 b) BMC 411 c) Paris 2682. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: %EBA%TH IOU DOMNA Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: (G NEVKORVN EPI KRHTARIOU %MURN, a-e;91 %MURNAIVN EPI XARIDHMOU G NEVK %EB, f-h;92 G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN %MURNAIVN ik;93 PRV A%IA% G NEVKORVN %MUR, l-w).94 Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear. a) Oxford 13.73 b) Oxford 11.07 c) Paris 2654 d) Paris 2655 e) Paris 2655A f) BMC 389 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 62) g) Paris 2673 h) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer i) Oxford 19.11 j) Oxford 14.48 k) Paris 2660 l) BMC 390 m) BMC 391 n) BMC 392 o) London 1895.6-6-36 p) Boston 63.2600 q) Paris 2657 r) Paris 2658 s) Paris 2659 t) Vienna 17824 u) Berlin, Löbbecke v) Berlin, Löbbecke w) Berlin 548/1874.

90 91 92 93 94

MvS MvS MvS MvS MvS

287-288 nos. 22-23 (these exx.). 279 nos. 36-38 (3 further exx.). 278 no. 34 (2 further exx.). 281 no. 49 (these exx.). 281 nos. 45-48 (10 further exx.).

Clearly the type refers to the third neokoria, and again indicates that Smyrna could not have gained a third neokoria simply for the cult of Rome. If it had, why would Rome have been shown carrying her own temple instead of standing within it as the object of cult? Instead she is shown as the custodian of cult, like the city’s namesake, the Amazon Smyrna; in fact, the coin types of these two temple bearers later would run parallel with one another, and would easily have been compared. The peculiar logic of depicting Rome carrying the temple she shared with the emperor is much like that of the contemporary coinage at Pergamon (q.v.), where the emperor was shown sacrificing to the deity with whom he shared a temple. The coinage of Side can also be compared: there several of the city’s patron gods appear as neokoroi, though whether they shared cult with emperor(s) in their own temples is uncertain. Though Nock called the concept “thinkable, but no more,” others have accepted that the cult of Caracalla was moved into the old temple of Rome at Smyrna.95 There were time-honored precedents: Augustus shared a temple with Rome at Pergamon and in other provinces, Tiberius shared one with his mother and the Senate in Smyrna itself. These others, however, had been new foundations. Under Caracalla the ‘new’ neokoria was conferred for an old temple at Smyrna, as it was also at Ephesos (for the temple of Artemis) and at Pergamon (for a temple of Asklepios). Under Caracalla Smyrna, like Pergamon, called itself ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ The goddess Rome is certainly not to be considered one of the Augusti, especially at Smyrna, where the cult of Rome remained independent and unallied to any imperial name up to the third century.96 Nor can it be assumed that the cult of Augustus simply was moved in with the cult of Rome when Republic became Empire; though a Smyrnaean inscription mentions a priest of Rome and Augustus, this is no local document but a decree of the koinon of Asia, and the cult to which it refers is the provincial one at Pergamon.97 In fact, Smyrna was only neokoros of Rome to the same degree that it was neokoros of the Senate and of Julia: these were the cult part95

1.

96

Nock 1930b, 28; Pick 1904, 21-23; J. Keil 1915, 130 n.

Moretti 1953, 237; Fayer 1976, 17-18. IvS 591; Richter 1884-1937, 138, 157-159; Buckler 1935, 181 no. 9. 97

chapter

2

– smyrna in ionia

COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EPI % KL DIOGENOU% Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.100 a) Paris 2718.

ners in the temples that made it neokoros, but the major cults (once Caracalla was installed in Rome’s temple) were all for emperors. Thus Smyrna could call itself three times neokoros of the Augusti. So far as is known, Smyrna minted no coins during the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macrinus. This lack may have been a simple accident of timing; the coinage minted under Caracalla was abundant, and Macrinus’ reign was short. But it may have been due to trouble between the cities and the emperor. According to Cassius Dio, Macrinus took away some grants made by Caracalla to the Pergamenes, who then insulted him; so he publicly stripped them of honors.98 The emperor later sent Dio himself to keep order in both Pergamon and Smyrna. From this sequence of events, we may suppose that Smyrna was implicated in the disorder, and perhaps in the dishonor as well. Smyrna, Pergamon, and several other cities that were neokoroi for Caracalla had a break in coins and inscriptions mentioning neokoria under Macrinus (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). Even Ephesos (q.v.), which may have won its case for primacy in Asia before that emperor, may have lost its neokoria of Artemis at that time. But outside of Cassius Dio’s special appointment, there are no data yet known regarding Smyrna’s position under Macrinus, and under his successor Elagabalus the coins with the title ‘three times neokoros’ simply resume. Like the earlier reverse of the Amazon Smyrna holding a temple, the coin types of the goddess Rome holding a temple and of the three temples of Smyrna, three times neokoros, soon became a part of Smyrna’s numismatic repertoire. They all continued to appear down to the last gasp of Smyrnaean coinage, in the reign of Gallienus. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR (AIL APOLLVNIOU, abc; G KL DIOGENOU%, def) Three temples, center one four-column, Rome seated within; side two two-column.99 a) Paris 2689 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 63) b) Paris 2716 c) SNGvA 2224 d) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer e) Berlin 824-1877 f) New York, Newell.

COIN TYPE 14. Obv: IOUL MAI%A %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.101 a) Oxford 14.27 b) Paris 2719. COIN TYPE 15. Obv: A K M AUR %EU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN PRVTVN A%IA% EPI %TR ANTIOXOU Three temples, side two turned toward center.102 a) Paris 2725 (badly worn). COIN TYPE 16. Obv: IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN (EPI % G K DIOGENOU%, c; EP %TR ANTIOXOU, abdefg) Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.103 a) BMC 435 b) BMC 436 c) Oxford 13.31 d) Oxford 12.45 e) Paris 2730 f) Paris 2731 g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. COIN TYPE 17. Obv: IOU MAMEA %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP %TR ANTIOXOU Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.104 a) BMC 434 b) Oxford 11.63 c) Paris 2728 d) Paris 2729 e) SNGCop 1394 f) Vienna 32712 g) Berlin, von Knobelsdorff h) New York, Petrie. COIN TYPE 18. Obv: A K G I OUH MAJIMEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Maximinus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP % M AU POPLIOU PRO Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.105 a) Vienna 17858. COIN TYPE 19. Obv: obliterated, Maximinus or Maximus. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN 100

15.

101

99

Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. MvS 295 nos. 1-2 (1 further ex.).

MvS 296 no. 1 (1 further ex.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 13, cf.

MvS 296 nos. 2-3 (these exx.). MvS 297 no. 1 (4 further exx.). 103 MvS 300-301 nos. 1-3, 5 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 nos. 14, 16. 104 MvS 300-301 no. 4 (5 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 10. 105 MvS 303-304 no. 3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 no. 17. 102

98

51

52

part i – section i. koinon of asia PRVTVN A%IA% EP % M AUR POPLIOU Three temples, side two two-column, turned toward center, center one four-column, goddess Rome seated within.106 a) Paris 2737.

side temple, seated goddess Rome in the center one.111 a) Oxford 8.15 b) Paris 2779 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 64) c) Paris 2779A d) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer e) Berlin 10728 f) New York, Newell g) BMC 470.

COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN PRVTVN A%IA% EP (%T ROUFINOU %OFI, ab; %TR MENEKLEOU%, cd) Three temples, side two turned toward center, center one four-column, goddess Rome seated within.107 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer b) Paris 2741 c) Paris 2742 d) SNGvA 2228.

COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K P(O, ab) LIK(IN, ab) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEV(K, bdeijklmqtux) EPI (%, bcdeinoqtux) (M AUR, bcdefghnpuvx) %EJ%TOU Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.112 a) Boston 63.1109 b) BMC 467 c) BMC 468 d) BMC 469 e) London 1920.4-5-5 f) Oxford 7.89 g) Oxford 6.29 h) Oxford 12.35 i) Oxford 6.05 j) Oxford 5.65 k) Paris 2796 l) Paris 2797 m) Paris 2798 n) Paris 2799 o) Paris 2800 p) SNGCop 1406 q) SNGCop 1407 r) SNGCop 1408 s) SNGvA 2236 t) SNGvA 8011 u) Vienna 17877 v) Vienna 17878 w) Vienna 17879 x) Vienna 28467 y) Warsaw 58631 z) Berlin, Löbbecke, and others.

COIN TYPE 21. Obv: FOURIA TRANKULLEINA %EB Diademed draped bust of Tranquillina r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN %TR ROUFINOU %OFI Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.108 a) BMC 446 b) BMC 447 c) Oxford 11.46 d) Oxford 15.13 e) Oxford 9.81 f) Paris 2761 g) Vienna 17872 h) Berlin 1291/1878 i) Berlin, Löbbecke j) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer k) New York 51.38 l) SNGvA 8009. COIN TYPE 22. Obv: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% Veiled draped female (Asia) with sheaves and cornucopia (dated to time of Philip) Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEV E % AF EPIKTHTOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.109 a) Boston 67.877 b) Paris 2767 c) SNGvA 2195 d) Berlin, Fox. COIN TYPE 23. Obv: A K PO LIKI OUALERIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVKORVN EP % FILHTOU IPPIKOU Three temples, side two twocolumn turned toward center, center one fourcolumn, figure within.110 a) BMC 455 b) Paris 2772 c) SNGvA 2233. COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLIHNO% Laureate draped bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEVK EP(I %, eg ) %EJ%TOU Three four-column Corinthian temples on podia, each with wreath on apex; an emperor in each 106 MvS 303 no. 1 (1 further ex.) For obliteration of the obverse due to condemnation of the memories of Maximinus and Maximus, see MvS 119. 107 MvS 306-307 nos. 2, 11-13 (5 further exx.). 108 MvS 310 nos. 1-3 (2 further exx.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 19. 109 MvS 194 no. 1 (1 further ex.); Pick 1904, 5 no. 20. 110 MvS 314 no. 1 (1 further ex.).

COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P(O, abcefqtuz) LIK(IN, qsuz ) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %MUR(NAIVN, befqruyz) G NEVK(O, bcefghijklmnopqstuwxz) EP (% not in u) M AUR %EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.113 a) Boston 67.884 b) BMC 459 c) BMC 460 d) BMC 461 e) BMC 462 f) Oxford 5.74 g) Oxford 5.05 h) Oxford 6.11 i) Oxford 5.88 j) Oxford 5.57 k) Oxford 5.37 l) Oxford 7.99 m) Paris 2780 n) Paris 2781 o) Paris 2782 p) Paris 2783 q) Paris 2784 r) Paris 2785 s) SNGCop 1409 t) SNGCop 1410 u) SNGCop 1411 v) SNGvA 2235 w) Vienna 34946 x) Vienna 27788 y) Vienna 34483 z) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer, and others. COIN TYPE 27. Obv: KOR %ALVNEINA %E (Diademed, cd) draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: %MURNAIVN G NEV EP (%, cd) %EJ%TOU Seated goddess Rome holding small temple and spear.114 a) Oxford 6.94 b) Paris 2608 c) Berlin 5180 d) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. COIN TYPE 28. Obv: KOR %ALVNEINA %E Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: %MUR111

MvS MvS no. 11. 113 MvS no. 21. 114 MvS no. 12. 112

316 nos. 3-4 (3 further exx.). 322-324 nos. 51-59 (17 further exx.); Pick 1904, 4 320-322 nos. 36-50 (16 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6 326 no. 7 (1 further ex., 1 missing); Pick 1904, 4

chapter

2

(NAIVN, acdefijkm) G NEV(K, befghikl) EP (%, abcfghjlm) (M, abdefghikl) (A, ei or AUR abdfghkl) %EJ%TOU Amazon Smyrna holding small temple, double axe and shield.115 a) BMC 475 b) BMC 476 c) Oxford 6.19 d) Oxford 6.27 e) Oxford 6.92 f) Oxford 5.47 g) Paris 2807 h) Paris 2808 i) SNGvA 2239 j) Vienna 31994 k) Vienna 36690 l) Berlin, Löbbecke m) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

In the mid-third century the Amazon Smyrna even took her small temple with her when she served as symbol of the city on concord coins: COIN TYPE 29. Obv: AU KAI M ANT GORDIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: A%IA %MURNA OMONOIA EP % PVLLIANOU Asia with sceptre and phiale and the Amazon Smyrna with small temple, double axe and shield, an altar between them.116 a) Paris 2739 b) Vienna 17865 c) London 1893.6-4-56. This may serve as a final illustration of Smyrna’s long-standing pride in its status as neokoros. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. IvS 657. Statue base from Olympia, dated after 41 C.E. but before second neokoria. The neokoros people honor an athlete and fellow citizen. 2. IvS 634. [The ...] neokoros people honor M. Atilius Bradua; set up by M. Aurelius Perperos. Beurlier 1877-1910, 58 posited that the (plural?) number of neokoriai was missing from the stone, and a first line with the article should indeed be restored; but PIR2A 1303 attributed the inscription to M. Atilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul of Asia under Domitian, in 94/95 according to Eck, and a Domitianic date for Perperos may be confirmed.117 So the city was simply neokoros. 3. IvS 696. List of contributors toward harbor construction. Undated. Twice neokoros: 4. IvS 697. The ‘gymnasium inscription’ documenting the second neokoria and Hadrian’s gifts on account of Polemon. See discussion in text above. 115

MvS 325 nos. 1-4 (7 further exx.); Pick 1904, 6 no. 22. MvS 344 no. 1 (6 further exx.); Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 215-216 nos. 2235-2248; Pick 1904, 5 no. 18. 117 Eck 1982, 322; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81.

– smyrna in ionia

53

5. IvS 767. Dedication to the river Hermos and to Antoninus Pius. Enumeration restored. 6. IvS 672. Fragment, from Haci Köy. Dated only by neokoria. 7. IvS 815. Milestone from Hacilar, on the SmyrnaSardis road, set up under the proconsul Lollianus Gentianus, whose term is dated to 201/202.118 Smyrna is “most illustrious, first of cities of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.” 8. IvS 814. Milestone from west of Pinarbaâi, on the Smyrna-Sardis road. Similar to inscription 7 and of same date. Three times neokoros: 9. IvS 637. Statue base of an Asiarch, dated to the first half of the third century. Enumeration of the neokoria restored, but titulature is same as that of inscription 10, below. 10. IvS 667. Statue base of an athlete honored by Valerian and Gallienus; Smyrna is “first of Asia in beauty and greatness, most illustrious, metropolis, three times neokoros by the decrees of the most sacred Senate and jewel of Ionia.” 11. IvS 640. Statue base of a chief priestess. Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9 and 10. 12. IvS 665. Statue base of an athlete. Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-11. 13. IvS 666. Probably a statue base of an athlete. Undated; titulature same as that of inscriptions 912. 14. IvS 674. Fragment, undated, probably with titulature same as that of inscriptions 9-13. 15. IvS 638. Statue base of an Asiarch. Enumeration restored; titulature similar to that of inscriptions 9-13 but “three times neokoros of the Augusti and jewel of Ionia by decrees of the most sacred Senate.” 16. IvS 673. Statue base, undated. Smyrna is “most illustrious and metropolis and three times neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Senate.” 17. IvS 646. Fragment, undated. Petzl restored titulature similar to that of inscriptions 9-13, but the first line is much longer than the rest; titulature similar to that of inscription 16 is more likely. 18. IvS 603. Imperial letter? Fragmentary, undated, though previously attributed to Hadrianic times due to the word ‘to Olympian’ (Zeus or Hadrian?). Enumeration missing; restored on the model of in-

116

118

Christol and Drew-Bear 1995.

54

part i – section i. koinon of asia

scriptions 9-13, but the order of the titles is different and the syntax a bit strained.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Three times neokoros: Caracalla: BMC 403-417; SNGCop 1389; SNGvA 2220, 2221, 8005; Berlin (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla and Julia Domna: Oxford. Julia Domna: BMC 389-394; SNGCop 1385; SNGvA 2219; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Elagabalus: SNGvA 2224; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris (2 exx.). Julia Maesa: Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). Severus Alexander: BMC 428-433; SNGvA 2225, 2226; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Julia Mamaea: BMC 434-439; SNGCop 1394-1396; SNGLewis 1399; SNGRighetti 912; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, time of Severus Alexander: BMC 244; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Maximinus: Paris, Vienna. Maximinus and Maximus Caesar: BMC 441; SNGCop 1397; SNGLewis 1400; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Maximus Caesar: London, Oxford. Gordian III: BMC 442, 444, 445; SNGCop 1399, 1400; SNGvA 2227-2230; SNGLewis 1402; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (13 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Tranquillina: BMC 446-451; SNGCop 1401-1403; SNGvA

8010; SNGLewis 1403; SNGRighetti 913, 914; Berlin (9 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Non-imperial obverse, time of Gordian III: BMC 239, 240; SNGCop 1314-1318; SNGvA 7991; SNGLewis 1405; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (15 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Philip BMC 452; SNGvA 2231. Otacilia: BMC 453; SNGCop 1404; SNGvA 2232; Berlin (3 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, time of Philip: BMC 247; SNGCop 1325; SNGvA 2195; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Valerian: BMC 454-456; SNGvA 2233; Oxford, Paris (3 exx.). Gallienus: BMC 458-469, 471-474; SNGCop 1405-1416; SNGvA 2234-2238, 8011, 8012; SNGLewis 1409, 1410; SNGRighetti 915, 916; Berlin (22 exx.), Boston (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (25 exx.), Paris (29 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.), Warsaw. Salonina: BMC 475-478; SNGCop 1417-1419; SNGvA 2239-2241; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Valerianus: Boston, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, time of the joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus: BMC 246; SNGCop 1326; SNGvA 2196; Berlin, New York, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, not dated: BMC 227-231, 233-237; SNGCop 1321-1324; SNGvA 2190-2192, 7990; SNGTüb 3754, 3755 (Philadelphia, concord issue); Berlin (15 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (8 exx.), Oxford (22 exx.), Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.).

chapter

3

– miletos in ionia

55

Chapter 3. Miletos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia First Provincial Temple: Gaius The precedents of Augustus and Tiberius combined with his own inclinations to assure that Gaius Caesar, better known as Caligula, was worshipped in a provincial temple in Asia. The fullest account is that of Cassius Dio, though it exists only as a paraphrase from later compilations (ep. 59.28.1): “Gaius ordered that a precinct be set aside for his worship in Miletos in the province Asia, giving as his reason that Artemis had preempted Ephesos, Augustus Pergamon, and Tiberius Smyrna; but the truth was that he wanted to appropriate for himself the large and very beautiful temple that the Milesians were building for Apollo.” This is the first of a series of anecdotes all having to do with Gaius’ temple building and temple altering for the sake of his favorite cult, his own. They are grouped with events of the year 40, and may have simply been placed at this point to serve as variations on a megalomaniac theme. Other documents, however, have indicated that in the beginning of his reign at least, Gaius followed an Augustan/Tiberian tradition of modesty even in accepting honorific statues, and a date late in his reign is not inconsistent with the inscriptional evidence (below).1 The terminology that Dio used in this instance differs sharply from his previous treatment of the events of 29 B.C.E., where Augustus “gave permission” to the Greeks of Asia to build a temple at Pergamon (q.v.); here Gaius “commands,” but one cannot place too much faith in the wording of a passage that is only known in epitome. The large but still incomplete temple that Gaius is said to have coveted must have been the monumental temple of Apollo at Didyma. Ironically, it had previously taken Miletos out of the running for a provincial temple eventually given to Smyrna. Tacitus (Annals 4.55) listed the reasons for the Senate’s 1 Oliver 1989, 69-77 no. 18: Gaius requested a decrease in the number of statues set up in his honor, allowing only the ones at the major Panhellenic sanctuaries.

ruling out several Asian cities that wanted to build the temple to Tiberius: “The Pergamenes (and they were using this itself as an argument) were judged to have been honored enough by the temple to Augustus there; the Ephesians and Milesians were seen as having totally devoted their cities to the worship of Artemis in the former case, Apollo in the latter.” Gaius’ reasoning, as (para)phrased by the epitomator of Dio, seems to have followed the Senate’s in Tacitus: a city could be ‘preempted’ by another major cult from getting a provincial imperial temple, at least in this period. Suetonius, in his life of Gaius (21), confirms that the emperor indeed took an interest in the Didymaion at Miletos: he included its completion in a list of semi-impossible projects that Gaius intended to undertake.2 But Suetonius listed this among his actions as head of state; though extravagant, it was not considered outrageous, and Suetonius made no mention of changing the cult. Inscriptions confirm that provincial officials and workers gathered at Didyma in the reign of Gaius. A base for a statue of the emperor himself, dated to 40/41, was found near the southwest corner of the temple at Didyma.3 The dedicants were a group of neopoioi, officials responsible for construction or physical upkeep of a temple, in this case, the temple of Gaius Caesar “in Miletos.” Robert first pointed out that they represented each city center of thirteen judicial districts, and thus the whole of the province Asia.4 He also indicated that the temple’s being ‘in Miletos’ did not necessarily rule out the Didymaion, as it was also within the territory and under the administration of that city.5 Less securely dated, but perhaps from the same time, is an inscrip2 Pülz 1989, 8-9 n. 25 had doubts about the probability of this list. 3 Rehm 1958, no. 148. 4 L. Robert 1949. 5 Note also that the Didymaion had won the titles ‘sacred’ and ‘asylos’ for the city of Miletos itself in the third century B.C.E.: Rigsby 1996, 172-178.

56

part i – section i. koinon of asia

tion that mentions the craftsmen of Asia working on the temple at Didyma.6 But why would provincial craftsmen be working on Miletos’ Didymaion if it were not a provincial temple? And why would provincial officials in charge of building a temple to Gaius dedicate a statue to him in the sacred area of a different temple? On the current balance of evidence, it seems that Dio was right, and that the koinon temple to Gaius was going to be the Didymaion. Some historians have downplayed Dio’s account as error, prejudice, or scandal-mongering.7 But neither Suetonius nor the inscriptions contradict him. Though his attempts to deify himself in Rome could be interpreted as sheer madness, Gaius’ move into the Didymaion, at least as a cult partner to Apollo, would probably not have been considered so outrageous by the Asians, who had the precedent of provincial temples to Augustus and Tiberius.8 Certainly Dio was familiar with such new cults in old temples for an emperor he knew well (and also disliked): Caracalla’s cult was moved into the temple of Rome at Smyrna and into that of Asklepios at Pergamon, and Dio served as administrator of both those cities shortly afterward.9 The neopoioi inscription documents how the building of one temple, now made provincial and imperial, was organized by the koinon. Each city that was the seat of a judicial district of the province sent a representative neopoios, presumably to oversee the collection and disbursement of funds as well as temple construction.10 We know less of the craftsmen of Asia, but they too may have been organized and sent as representatives of their cities or judicial districts.11 Thus all parts of the provincial koinon were represented at, and responsible for, the building of this (and by extension other) provincial imperial temples.12 If the emperor took any part in the 6 Rehm 1958, no. 107. The connection is given new emphasis by Herrmann 1989a. 7 Parke 1985, 71-72; Fontenrose 1988, 21-22, 169. 8 Herrmann 1989a, 195 suggested the synnaos relationship. Barrett 1989, 143-144 judged it “by no means implausible” that Gaius meant to take the Didymaion for himself alone, comparing this action to his proposal to take over the Temple at Jerusalem. Ibid. 140-153 on Gaius’ divine honors and contemporary attitudes toward them. 9 Cassius Dio 79.20.4, 80.7.4. 10 Habicht 1975, 90-91. 11 Herrmann 1992, 69-70 believed that the craftsmen were paid by the province as well. 12 The doubts of Magie 1950, 1366-1367 as to the provincial status of this temple seem unfounded.

organization or funding of the project, as Suetonius implied, it is not evident from the other documents, but his building projects elsewhere were numerous and this is not inconsistent with them.13 If the Didymaion served as the third provincial imperial temple in Asia, it is the first whose ruins we can identify (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3, pl. 4 fig. 16). And if the temples of Augustus at Pergamon and of Tiberius at Smyrna were anything like it, they must have been on a truly magnificent scale, which was what had attracted Gaius to Didyma in the first place. The Didymaion was a colossal Ionic dipteros, facing east, with ten columns on the short side and twenty-one on the long; its stylobate, at 51.13 x 109.34 m., was almost as large as that of the Artemision at Ephesos.14 Strabo (14.1.5) thought it the largest of all temples, and that its lack of a roof was due to its great size. It had been under construction since at least the beginning of the third century B.C.E. Its layout was unusual, and was perhaps dictated by the requirements of the oracle of Apollo which issued from it.15 What seemed to be a standard, though grandiose, approach through a twelvecolumn pronaos (three rows of four columns each) was stymied by a huge door with a threshold too high (1.5 m.) to enter; one could just look into a double-(Corinthian)-columned room accessible only from the other side. Instead, access to the interior was indirect, down one of two stone-lined tunnels. One followed them out into an enormous hypaethral court that dwarfed the small building sunk into its middle; this may have been a naiskos for Apollo’s statue, though the presence of a well indicates that it may have served the oracle. The decorative scheme was predictably Apolline, with a frieze along the inner wall of griffins, winged lions, and lyres, more griffins and bulls’ heads on the column capitals, as well as busts of Zeus and of Apollo, and gorgoneia on the exterior frieze. Archaeological evidence is not decisive on the temple’s state of construction during the reign of Gaius. Coins of Miletos show a hexastyle temple at this and at other periods, but are not specific enough to identify the Didymaion or any particular struc13 Barrett 1989, 192-212; Herrmann 1992, 70 believed that the emperor played a financial role. 14 Knackfuss 1942; Voigtländer 1975; Gruben 1976, 359375; Tuchelt 1992, with current bibliography. 15 Parke 1985, 210-219; Fontenrose 1988, 78-85. Tuchelt 1992, 12-13 was more pessimistic about reconstructing the rituals from the remains.

chapter

3

ture.16 Work on the huge project may have been taken up again at around this time, but the details of construction and ornament cannot be dated specifically.17 We do not know whether any changes were intended in order to accommodate Gaius’ cult, and in any case the shortness of his reign hints that not much was accomplished; he was assassinated in January 41.18 The chief priest on the neopoioi inscription, Gnaeus Vergilius Capito, had already served as chief priest of Asia twice before serving this, his third term, as chief priest of the temple of Gaius Caesar in Miletos. He was obviously a powerful figure in his city and province, and came from a Milesian family to whom the imperial cult was important.19 The neokoros of the temple, Tiberius Julius Menogenes, was eminent as well, having already been chief priest twice.20 The chief neopoios also held the offices of sebastoneos, otherwise unknown, and sebastologos, for delivering prose eulogies of the emperor. Thus some of the personnel of the third provincial imperial temple in Asia have been laid out for us. The death of Gaius and the obliteration of all reminders of him must have put an end to the establishment of his cult and the building of his temple (qua koinon temple, though of course the Didymaion would go on).21 As Gaius’ death and dishonor came before ‘neokoros’ became a title for cities with koinon temples, Miletos never became neokoros for his temple.

– miletos in ionia

57

one temple per emperor that the koinon of Asia had established thus far: Augustus’ provincial temple was in Pergamon, Tiberius’ in Smyrna. We have no evidence on whether or where Asia built a temple to Claudius. There is, however, one later inscription of Miletos as neokoros: INSCRIPTION 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree honoring an athlete. [MeilÆtou t}w] |e[rvtãthw mhtrop]Òlevw t[}w ÉIvn¤aw k(a‹)] nevkÒro[u t«]n Sebast«n k(a‹) toË [t]}w ÉAttik}w eÈgene¤a[w é]ji\matow. . . Rehm dated the decree to the early third century. It is not impossible that enumeration is missing before ‘neokoros,’ but the space is tight and a single neokoria is consistent with the evidence of later coins (below). As for the terminology, ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ assures us that Miletos did not achieve its title for the cult of its patron god Apollo at the Didymaion. Moretti assumed that ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ and ‘of the rank of Attic nobility’ should be combined into one phrase, but Robert corrected him; they are independent titles.22 Price attributed this first neokoria to a temple of Augustus, but that was a municipal, not a provincial, temple.23 In fact, the field is wide open, being limited only to emperors from Claudius to Septimius Severus whose names were not subsequently wiped from the records. Second Neokoria: Elagabalus

First Neokoria It is possible that Miletos tried to retain the honor it had received from Gaius by diverting the worship intended for him to some other emperor, whether current (Claudius) or previous (Augustus or Tiberius). No evidence for this has been found, however, and an attempt to dedicate the temple to a previous emperor would have contradicted the policy of 16

E.g., BMC 143 and SNGCop 1007, with obverses of Gaius. Voigtländer 1975, 123-130; Pülz 1989, 8-9. 18 Barrett 1989, 169-171; Kienast 1996, 85-87. 19 Herrmann with S. Greger 1994. 20 Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A), no. 258 documents a neokoros official of perhaps the second century, but the cult served is restored ‘of the Augusti.’ 21 Cassius Dio 60.4.1, 5-6. On the nature of his condemnation, see Barrett 1989, 177-180 and Varner 1993, 14-77. Riccardi 1996, 209 n. 270, and passim on neokoria, was dependent on outdated information. 17

Miletos declared itself twice neokoros of the Augusti on coins with portraits of Elagabalus, his mother Julia Soaemias, his grandmother Julia Maesa, and his successor, Severus Alexander, adopted and made Caesar in 221. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT K M] AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: EPI ARX MINNIVNO%; MILH%IVN DI% NEVKORVN TVN %EB Two twocolumn temples on high podia, a disc in each pediment, turned toward each other; within each 22 Moretti 1959, 202-203; J. and L. Robert 1961, 266-267 no. 582. 23 S. Price 1984b, 257. See Herrmann with Greger 1994, 225-226, on the municipal priest of Augustus, and 230 on the temple of Augustus, previously incorrectly located north of the council house. On the latter, Herrmann with McCabe 1986, 180.

58

part i – section i. koinon of asia a male figure with sceptre. a) Paris 1912 (illus. pl. 20 fig. 65). COIN TYPE 2. Obv: IOU %OAIMIA% %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Julia Soaemias r. Rev: MILH%IVN B NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Two prize crowns, one labeled OLUMPIA, the other PUYIA, on an agonistic table. a) Paris 1921.

This is the first time that the title appeared on Milesian coins, so we can assume that the city was proud of its achievement of a second neokoria, and wished to draw attention to it. Again, ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti’ assures us that neither of the two neokoriai was for Apollo Didymaios or any other divinity. The two imperial temples on type 1 are abbreviated to become two-column structures identical to each other in every detail, including the imperial cult statues. Echoing that type is type 2 for two festivals, Olympia and Pythia. These may have been festivals for the temples which made the city neokoros, but if they are, the type gives little information beyond the fact that one was modeled on the Olympic, the other on the Delphic, festival.24 Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Miletos had never made much of being neokoros before the time of Elagabalus. It presumably returned to that state just after his death and the condemnation of his memory which wiped out many cities’ neokoriai, Miletos’ included.25 No known Milesian coins mention neokoria during the reign of Severus Alexander. But this was exactly the period when Magnesia, Miletos’ neighbor and a rival sanctuary, first boasted that it was neokoros of its patron goddess, Artemis Leukophryene.26 This vaunt 24

For a female neokoros of Artemis Pythie, and Megala Pythia Panionia games at Miletos, see Günther 1985, 185-188, 186 n. 28. 25 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.

must have offended the Milesians, perhaps intentionally. We are assured that the initial neokoria at least remained valid, however, by coins issued during the two or three months in 238 C.E. when Balbinus and Pupienus ruled as joint emperors with the young Gordian III Caesar. They again proclaim Miletos simply neokoros. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Rehm 1958, 164. Decree honoring an athlete, dated to the early third century. See text above. Note: Herrmann 1997, 205 restores a fragment (g) to Rehm 1924 (= IvM 6.1.A 1997) no. 259; the fragment ends . . . ]nƒ tØn |er[ . . ./ . . . ]v nevk[or- . . ./ . . . ]LOS[ . . .; according to Herrmann, “schwer verständlich.” COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: Elagabalus: Paris. Julia Soaemias: Paris. Julia Maesa: Sardis 106. Severus Alexander Caesar: SNGMün 784; Berlin. Neokoros: Balbinus: BMC 164; SNGCop 1021; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Paris, Vienna, Warsaw. Pupienus: Berlin, London, Paris (2 exx.). Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: London, Paris.

26 The rivalry was long-standing: Rigsby 1996, 175. In the late third century B.C.E., Miletos had sought and obtained rights of asylum, and then a quinquennial Panhellenic festival. The Magnesians copied them and sought the same privileges soon after, with indifferent success. There was then a border conflict between them, now dated to the late 180s B.C.E.: Herrmann 1997, 182-184.

chapter

4

– ephesos in ionia

59

Chapter 4. Ephesos in Ionia: Koinon of Asia One of the largest, wealthiest, and most prominent cities in the province of Asia was Ephesos. Its importance was recognized by a third-century imperial decree according to which each new proconsul was required to make Ephesos his first landfall in the province.1 Yet Ephesos was not the first city to receive an imperial temple for the Hellenes in its province; that honor went to Pergamon (q.v.). On the other hand, it was one of the first cities to call itself neokoros. In 29 B.C.E., at the same time that he allowed a provincial temple for his own cult at Pergamon, Augustus permitted that there be a sacred precinct for Rome and the hero Julius Caesar in Ephesos, which Cassius Dio called the chief city of Asia.2 The best evidence that Ephesos’ shrine to Rome and the deified Julius was not a provincial imperial temple would come when cities began to acquire the title ‘neokoros’ for such temples. Under Domitian, when Ephesos called itself neokoros, it had a single identifiable provincial imperial temple, that ‘of the Augusti,’ not of Rome and Caesar; and its chief priest did not begin to be called ‘chief priest of the [plural] temples in Ephesos’ until the temple of Hadrian, for which Ephesos became twice neokoros, was built. Dio stated that Augustus designated Ephesos’ sanctuary to Rome and the hero Julius for the use of resident Romans. That there was already an organized body of them is proved by an inscription of 36 B.C.E. set up by the conventus of Roman citizens doing business in Ephesos.3 Though Ephesos had 1 Ulpian, Digest 1.16.4.5, by Caracalla: Alan Watson 1985, 32; Millar 1987, xi. 2 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7; see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ Weinstock 1971, 401-404, constructed an earlier history for this cult at Ephesos: already in 41 B.C.E. Antony had carried a letter from the Senate to sacred delegates in Asia regarding it. The letter, however, does not mention Ephesos as the cult place at all, nor can Weinstock’s identification of its priesthood and the flaminate of Caesar with the chief priesthood of the province Asia be correct. See Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 3 IvE 658, supplemented by Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, 235-236; see also Scherrer 2001, 85.

rivals as the foremost city in the province, it was the primary seat of the governor, and also a significant port.4 Pergamon, however, was the center of the province’s pre-Roman administration, and thus also for the koinon of the Hellenes, which was permitted to worship Augustus himself. Despite Dio’s statement that Ephesos was the foremost city of the province at that time, the chief temple and center of provincial cult in Asia was to be in Pergamon, not in Ephesos. The location of Ephesos’ sanctuary for Rome and the hero Julius, as well as that of a Sebasteion built by the city and documented on local inscriptions, are problems that are not entirely settled. A consensus of opinion has located both imperial shrines in the ‘state agora’ of the city, a monumental square including the prytaneion and bouleuterion, developed in the first century B.C.E. Whether the shrine of Rome and the hero Julius can be identified as the structure previously known as the ‘state altar’ (restored as two diminutive four-column prostyle temples on the same podium), or as the six-by-ten column temple in the center of the state agora (first identified as a temple of Isis, then of Dionysos/Mark Antony, and then as the Sebasteion), is uncertain.5 There appears to have been a Sebasteion connected with the great temple of Artemis outside the city as well.6 Ephesos was among the eleven cities of Asia that competed to build a koinon temple to Tiberius, but was passed over as being too wholly occupied by the cult of Artemis.7 This reason was used again to rule out a temple to Gaius.8 Yet in a province eager to establish a temple to each of its rulers, such a promi4

Haensch 1997, 286, 298-321. Thus far no decisive evidence for either identification has been adduced. Alzinger 1970, 1648-1649; Jobst 1980; Scherrer 1995a, 4-5; Walters 1995, 293-295; Scherrer 1997, 93-100; Scherrer 2001, 69-71. Both monuments have the same building technique: Waelkens 1987, 96. 6 Engelmann 1993. 7 Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 8 Cassius Dio 59.28.1; chapter 3, ‘Miletos.’ 5

60

part i – section i. koinon of asia

nent city, seat of the Roman governors, center of a world-famous cult and of a judicial district, should not have had to wait for long; the only question is, how long? An inscription of Kyzikos (q.v.) had used the term ‘neokoros’ in connection with the city’s imperial cult as early as the reign of Gaius, but another early literary citation associated it with Ephesos’ temple of Artemis. Saint Paul visited Ephesos around the years 52-54; at that time a local silversmith who made his business out of selling silver images of the temple of Artemis roused the citizens against him, so that a riot erupted. According to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, when the people flocked to the theater shouting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” they were quieted by the city’s secretary, the grammateus, who is quoted saying “Who does not know that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?”9 Most studies of Acts have indicated that, though the account is not that of an eyewitness, it is a fairly reliable representation of the events of Paul’s mission and his visit to Ephesos; the text itself may have been prepared twenty-five years or more after the event.10 The term ‘neokoros’ was not cited here as part of the city’s official titulature; the grammateus used it as a metaphor, to illustrate the city’s relationship to Artemis’ temple and image. As a detail, however, it places the episode precisely in the late Claudian/ early Neronian period.11 For very soon after, the title ‘neokoros’ was to be become part of official civic titulature in Asia, identified exclusively with the provincial imperial cult, not the possession of the temple of Artemis. 9 Acts of the Apostles 19.35; on the office, Schulte 1994. Images seen as primitive were often classed as ‘heaven-fallen’: Willemsen 1939, 18-35, esp. 28-32 on Artemis; see chapter 9, ‘Philadelphia.’ LiDonnici 1992, 395-396, incautiously denigrated both the Acts citation and the evidence for Artemis’ headdress (below). 10 Haenchen 1965, 60, 77, 672; Molthagen 1991, 65-71, dates the text ca. 90 C.E.; also see Gill and Gempf 1994, ixxiii; and Trebilco 1994. 11 White 1995, 37 doubted a Neronian date for the events in Acts despite the appearance of ‘neokoros’ on later Neronian coins, and supported a date closer to the turn of the second century; yet the grammateus’ use of the term ‘neokoros of Artemis’ as if it were well known would not have been permitted in the early second century, as by that time Ephesos was officially neokoros of the Augusti, and only of the Augusti. Indeed, the title would not have been appropriate again until Ephesos did become neokoros of Artemis, at the beginning of the third, not the second, century; see below. The same applies to Koester’s own doubts about the episode’s timing and historicity: Koester 1982, 310; idem 1995, 130-131.

First Neokoria: Nero The first appearance ever on a coin of the title ‘neokoros’ occurred at Ephesos. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate head of Nero r. (l., e) Rev: AOUIOLA ANYUPATV (AIXMOKLH%, acefgh) EF(E, af) NEVKORVN (NEOKORVN, a) Four-column Ionic? temple in three-quarter view on three-step podium. a) London 1972.8-7-12 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 66) b) Oxford 10.12 c) Paris 626 d) Vienna 31480 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof 1928 g) Berlin h) SNGvA 7863.12 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: NERVN KAI%AR Laureate head of Nero r. Rev: EFE%IVN NEOKORVN Six-column Ionic? temple on three-step podium, disc in pediment, Victories as akroteria; to either side, a bee. a) London 1973.5-1-4 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 67).13 Type 1 is dated by the name of the proconsul M’. Acilius Aviola; as his name appears on coins with portraits of both the Empress Poppaea and her successor Messalina his proconsulship of Asia must have been in 65/66.14 Type 1 is also one of the earliest coin types to show a temple in three-quarter view, and probably represents the same temple shown in facade on type 2, which was likely issued at around the same time. But whose temple was it? Though the better examples make it appear Ionic like the Artemision, Price and Trell thought it was Corinthian; also, Victory-akroteria do not appear on coin images of the temple of Artemis.15 The bees on type 2 do not help, as they are the symbols of the city itself on much of Ephesian coinage. One shows up on another coin of this Neronian series, and accompanies a bust of the goddess Rome; this draped and mural-crowned city goddess is also shown holding a statuette of the Artemis of Ephesos.16 All these types show a close connection between Ephesos and the personification of Rome, who after all had shared cult with the hero Julius in the temenos for resident Romans established in the city in 29 B.C.E. But why 12 13 14

59.

RPC 1:438 no. 2627 (example e) and 2626 (all but e). RPC 1:438 no. 2628. Stumpf 1991, 178-181; Thomasson 1984, 214-215 no.

15 Pace Karwiese 1999, fig. 9, who did not distinguish between these akroteria and (unwinged?) figures in the pediment; M. Price and Trell 1977, 262 no. 380; Trell 1945. 16 RPC 1:438 nos. 2629, 2632.

chapter

4

would so old a cult suddenly be celebrated on coins of 65/66 C.E.? And is it only a coincidence that the Ephesian kouretes, an association dedicated to the cult and rituals of Artemis Ephesia, add the title philosebastoi, ‘Augustus-loving,’ to their lists of members just at this period?17 It has long been thought that Ephesos was declaring itself to be neokoros of Artemis on the Aviola coins, just as the grammateus declared the city neokoros of Artemis in Acts.18 But it is just possible that instead Ephesos was calling itself neokoros for a provincial temple that it had been seeking since the reign of Tiberius, and which it may have finally won in the reign of Nero.19 If that was so, it was a particularly unfortunate time for the establishment of such a temple. Some two years later, in June 68, Nero was declared a public enemy by the Senate and killed himself, after which his name, not to mention his cult, was condemned.20 Rededication: Vespasian or Later If Ephesos had been granted permission to build a temple to Nero, petitions to change the object of cult to a subsequent emperor may have been similarly unfortunate. Within the infamous year 69, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius each attempted to serve as head of state, and each was displaced in turn. Vespasian finally succeeded in holding power and passing it on to his sons, but it is uncertain how long it would have taken for the pleas of an Asian city and its koinon regarding a lost provincial temple for a dishonored emperor to be presented or to be heeded. Though Vespasian’s advent was apparently greeted with enthusiasm in Asia, local disputes may have been serious enough to necessitate lengthening the term of the proconsul Eprius Marcellus.21 There was some Flavian reorganization of the province, and expenditure, some imperial and some local, was made on the road system, earthquake repair, public works in the cities, and the celebration of fes-

17

Rogers 1999. J. Keil 1919. 19 RPC 1:433. 20 Kienast 1996, 96-98; Varner 1993, 78-187; and Rose 1997b, 112-113. Individual cities could be haphazard in their approach to the condemnation, especially in early cases such as Nero’s. 21 Thomasson 1984, 215 no. 65. 18

– ephesos in ionia

61

tivals.22 It is remotely possible that a petition for a koinon temple in a city that had once established a koinon temple for Nero would not be among the cases heard by Vespasian with favor, or that there was some other reason for delay. But on the whole, Asia was apparently prosperous during the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, and could have begun (or continued?) building a provincial imperial temple if permission for one were granted. Only later, however, under the emperor Domitian, did a group of cities of the koinon of Asia make dedications for “the common [koinos, implying provincial status] temple of Asia of the Augusti [Sebastoi] in Ephesos.”23 Though the dedications were to the current emperor, the temple was not called a temple of Domitian, but of the Augusti.24 This could mean that the cult in this provincial temple included the current rulers (Domitian with his consort Domitia), all three emperors of the Flavian dynasty, or all their honored imperial predecessors, each without ruling out the presence of the others. The latter group was not necessarily limited to those recognized as divi at Rome: for example, Tiberius, though never deified, continued as an object of the Asian provincial cult in Smyrna’s temple at least into the third century, and his mother Livia, as Julia Sebaste, shared that temple well before Claudius deified her.25 Later inscriptions, datable to the early third century, record a temple of the god Vespasian, probably referring to the main object of worship at the provincial temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.26 On the inscriptions that celebrated the foundation, and probably stood around this temple, ten 22 Dräger 1993, 39-54, 66-70, 77-89, though several of his assumptions are highly questionable; see below. 23 J. Keil 1919; IvE 232-242, 1498, 2048. 24 E. Meyer 1975; pace S. Price 1984b, 58, 254-257. Although one inscription cities a “chief priest and neokoros of Domitian Caesar and Domitia Sebaste and their house and the Senate,” it is likely that this was a local office, held in his home town of Tmolos. Note also SIG4 820, an inscription copied by Cyriacus of Ancona, which joined the cult of the theoi Sebastoi with the ancient cult of Demeter at Ephesos in the proconsulship of L. Mestrius Florus (ca. 88/89, around the time of the dedication of the temple of the Augusti). 25 Pace Scherrer 1997, 100-106, all too dependent on Dräger 1993; see ‘Smyrna,’ chapter 2. 26 IvE 710 B and C, 3038; Friesen 1993, 37 n. 27 was unnecessarily perturbed over the fact that the provincial status of the temple was not explicitly mentioned in these inscriptions, and postulated a municipal temple of Vespasian. But see below, where Ephesos’ own second provincial temple, which made it twice neokoros, is called simply ‘the temple of the god Hadrian’ (contra Friesen 1993, 34).

62

part i – section i. koinon of asia

cities adhered to a ‘short formula’ of dedication, which may have been modeled on a motion in the koinon council.27 The two free cities, Aphrodisias and Stratonikeia, expanded on that formula, emphasizing that they were not bound by the koinon’s actions, but joined in the dedication as a voluntary act.28 Only the free cities and Philadelphia in Lydia, which used a formula of its own in setting up a statue of the demos of Ephesos, called the city of Ephesos neokoros (inscriptions 2, 3, and 4, below). The free cities emphasized their own status in their inscriptions, while Philadelphia, a less important city, played up its relationship with neokoros Ephesos. Friesen believed that these inscriptions tended to “minimize the significance of the cult for Ephesus, while emphasizing the role of the other cities of the province.” But it is not that the inscriptions minimize the significance of the cult; they only play up their own cities’ importance. Naturally so, as these were not inscriptions of Ephesos, even if they stood within that city; their function was to document the donors’ piety in contributing toward, or celebrating the dedication of, the common temple of the province. A parallel example is Ephesos’ own dedication to Hadrian at the Olympieion at Athens (inscription 37, below): its magniloquence celebrated Ephesos’ titles, not Athens’. At the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, neokoros was not a denigrating term, as Friesen implied. It only stated the terms under which the current dedications were being made: Ephesos held the new provincial temple which was being celebrated. When was the temple of the Augusti decreed? First of all, the coins issued by Ephesos under Aviola (65/66) make it possible that the title ‘neokoros’ had already come to Ephesos for a provincial imperial temple in the reign of Nero, and that the ‘temple of the Augusti’ had been at some stage the temple of Nero (its image shown, but presumably as a projection, not yet built) for which the city had called itself neokoros on coins two decades before the time of Domitian, when the temple was completed. The delay would have been long, as noted above; but the period comprehended the disruption of an empire, the fall of one dynasty, and the foundation of another. 27 Friesen 1993, 29-49. They include Aizanoi (twice), Keretapa, Klazomenai, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis, Synaos, and an unknown city. 28 Reynolds 1982, 109, 167-168; Reynolds 1999, 135.

The first inscription to call the city neokoros is of uncertain date: though it may come from the Neronian period of the Aviola coins, it may on the other hand show that Ephesos was neokoros of the Augusti by late 85 to 86 C.E. INSCRIPTION 1. IvE 2034 (FiE 2:34; SEG 4:563). Building inscription of the skene of the theater. { neo[kÒ]row [t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes]¤vn pÒ[liw]. . . The dedication is to an emperor who was Germanicus at the time of his eleventh imperial acclamation, and whose name was later obliterated. This could have been either Nero or Domitian. If Nero, the date would fall between late summer 66 and 67, just after the issue of Ephesian coins with the title ‘neokoros’ under Aviola, and providing further indication that the title ‘neokoros’ was official (and likely for the Augusti) at that time. If Domitian, the inscription dates between October/ November 85 and March/April 86 C.E., two years before the dedications began to be set up for the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos.29 Either is possible, as both occur around a time when the neokoria was otherwise documented. Keil believed that since there was only one provincial temple in Ephesos, the reading of inscription 1 should be restored as ‘neokoros of the Augustus,’ but this would be unparalleled. Certainly the temple itself is called that of the Augusti, not of the Augustus, as noted above. In any case, additional evidence is needed before the date of inscription 1 can be decided. Dräger, taking the date of inscription 1 as Domitianic and using as his model Tacitus’ description of how Smyrna (q.v.) received its provincial temple under Tiberius, spun a scenario that had the koinon voting a provincial temple to Domitian (and Zeus Olympios) in 83, to celebrate Domitian’s German victory, complete with a debate on where to build it held in summer 84.30 The result is more in the nature of historical fiction than history, based as it 29 Kienast 1996, 96-98, 115-118. Heberdey’s FiE publication opted for Nero, but the Domitianic date suited J. Keil 1919, 116 n. 5, and was also adopted in IvE. The similar skene at Miletos proved to be Neronian, however: Herrmann 1986, 183, on the Ephesian question; and Herrmann 1998, no. 928. 30 Dräger 1993, 122-135, 181-182. The usefulness of Dräger’s work was also vitiated by his tendency to refer to any provincial imperial cult as “Neokoriekult” even in cases where the title ‘neokoros’ never appeared (e.g. Lycia in the first century, 246-249; see chapter 33, ‘Patara’).

chapter

4

is on coincidences, and filled in with imagination. As for IvE 230, which was postulated to concern the grant of the neokoria by Domitian, the inscription is much too fragmentary to be certain about its subject; neither the temple nor the title is mentioned. When, and for whom, was the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos finally built? J. Keil, who first gathered and analyzed the evidence, noted that after Domitian’s death, his name was obliterated from the dedications of the cities and that of ‘the god Vespasian’ written in. He believed that not only the inscriptions but the temple itself underwent the process of rededication, and that it had originally been built for the worship of Domitian. Magie, on the other hand, attributed the original temple to an emperor earlier than Domitian, but this hypothesis was based on an early date, 83/84 C.E., for the first proconsul of Asia, L. Mestrius Florus, under whom the cities set up their dedications.31 In fact, Eck has dated Florus’ proconsulship five years later, to 88/ 89.32 The city dedications, set up under three different proconsuls perhaps from 88 to 91, certainly indicate that the temple was completed and dedicated in the reign of Domitian. Friesen dated the completion of the temple to exactly 90 C.E., based on the absence of the temple’s neokoros official on all but two dedications dated to the proconsulate of L. Luscius Ocr(e)a.33 As two of the rest of the inscriptions are incomplete and four feature a prominent erasure, one cannot place too much dependence on this assumption from silence. It is still possible that the temple had been granted earlier, under Vespasian, or even under Nero. Though the long delay in building would still have to be explained, there is a parallel for it: the festival in the name of Ti. Claudius Balbillus, established by permission of Vespasian, was also not celebrated until Domitian’s time.34 The year 88/89 (or 85/86, if inscription 1 proves to be for Domitian) is only the point by which the neokoria and the temple of the Augusti must have been granted. Dedicated between 88 and 91, its point of absolute completion may have been yet later: its decorated altar and the

31

Magie 1950, 1432-1434 n. 18. Eck 1970, 85, 139; Eck 1982, 315. Thomasson 1984, 217218 no. 75, assigned it only to a year of Domitian’s reign before 90. 33 Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (85-91 C.E.); Friesen 1993, 45-49. 34 Brunet 1997 dates it to 85 or 86 C.E. 32

– ephesos in ionia

63

architectural facade of its terrace were not added until the mid-second century (see below). It has already been noted that the official designation of the temple even at its final dedication under Domitian was ‘the temple of the Augusti.’ Previous provincial temples had not used this paraphrase: even in the lifetimes of the emperors in question, the temple at Pergamon was called that of Rome and Augustus, that at Smyrna of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate, that at Miletos of Gaius Caesar. Why was the Ephesian temple not called ‘the temple of Domitian’? Possibly because there had been a delay in its construction, and its original object of cult was not the current emperor. If Ephesos was originally granted a provincial temple for Nero, lost it due to the condemnation of his memory, had it regranted under Vespasian (who was remembered into the third century as the chief object of cult of this temple), but didn’t complete it until after that emperor’s death and the death of his immediate successor, then ‘temple of the Augusti’ might have been the best compromise as the title for a building with such a varied history. Vespasian’s place as the temple’s chief object of cult in the third century has already been noted; Domitian, emperor when the temple was completed, would surely have been included; and Titus’ portrait head is what later identified the temple (below). The empress Domitia may have had her place as well, but no sign of the cult of any emperor previous to Vespasian has been found.35 The koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos has been identified as an east-facing octastyle structure set axially on a monumental 50 x 100 m. vaulted terrace (illus. pl. 4 fig. 17).36 Though not extraordinary in size, its position and its artificial height made it a major building project; it took over residential areas and made them civic space, part of and dominating the state agora to its east.37 Inscription 35 Scherrer 1997, 103-106 reasoned across provincial lines to produce an official cult of the divi Augusti (including Augustus and Claudius as well as Vespasian, Titus, and some empresses) under Domitian, but his chief source, the imperial statues in the Metroön at Olympia, only represent one particular case of dedications made over time, probably by Elis; see the reevaluation by Rose 1997a, 147-149, who noted that no dedications to Claudius of Flavian date survive in the eastern Mediterranean region. 36 Still often called the ‘Temple of Domitian’: J. Keil 1931/ 32, 54; Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 392; Lyttelton 1987, 44; Scherrer 1995b, 94. On the building technique, Waelkens 1987, 96. 37 Vetters 1972-1975; Scherrer 2001, 74.

64

part i – section i. koinon of asia

9, of the mid-90s C.E., mentions the “new magnitude of the Augustan works,” perhaps referring to the temple and its terrace, and suggests that renovation of the older monuments (perhaps those of the state agora below) would be fitting.38 Access to the temple was by climbing monumental stairways to its terrace at the north and southeast. Only the foundations remain to show the temple’s plan (illus. pl. 1 fig. 2): an eight-by-thirteen column peristasis, pseudodipteral, with a four-column (prostyle) cella and no opisthodomos, set six steps up on a stylobate of ca. 24 x 34 m. It follows the typical plan of Ionic temples as canonized by the Greek architect Hermogenes in all respects, except for the omission of the opisthodomos and the corresponding loss of two columns on the long side. Scanty fragments of the superstructure left on the site do not permit reconstruction, nor can the order be established, except as non-Doric. It is likely, however, that parts of the temple were reused in the time of Theodosius I to rebuild the ‘tetragonos agora’ to the northwest. These may include Corinthian capitals decorated with eagles and dolphins.39 An altar with reliefs of weapons and sacrifices stood on a columned and stepped platform east of the temple and on its axis. Both it and the figural decoration of caryatid barbarians (at first misidentified as the gods Attis and Isis) along the north side of the temple terrace may date significantly later than the building itself, perhaps to the mid-second century.40 These facts obviate Friesen’s theory of the terrace representing the gods supporting the emperors, and substitute a more earthly and martial metaphor of imperial triumph.41 The keystone for the identification of this temple was the discovery of marble pieces of colossal statues, including one head, in the vaulted substructures of its terrace (illus. pl. 8 fig. 26). The head was at first supposed to be Domitian’s, but Daltrop, in his reexamination of Flavian iconography, identified it as a portrait of Domitian’s elder brother Titus, who reigned briefly after their father Vespasian.42 This 38

Winter 1996, 80, 325 no. 40. Other projects may have been included among the ‘Augustan works.’ 39 Scherrer 1995b, 19-20, 22. 40 Bammer 1978-1980, 81-88; Schneider 1986, 125-128; Bammer 1988, 153-156. 41 Friesen 1993, 68-75. 42 Daltrop, Hausman, and Wegner 1966, 26, 86, 100, pl. 15b; Rose 1997b. H. von Heintze, in Gymnasium 76 (1969) 372 criticized the identification but not convincingly. Surprisingly, it is still sometimes called Domitian, even by Meriç 1985; he apparently led S. Price astray, above n. 24; also Rogers 1991,

head and the left forearm found with it were the best-preserved parts of the colossal statues that stood in the provincial temple at Ephesos. Pieces of a pair of legs and an open-handed right arm were also found built into late walls.43 The find of a third colossal hand proves that the statue of Titus did not stand alone, and makes it at least possible that not all the parts so far found came from the same statue. The position of the knees shows that one statue did stand, and one raised its left arm to hold a spear or long sceptre (illus. pl. 8 fig. 27).44 The standing statue must have been stupendous if only for its size (the Titus head alone is 1.18 m. high). Judging by the treatment of the base of Titus’ neck, the statue was acrolithic, with the flesh represented by white marble; the marble legs accommodated a wooden armature that held the statue together. No part of a torso has been found, and it is likely that it was made of perishable wood, which could then be painted, gilt, or bronze-covered (for the acrolithic technique, see summary chapter 39 on temples and statues in Part II). At least one statue’s costume was probably a cuirass, indicating an emperor in triumphant military mode. About four times life size, the Titus statue may have stood 7 m. tall, and together with a companion statue of Vespasian and, until his death, one of Domitian, would have filled the ca. 7.5 x 13 m. interior of the cella.45 Since one (cuirassed?) statue raised a sceptre in his left hand, it is possible that another mirrored his gesture on the right; these two were likely Titus and (at first) Domitian, with Vespasian placed between them, though the father’s guise is unknown. Strocka reconstructed the post-Domitianic group as a cuirassed Titus, lacking the shield that Meriç restored on the incorrect side, with Vespasian in the pose of a standing Zeus, and speculated that the sculptors came from Aphrodisias.46 Scherrer proposed an overly speculative reconstruction of five statues (Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian) on 2 x 14. Varner 1993, 226-227, led by Price, argued unconvincingly for Domitian, and apparently believed that cult statues would be allowed to stand in an imperial cult temple in a Christian empire until the triumph of Islam. 43 Meriç 1985, where the third hand is plate 23.13, not 23.16 as labeled. 44 Kreikenbom 1992, 103, 213-215, still led on a Domitianic tangent by the legacy of J. Keil 1919. The restoration of Rose 1997b, fig. 5 is illustrated here (R. Hagerty, artist), based on Meriç 1985, pl. 24. 45 Miltner 1958a, 38-40. 46 Strocka 1989, 85-87, 92 n. 58.

chapter

4

3.5 m. bases, one against the cella’s back wall and two each on either side facing each other.47 Bammer visualized the standing Titus outdoors, either on the axis between altar and staircase or elsewhere on the temple terrace. This would have been an odd place for an acrolithic statue, whose wooden structure required protection from the weather, but one head of a colossal statue found at Sardis (q.v.) did show signs of exposure to the elements. Meriç noted that holes in the portrait’s back indicate that the head and perhaps the arms were doweled into the back wall of the cella (or a niche) as a means of accommodating the statue’s great weight.48 So though Bammer’s open placement should probably be ruled out, it is not impossible that a statue could stand outside the cella but in a sheltered area, such as the temple’s porch; nonetheless, it is much likelier that the colossal statue(s) stood in the cella. The treatment that the Roman Titus received at the hands of the Asian sculptor is remarkable, and not only due to the portrait’s size and the height and angle at which it was displayed. Since the head and neck turn so powerfully to the left, the hair on the left side is swept forward so that it can be better seen from the front. The right eye is larger and wider open than the left, and there are other asymmetries that suit a portrait made to be seen from far below.49 But beyond these visual tricks, the commonplace, even homely features of Titus have been transformed by his apotheosis. The mouth is open, as if breathing; the brow is lowering and intensely furrowed, the eyes deepset, and the hair falls in baroque, windswept curls. All these traits are familiar from portraits of that paradigm for apotheosis, Alexander the Great, and were picked up by Asian sculptors to convey the same divine or divinely inspired leadership in their Roman rulers.50 So Titus the head of state at Rome has become the deity at Ephesos. This elevated style, however, should not be interpreted to mean that the emperor was deified at Rome, i.e. dead, at the time of the portrait’s production. The distinction that Augustus made had already provided 47

Scherrer 1997, 106-107. Bammer 1972-75; see S. Price 1984b, 255 no. 31 and Meriç 1985. 49 Kreikenbom 1992, 102-103, 213-215, pl. 19 (with bibliography). 50 Zanker 1983, 23, attributes some of the oddity of the portrait to the sculptor’s indecisiveness in combining Titus’ individual features with the heroic mold of ruler portraits in Asia Minor. For those models, L’Orange 1947; Michel 1967. 48

– ephesos in ionia

65

that the provincials could worship the living emperor. So though it is likely that the head was carved close to the time of the temple’s dedication, in the reign of Domitian, the divine traits are not an independent confirmation of that date. Early scholars, and later ones who have depended on them without checking the coins themselves, have been deceived by two falsified Ephesian coins that called the city twice neokoros under Domitian.51 COIN TYPE 3 (LEGENDS RECUT). Obv: DOMITIANO% KAI%AR %EBA% GERMANIKO% AUTOKRAT Laureate head of Domitian r. Rev: EFE%ION B NEOKORVN Four-column temple, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Munich. COIN TYPE 4 (ENTIRELY REWORKED). Obv: DOMITIA %EBA%TH Draped bust of Domitia r. Rev: [NEV]KORVN EFE%IVN Eightcolumn temple on podium, disc in pediment, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 668. The recutting was probably done to make obscure coins more valuable, with the legend based on postHadrianic coinage. Keil was deluded by these coins into the belief that the Ephesians added their possession of the new provincial temple to their claim to being neokoroi of Artemis.52 The contemporary inscriptions, as has been seen, properly called the city neokoros. Ephesos was one of the eventually five known cities whose provincial temple(s) were presided over by a specifically designated chief priest of the koinon of Asia (see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 41 on the koina). The names of chief priests appeared in the Domitianic dedications at the provincial temple (above), and the wife of at least one early chief priest was entitled chief priestess of the temple at Ephesos.53 Though the latter documents are only approximately dated to the start of the second century, the presence of a chief priestess has been taken to imply some cult of the Augustae.54 Likely Domitia was worshipped in the provincial temple of the

51

RPC 2:165 nos. F 1064, F 1065: RPC 1:433; Burnett 1999, 140-141. For the Munich coin, Pick 1906, 236 no. 1; confirmed as recut by Klose 1997, 257, 261 no. 3. 52 Keil 1919, 118-120; the latest scholars to fall into this trap were Friesen 1993, 56-57 (which makes the title of his book rather ironic), and Dräger 1993, 292-293 nos. 112, 113. 53 Campanile 1994a, nos. 12, 18, 22; perhaps 34 a and b (T. Flavius Varus and Flavia Ammion, from Phokaia). 54 Herz 1992.

66

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Augusti in Ephesos during and perhaps after her husband’s reign (she became Augusta in 81); possibly Julia, daughter of Titus, was as well (Augusta since 79, she was deified at her death in 89).55 It should be noted, though, that no real trace of such honors to any Augusta has been found here, and that later statues of female agonothetai at Ephesos itself and elsewhere show both male and female Augusti on their crowns.56 The temple’s officials included a neokoros at least from 90 C.E.57 There were also fourteen thesmodoi of the provincial temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, and perhaps nine or more theologoi under the direction of the chief priest of that temple.58 The first chief priest of the provincial temple at Ephesos yet known was Tiberius Claudius Aristion, who served in that office in 89 C.E. and became the temple’s neokoros in the very next year. He has now been daringly identified with a skeleton whose sarcophagus was reburied to include a marble portrait head with a diadem of imperial busts.59 Though the skeleton and the portrait may well be the same man, no evidence explicitly identifies either one as Aristion, whom the scholars settled on because he was the most eminent of the city’s benefactors of the late first/early second century, the date of the sarcophagus and of the portrait. But the site of the find was beside the monument which Thür and her colleagues wished to identify as the ‘heroön of Androklos,’ so they opined that the sarcophagus could not have come from that monument, but from one near the nymphaeum of Trajan which Aristion donated; why the Ephesians of late antiquity would have dragged the great stone sarcophagus so far up the Embolos to bury it is never adequately explained. Inscriptions 1-34 use the simple title ‘neokoros’ to describe the city or its people; coins issued un55

Kienast 1996, 114, 118-119. The Ephesos examples are Severan: Rumscheid 2000, 122-123 nos. 17-18. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 57 Friesen 1993, 45-49; Campanile 1994a, no. 12. 58 IvE 27 (inscription 17, below) lines 457-458, 532-535 (thesmodoi), 258-265 (theologoi). Rogers 1991, 46-54 noted the integration of these officials of the imperial cult temple into processions and lotteries honoring Artemis primarily and the emperors as well. IvE 645, a third century dedication to Artemis, mentions a synedrion of hymnodoi, theologoi and thesmodoi. Hymnodoi at Ephesos are usually those of Artemis, though there are some nonspecific citations, and as the latter inscription shows, functionaries of the imperial cult and of the city’s chief goddess seem to have been closely associated; see Rogers 1991, 55-56. 59 Thür 1997; Rumscheid 2000, 120-121 cat. no. 13. 56

der Trajan also mention it, generally in abbreviation (NEV). It is unfortunate that all the inscriptions that call Ephesos neokoros of the Augusti are fragmentary (nos. 1, 2, 11, 32). The unadorned title appears well into the reign of Hadrian, who would give the city a second provincial imperial temple, thus making it (for the first time) twice neokoros. Second Neokoria: Hadrian When Hadrian granted a second neokoria to Ephesos, he had already allowed the Smyrnaeans to add a temple for his own cult to their previous provincial temple; earlier still, Trajan had done the same for Pergamon. Great cities were no longer to be considered occupied by one cult to the exclusion of others, and the same emperor could allow a single province to build more than one temple in his honor. In the case of Hadrian and Asia, three separate provincial cults are known to have been established, in Kyzikos, Smyrna, and Ephesos. In his account of Hadrian’s gift to Smyrna (q.v.), Philostratos wrote that “Hadrian, who had previously favored the Ephesians, [the orator Polemon] converted to the Smyrnaeans’ side.” Since the emperor’s grant of a second neokoria to Ephesos was later than that to Smyrna, however, likely Philostratos was overinterpreting Hadrian’s favor as a choice. In fact, Hadrian never seems to have frowned on the Ephesians, and for his benefactions was hailed as ‘founder’ even before he made the city twice neokoros.60 The date of that grant can be established from the inscriptions: no. 31, the last to call Ephesos simply neokoros, dates to 130/131, whereas the first to call it twice neokoros has been dated to 132:61 INSCRIPTION 37. IG II2 3297, from Athens. Statue base of Hadrian from the Olympieion. { mhtrÒpoliw [pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth] t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w n[evkÒrow ÉEfes¤v]n pÒliw. . . Hadrian visited Ephesos on at least two and probably more of his journeys through the East. In 124 he listened as the ephebes sang his praises in the theater;62 and perhaps it was on his way back from 60 Gifts to Artemis, grants of grain shipments, rebuilding the harbor and restoring the river Kaystros: IvE 274; Winter 1996, 71, 143-144. 61 Magie 1950, 1480 n. 30. 62 IvE 1145.

chapter

4

his last trip in 131 that he called in at Ephesos and awarded that city its second provincial imperial temple.63 But the grant need not have been connected with any particular visit. Since the time of Trajan, the Ephesians had seen their rivals Pergamon and Smyrna become twice neokoroi, whereas they only held that honor once. Moreover, Hadrian had already shown himself willing to allow more than one provincial temple for his own cult in Asia. It is likely that the Ephesians did not cease to lobby until they won the second neokoria that brought them back onto the same level with the other leading cities in their koinon, Pergamon and Smyrna. The moving spirit behind the second neokoria was Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos. A statue base from Ephesos records his accomplishments: “. . . [Tiberius Cl]audius Piso Diophantos, who was chief priest of the two temples in Ephesos, under whom the temple of the god Hadrian was consecrated, who first asked for (it) from the god Hadrian and obtained (it).”64 Thus the request for the temple was presented by Diophantos, probably acting as advocate for the city and/or koinon. We know little else of Diophantos; if his request won approval from Hadrian, who was a connoisseur of orators, he must have been an accomplished speaker. His memory may have lasted long in the city’s annals, if not in ours, since a bronze statue of him was perhaps re-erected in Ephesos as late as 405-410 C.E.65 In any case, the koinon likely rewarded him for his talents by providing that he be chief priest (of Asia) when the temple of Hadrian was consecrated, making him the first chief priest of two provincial temples in Ephesos. Of course, there must have been some delay until the temple itself was built. This is shown by the following inscription: INSCRIPTION 39. IvE 279. Base of a statue of the empress Sabina. { filos°bastow [ÉEf]es¤vn boulØ ka‹ ~ nev[kÒ]row d‹w d}mow . . . Dated to 134/135 by the proconsulship of Antoninus Pius, it was set up by Tiberius Claudius Magnus Charidemos, probably the last chief priest of Asia 63 Halfmann 1986a, 194, 199-201, 204, 208; Lehnen 1997, 86-87, 90, 257, 260, 265; Schorndorfer 1997, 28 n. 44, an unpublished inscription possibly from the first trip. 64 IvE 428, where the language is characterized as “hoch stilisiert.” See Campanile 1994a, no. 77. 65 Both Knibbe 1995a, 100-102 and Scherrer 1999, 139 misinterpreted the reference to Hadrian yeÒw as being posthumous, thus after 138; but see S. Price 1984a.

– ephesos in ionia

67

of the temple (singular) in Ephesos, while the same inscription called the city twice neokoros.66 Though the title was official, the new temple was not yet standing by 134/135. Another document of this temple is an inscription honoring a chief priestess of Asia of the temples in Ephesos.67 There it is called simply ‘the temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As both temples were now standing, the inscription must postdate the previous one of 134/135, but the uninflated titulature for Hadrian should place it before his death in 138. Thus the completion of Hadrian’s temple and the chief priesthood of Diophantos can be dated after 134/135 and before 138. After the temple of Hadrian was completed, many inscriptions referred to the chief priest, chief priestess, or Asiarch of the temples (plural) at Ephesos.68 Occasionally the inscriptions detail exactly how many temples the official had in his or her charge.69 Inscriptions also document hymnodoi ‘of the god Hadrian’s temple’ in Ephesos.70 The temple itself has been identified as the center of a monumental complex in the northern district of Ephesos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19); though no actual proof beyond size and a Hadrianic date of construction has been offered, its identification as the temple that made the city twice neokoros is not unreasonable.71 The new complex was part of a mid-imperial expansion of the city to the west and north, built on landfill near, or perhaps in, the former harbor. It consisted of a huge colonnaded temenos, ca. 225 66

Eck 1970, 210; Campanile 1994a, no. 70. IvE 814; Rossner 1974, 101-142, esp. 139. 68 Rossner 1974, 115, 117, 119, 126, 128, 129, 135, 137, 139; for additional citations, see Kearsley 1988a. Also note the error in citation by Rossner 1974, 127: CIL 3 (not CIG) 68356837, from the Roman colony Antioch in Pisidia, document Cn. Dottius Plancianus as ASIAR(CH) TEMPL at Ephesos, which should be restored TEMPL(orum), as there were plural temples making Ephesos neokoros in the time of Marcus Aurelius. This is also of interest as recording a citizen of a Roman colony who took a high position in a koinon of a different province. 69 Rossner 1974, 124 (two temples, time of Hadrian), 129 (Asiarch of twice neokoros Ephesos), less likely 133 (perhaps twice chief priest rather than of two temples) and 140 (three times Asiarch rather than of three temples). There is also a chief priestess “of the greatest temples in Ephesos” honored by the koinon: see Kearsley 1990 and Wörrle 1992, 368-370; below, inscription no. 91. 70 IvE 921, also 742. On hymnodoi in general, see Halfmann 1990. 71 Karwiese 1982-1985 has incorrect architectural details and measurements; corrected by Vetters 1986; Karwiese 1995a and 1995b, 102-103; Scherrer 1995 b, 186; Schorndorfer 1997, 168-170 (incorrect measurements); Hueber 1997, 259-261. 67

68

part i – section i. koinon of asia

x 350 m. including all the stoas, although only the stoa on the south has been fully explored. In the center of the temenos was a south-facing temple whose foundations show it to have had a peristasis of approximately 33 x 60 m. and a cella 9 m. wide whose door wall is still undetermined (illus. pl. 1 fig. 5). A battered capital shows the temple to have been of Corinthian order. No reliable restoration of the peristasis has yet been published; though at first Karwiese postulated a dipteral temple with an outer ring of twelve by twenty-one columns and an internal one of eight by seventeen (for a total of 104 columns), he later called it pseudodipteral with a total of seventy-four columns; the latest city plans of Ephesos make it pseudodipteral with nine(!) columns on the front and fifteen on the sides.72 As the peristasis is only slightly larger than that of the temple of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia, the temple is unlikely to have been any greater than decastyle.73 The south stoa of the plaza, as yet the only one explored, has been dated in its first phase only to the mid-second century, with a second phase around 200 C.E.; a connection with an eastern colonnade has been found, but further work is needed to clarify the entire complex’s building history and the placement of its temple, plaza, and colonnades.74 It has been suggested that the ‘Parthian monument,’ an Antonine relief frieze, once stood in this complex, perhaps forming part of its altar.75 In the years of crisis after the third century, its north and west temenos walls were used as fortifications. The excavators have chosen to call this temple complex ‘the Olympieion,’ on the same policy of premature (mis)naming that gave us the ‘temple of Domitian’ and the little ‘temple of Hadrian’ (below), and that has continued to bedevil the Ephesos publications.76 Despite the fact that at Ephesos (as everywhere in the Greek-speaking world) Hadrian was often assimilated to Zeus Olympios, there is no necessary connection between Ephesos’ temple of Had-

72

Pl. 1 in Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999. My reconstruction is illustrated on pl. 1 fig. 5. The old reconstruction was republished in Wiplinger and Wlach 1996, 114-115. 74 Karwiese 1989, 10-15, 42-43; the hoped-for conclusions have apparently affected the termini. 75 Hueber 1997, 260-261, 264. For the monument, see Oberleitner 1999. 76 S. Price 1984b, 256; Karwiese opera citata; Scherrer 1995b, 94, 120, 186; Scherrer 1999; Scherrer 2001, 78. 73

rian and a complex known as the Olympieion at Ephesos.77 Pausanias (7.2.8-9), in his great aside on the Ionians that leads into his guide to Achaea, mentioned that the tomb of Androklos, founder of Ephesos, was still visible at the city, beside the road from the shrine of Artemis past the Olympieion to the Magnesian gate. Pausanias’ road was the same as the route of the procession endowed by C. Vibius Salutaris in 104 C.E., which went from the Artemision around the east side of PanayÌrdaÅ to enter the city at the Magnesian gate.78 Attempts to identify the tomb of Androklos as a U-shaped monument in the ‘triodos’ of the city have ignored Pausanias’ association of it with the road from the Artemision to the Magnesian gate, whose position is not in doubt.79 Both tomb and Olympieion would have been outside the city, far from the great temple currently identified as that of Hadrian.80 What form the Ephesian Olympieion took is as yet impossible to tell. Zeus Olympios had appeared and been named on coins of Ephesos since the reign of Domitian.81 Also, though a contest known as Olympia was celebrated in Ephesos under Domitian, this was probably a revival of an earlier festival; the evidence does not associate it with either the provincial temple of the Augusti or with Domitian personally.82 The problems in interpreting festivals known as (great) Hadrianeia and Olympia at Ephesos are not entirely resolved, but it is clear that the two were to be distinguished from each other; the Olympia in fact far 77

C. Jones 1993. The term ‘Hadrianeion’ is not documented at Ephesos, as Jones admitted, but his analysis still holds despite the carping of Thür 1995a, 77-80 and Scherrer 1999. For the Ephesian dedications to Hadrian with Zeus Olympios in his titulature, see IvE 267-271a; Knibbe and Iplikçioglu 1981/82, 135 no. 143; Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, 163-166 no. 2; elsewhere, Benjamin 1963; Spawforth and Walker 1985; Willers 1990, 48-60. 78 Rogers 1991, 80-126; the later foundation of the sophist Damianos (Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.23) monumentalized and covered the already existing road: Knibbe 1999. Earlier levels of this road date back at least to the beginning of the first century C.E.: Thür 1999, 168. 79 Thür 1995b; her version of Pausanias’ road not only goes through the city in the longest possible way, but makes several turns to do so. Scherrer 1999 reinterpreted Pausanias’ text instead, but was no more convincing. 80 Engelmann 1996. 81 RPC 2:167 no. 1073. 82 Engelmann 1998, 305-308 has finally cleared away the false association between the cult of Zeus Olympios, the Olympia, and honors to Domitian at Ephesos.

chapter

4

predated Hadrian.83 In any case, one cannot depend upon the names of festivals to give dependable information on the object of worship in a temple; any ‘Olympieion of Hadrian’ is a purely modern agglomeration for what the Ephesians called ‘the temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar’ (IvE 814) or ‘the temple of the god Hadrian’ (IvE 428, 921). Though often assumed to have begun at Hadrian’s first visit, and dated to 123 or 124, the Hadrianeia contest must have started later: one Aristokrates son of Hierokles was chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos and agonothetes of the second pentaeteria of Hadrianeia in the reign of Antoninus Pius.84 This would place the festival’s first celebration four years before, perhaps at the time of the provincial temple’s completion or consecration by Diophantos. Later a member of the Vedii family served as hereditary agonothetes for life of the great Hadrianeia festival (inscription 51, below).85 The confusion that has resulted from erroneously naming a small though decorative streetside shrine in Ephesos ‘the Temple of Hadrian’ has begun to dissipate, though the name unfortunately has continued in use.86 The name was given because of the building’s dedication to [Artemis], Hadrian, and the neokoros people of Ephesos (inscription 26); that Artemis was the first dedicatee was largely ignored. Dedicatory inscriptions using similar formulae, to the patron god, the current emperor, and the city itself, were common at Ephesos and elsewhere, on buildings and parts of buildings, sacred and profane, large and small.87 Such formulae cannot be taken to indicate which cult specifically was practiced within 83

See summary chapter 40, below. Lämmer 1967 was not as rigorous an examination as one might wish; see above, n. 82. 84 IvE 618; Campanile 1994a, 110-111 no. 111. Bowie 1971, 139 n. 9; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 85 (1972) 455. 85 IvE 730; Fontani 1996, 231. 86 IvE 429; Price 1984b, 149-150, 255-256; Scherrer 1995b, 120. Schorndorfer 1997, 162-165 named it as such, though she also cited the evidence for its dedication to other city cults, specifically that of Artemis. Fontani 1996, 229 still considered it a temple of Hadrian. 87 To Artemis, emperor(s) and Ephesos: IvE 404, a basilica; IvE 430, revetment of a stoa; IvE 431 and 438, gymnasia; IvE 424 and 424A, a nymphaeum; IvE 509, a statuary group. To Artemis and emperor(s): IvE 411, the stadium; IvE 413, a nymphaeum; IvE 414, a fountain; IvE 415 and 416, waterworks; IvE 422, a propylon; IvE 435, a reservoir; IvE 443, workshops. To emperor(s): IvE 423, a stoa(?); IvE 410, the ‘Sockelbau’; IvE 432, a sundial; IvE 455, a latrine.

– ephesos in ionia

69

this particular shrine, though the presence of a head of the mural-crowned city goddess on the keystone of the arched facade should indicate a civic cult or cults.88 The coinage of this period, though sparse, bears out other evidence on the second neokoria of Ephesos. All catalogued types that call Ephesos twice neokoros name Hadrian Olympios, thus dating after 128/129; the second neokoria also appears on a joint issue of Hadrian and his short-lived heir, L. Aelius Caesar, probably in 136-137 C.E.89 Most important is one of the earliest multiple-temple types, a type that showed both imperial temples (portrayed as identical) and thus served as a symbol of neokoria: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ADRI[ANO%] KAI%AR OLUMPIO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Hadrian r. Rev: [EFE%IVN] DI% [NE]VKORVN Two two-column temples turned toward one another, an emperor within each. a) Paris 684 (worn) (illus. pl. 21 fig. 68). The titulature of the period of the second neokoria soon became a type of formula. Some inscriptions continued to attribute the title ‘neokoros’ to the people (nos. 38, 39, perhaps 76, 82, 85), just as was most common when the city was simply neokoros. Beyond that the city uses the titulature ‘first and greatest metropolis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti city of the Ephesians’ with few exceptions. Inscriptions 40, 77, and 84 included philosebastos, ‘Augustus-loving,’ an epithet usually used for the council, in this formula. That Ephesos’ precise titles were regulated by the emperor is shown by a letter from Antoninus Pius to the Ephesians. They had complained that Smyrna and Pergamon had not given Ephesos the correct titulature, one in a decree about a joint sacrifice, the other in a letter. Antoninus Pius, who stated that he had already decreed the proper titles for Ephesos, decided that Pergamon was not at fault and Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned both Ephesos and Smyrna to be more punctilious in future.90 It was probably to honor the emperor’s deci88 Outschar 1999 would have it a heroön to the founder Androklos as identified with Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös, but this raises more problems than it solves. 89 Kienast 1996, 131-132. 90 IvE 1489, 1489a, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135 a-b. See also chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ Collas-Heddeland 1995, 422 unfortunately mistranslated important aspects of the dispute (see Année Epigraphique

70

part i – section i. koinon of asia

sion that Ephesos issued a series of coins celebrating its concord with the other two cities.91 Smyrna soon after had to send an embassy to Antoninus to defend ‘the temples and their rights,’ probably the status of the temples which made the city twice neokoros; this dispute over temples and rights implies that the emperor’s letter and the concord coinage did not bring the bickering to an end, and that perhaps Ephesos, by questioning some privilege of Smyrna’s, was retaliating for the offense. The use of the two imperial temples as a coin type carried on throughout the period of Ephesos’ second neokoria, but after their independent appearance under Hadrian they were generally shown flanking the temple of Artemis or the goddess herself. Ephesos always saw the goddess as its primary patron, but never claimed more than its proper number of neokoriai.92 COIN TYPE 6. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped bust of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Two twocolumn temples, each with emperor within, turned toward one another; between them, Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 235 b) Vienna 17173 c) Berlin, von Knobelsdorff. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: T AILIO% KAI%AR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust (head, b) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN Three temples on podia, side two two-column, each with emperor within, turned toward one another; the center one four-column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 711 b) New York, Newell c) Oxford 29.55 d) London 1961.3-1-234 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 69). COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU[T] KAI PO %[EPT] GETA% Laureate head of Geta Augustus r., mature. Rev: B NEOKO[RVN] EFE%IVN Two twocolumn temples on high podia, an emperor within each, Artemis Ephesia between them. a) Berlin, Löbbecke.

1995 no. 1476) and misunderstood the nature of Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis. 91 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 38-39 nos. 305-316; Kampmann 1996, 29-34, 108-109; Kampmann 1998, 377-379. 92 Karwiese 1995b, 105-106 saw such types as an illegal attempt to claim a third neokoria under Antoninus Pius. His account (85-125) contains several inaccuracies and exaggerations of the Ephesian obsession with neokoria.

The three temples were even illustrated without mention of neokoria, but with the simple legend ‘first of Asia.’ COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU KAI L %EP %EOUHRO% PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN A%IA% Three temples on podia, two side ones turned toward one another, emperor in each; center one fourcolumn, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 798 b) Vienna 33914 c) BMC 261 d) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU KAI MAR AU ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN PRVTVN A%IA% Three temples on podia, two side ones two-column, turned toward one another, an emperor in each; center one four-column, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 824 b) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer. The plainness of the legend is unusual, and its combination with the three-temple reverse type may indicate that Ephesos considered its temples to Artemis and to the emperors to be part of its claim to primacy. Triple-temple coin types such as these inspired imitation in cities that were to become three times neokoros later. Third Neokoria: Geta; Neokoria of Artemis: Caracalla Septimius Severus died in 211, leaving his sons Caracalla and Geta as co-rulers; by the end of the year Geta too was dead, killed by his brother. In this context the question of Ephesos’ third neokoria arises. It is a complex one, made yet more complex by changes in coin legends, misreadings of those legends by early authorities, and blind dependence on those misreadings by later scholars. Fortunately Ephesos’ coinage under the Severans is both abundant and well preserved. Those of Geta as Augustus show the change from a boyish portrait (while his father still lived) to a more mature likeness, lightly bearded and with a close resemblance to his brother Caracalla, like type 8 above, with the title ‘twice neokoros.’ Then one of his coins declares Ephesos three times neokoros: COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO %EP GETA% %EB Laureate undraped bust of Geta Augustus

chapter

4

r., mature. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Artemis subduing deer. a) formerly Gotha, Munich. There is now no way of directly examining the coin, however.93 More certain is a reverse legend known for several issues, claiming that Ephesos is ‘three times neokoros and of Artemis’: COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., youthful. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGvA 7871. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU(T, abcef) K(AI%, ace) M AUR ANTVNEINO% KAI P(O, adef) %EP GETA%; NEOI HLIOI Laureate draped busts of Caracalla and Geta turned toward one another. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 292 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 70) b) Paris 848 c) SNGCop 436 d) SNGvA 1904 e) Berlin, Fox f) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K PO %E GETA% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta Augustus r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City goddess leads bull toward Artemis Ephesia. a) London 1961.3-1-243 b) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 15. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EFE%IVN TRI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% City goddess leads bull toward Artemis Ephesia. a) London 1894.11-4-1 b) Paris 820 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. That these coins were minted with obverses of Caracalla, Geta, the two together as ‘new sun gods,’ and their mother Julia Domna indicates that they are firmly dated to the period of joint rule. Finally, one lone coin of Caracalla proclaims the aftermath: though it still uses the outmoded reverse of the two horsemen and Artemis, the legend has been changed to ‘twice neokoros and of Artemis’:

93 The photos are in Kraft 1972, 121 pl. 11.10; Dr. Dietrich Klose stated that, judging from the photograph, the coin did not appear doubtful to him (personal communication, 15 Oct. 2002).

– ephesos in ionia

71

COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., slight beard. Rev: EFE%IVN DI% NEVKORVN KAI TH% ARTEMIDO% Two emperors on horseback ride toward and salute Artemis Ephesia. a) BMC 269 (illus. pl. 21 fig. 71). Thereafter issues of Caracalla and of Julia Domna simply call Ephesos ‘three times neokoros,’ though some of these may in fact be contemporary with the coin of type 11, if that should be found to be genuine. This bleak numismatic narrative can be illumined by a document of inestimable importance found at Ephesos, here inscription 124. As Robert’s meticulous analysis has shown, it is part of an epigraphic dossier of documents on the same subject, in this case imperial letters concerning privileges for the cult of Artemis, collected and inscribed in a public place. Inscription 124 is preceded by part of a letter from Julia Domna to the Ephesians, in which she made reference to some favor that they had (presumably) asked of her “dearest son.” This may have been the neokoria, as the next letter in the dossier runs on that topic: INSCRIPTION 124. IvE 212 (L. Robert 1967, 44-57 no. 6). Imperial letter. ÑO kÊriow ÉAntvn[e]›now tª [ÉAs¤&:]

épedejãmhn [t]}w gn\mhw Ímçw mey' w pros[n°mein . . . tª] lamprotãt_ t«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei: kr¤sei går tØn t[eimØn kayÆkei] prosn°mein: diÒper éji\sasin Íme›n ka‹ sunapo[dejam°noiw to›w ÑR\]mhw {goum°noiw tØn Íp¢r ÉEfes¤vn a‡thsin ¶dvka k[a‹ sun_´ne]sa tr‹w e‰nai nevkÒrouw tØn pÒlin: tØn d¢ §p\num[on §mautoË] nevkor¤an katå tØn §mØn a¸d« énat¤yhmi tª §nargestãt_ ye“ …w mØ §j §moË karpoËsyai tØn teimØn éll' §k t}w kata[log}w t}w yeoË?. . .]

Lord Antoninus to Asia: I have seen with favor your proposition to grant (the neokoria) to the illustrious city of Ephesos; by (my) decision, it is suitable to grant the honor. Wherefore to your petitions and with the approval of the leading men at Rome, I have granted your claim on behalf of the Ephesians and have consented that the city should be three times neokoroi (sic). Due to modesty, however, I refer the neokoria in my name to the most manifest goddess, so that they may enjoy the honor not from me, but out of regard for the goddess...

So many crucial points are made by this document that it is difficult to know where to begin. First, the addressee: it is not the Ephesians but the koinon of Asia. This confirms that the neokoria was still a provincial honor even after two centuries and a rapid multiplication of neokoroi cities. The koinon is said to have petitioned on behalf of the Ephesians, though the letter gives no hint of how (and in what

72

part i – section i. koinon of asia

atmosphere) the koinon decided which city should receive the honor. Secondly, the Roman Senate is mentioned, not directly but as “the leading men at Rome.” They are part of the triad (koinon, Senate, and emperor) that had to approve before neokoria could be awarded. The emperor, however, could modify their decision. Caracalla transferred the grant of neokoria from his own cult to that of another god without any mention of senatorial consent. Later Ephesian inscriptions sometimes make special mention of an imperial decision in addition to the Senate’s decree, or seem to exclude the neokoria of Artemis from those in the Senate’s domain (nos. 126 and 134, below). When we attempt to reconcile Caracalla’s letter with the numismatic evidence, however, we hit a snag. The inscription is worded as if it dated from the period of Caracalla’s sole rule, after Geta’s death at the end of 211.94 The fact that it was preceded by a letter from Julia Domna, who is known to have handled Caracalla’s correspondence while he was on his eastern campaign, seemed to suit that period.95 Even Robert assumed that this was so, although he also observed from the abbreviation of titulature and omission of flowery greetings that the letter as inscribed was not the letter as sent.96 Yet the coins show that both the third imperial neokoria and that for Artemis had already been granted during the joint rule of Caracalla and Geta. Robert’s picture of a single neokoria designated for both emperors and then diverted to Artemis by a miffed Caracalla cannot be made to conform with that fact. The lack of trustworthy historical sources for this period makes it difficult to guess what events could have led to such a complex situation. Cassius Dio exists only in epitome, Herodian is inexact and overrhetorical, the Historia Augusta is curt and confused, though fortunately its life of Caracalla comes before its plunge into historical fiction.97 On one thing they all agree: Caracalla and Geta hated one another. In addition to his expansive description of their proposed partition of the Empire, Herodian stated that the opinions of all those of any standing in Rome were divided between them, and each emperor 94

Kienast 1996, 162-167. Williams 1979, 86-87; the fulsome language of the letter fits with other edicts of Caracalla. 96 L. Robert 1967, 45-46, 50 n. 5. 97 Meckler 1994; Alföldi 1972. 95

campaigned for himself and against his brother.98 Thus when the koinon first brought its petition for (probably a single) neokoria for Ephesos to Rome, it may at first have dealt with Julia Domna, as the new emperors had not yet returned from Britain. Once they did, however, the koinon’s representatives probably had to face two emperors who couldn’t share a palace, much less a temple, and a Senate factionalized between the two. Although the sources are hostile to the surviving brother, two include accounts of Caracalla’s refusal to be called by the name of Hercules or that of any other god.99 While each puts the event in a different time and context, the statement itself was probably meant to ingratiate Caracalla with some powerful group, such as the soldiers, the Senate, or the people of Rome. Certainly what can be discerned of Caracalla’s own propaganda put a distinct emphasis on his pietas.100 Adding this to the evidence of the Ephesian coins, we may conclude that Geta accepted the offer of a temple to his own cult, and that his action sent Caracalla into a display of politic modesty of a sort little seen since Julio-Claudian times.101 According to inscription 124, Caracalla refused divine honors for himself, transferring them instead to the glory of Artemis. Such a show of high principles and old Roman virtue seems designed to excite the approval of the Senate, before which this little drama might even have been enacted; inscription 124 itself refers to ‘the leading men at Rome.’ By contrast, Geta’s acceptance of honors that were by now only the usual fare for emperors could have been exaggerated to imply tyrannical tendencies. What the koinon had likely proposed as one neokoria had thus been transformed into two: one for the imperial cult due to Geta, and one for Artemis due to Caracalla. In a spirit of jubilation, Ephesos minted the coins that called its imperial benefactors ‘new sun gods.’ Coins once issued are hard to recall; thousands can be melted down, but the survival of even one can tell the entire story. Inscriptions are another thing. The dedication of the east hall of the agora at Ephesos was carved in that 98 Herodian 4.3.1-2 (according to Alföldi 1972, 30-33 overdramatized, especially in the supposed plan to divide the Empire). 99 Cassius Dio ep. 78.5 (protecting Cilo after trying to assassinate him), and Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5 (on campaign in Raetia). Also see Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 369. 100 Oliver 1978. 101 Charlesworth 1939.

chapter

4

time of celebration, and Geta’s name and the titles ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti’ and ‘neokoros of Artemis’ were likely prominent. That prominence became an embarrassment after Geta’s murder, and the inscription had to be erased and recarved. Unfortunately the enumeration of the neokoriai must be restored, but the words ‘according to the decrees of the most sacred Senate’ (first version) and ‘of Artemis’ (second version) assure that it was there. INSCRIPTION 125. IvE 3001 (second version). [t“ nevkÒrƒ dÆmƒ t}w pr\thw pas«n ka‹] meg¤st[hw] ka‹ §ndoj[otãthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w ÉArt°]midow ka[‹ d‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w |ervtãthw sunklÆtou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw]. . . What happened there can be paralleled with what befell the base of a statue of Ulpius Apollonios Plautus, grammateus of the council, advocate of Ephesos, and designated Asiarch.102 Its original inscription trumpeted the city as neokoros of the most sacred Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the Senate and by imperial decision; perhaps Plautus had even earned his Asiarchy by pleading Ephesos’ case for neokoria successfully. How could he foresee the fall of Geta, of one neokoria, and perhaps his Asiarchy with it? His inscription was erased, but so lightly that the proud titles could still be read beneath the chisel’s scratches: INSCRIPTION 126. IvE 740. [{] boulØ t}w pr\thw pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w |ervtãthw ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w |erçw sunklÆtou ka‹ tØn ye¤an kr¤sin ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw... That Ephesos’ neokoria itself underwent a similar eclipse is borne out by inscription 127: INSCRIPTION 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus (PIR2 C.1017). t}w pr\thw pas«n ka‹ meg¤sthw ka‹ §ndojotãthw ka‹ mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrou t}w _ÉArt°midow ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n´ ... Only the words ‘Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti’ are erased, while the rest of the inscription (including ‘neokoros of,’ the last words before the erasure) was allowed to stand. Inscription 102

Campanile 1994a, 141-142 no. 167.

– ephesos in ionia

73

128, a statue base of Caracalla datable by his titulature (Parthicus Maximus and Britannicus Maximus but not yet Germanicus Maximus), gives an assured point in time for this period of eclipse of both the neokoria for Geta and that of Artemis: INSCRIPTION 128. IvE 297. t}w pr\thw ka‹ meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrou ÉEfes¤vn pÒlevw . . . It was inscribed sometime between February 212 and October 213, but on it Ephesos is simply twice neokoros again, as if the neokoriai for Geta and for Artemis had never existed. Another statue base, datable by Caracalla’s having become Germanicus Maximus after October 213, shows how the problem was settled: INSCRIPTION 133. IvE 300. t}w pr\thw ka‹ meg¤sthw mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w nevkÒrou pr\thw, d‹w m¢n t[«]n Sebast[«]n, ëpa[j] d¢ t}w ÉArt°midow, { filos°bastow ÉEfes¤vn boulØ ka‹ ~ nevkÒrow dÆmow . . . The neokoria of Artemis was reconfirmed, and when added to the two previous imperial neokoriai, made up a total of three, so the inscription states explicitly: “First three times neokoros, two of the Augusti and uniquely of Artemis.” More compressed versions, as with the coin legends, simply say ‘three times neokoros’ without further specification. Among this latter group is a series of bases from statues of cities (inscriptions 130-132, including Carthage, Knidos, and Nikaia in Lydia; also Kos, IvE 2055, the neokoria only restored), the occasion for whose dedication may have been an empire-wide festival to celebrate the return of the third neokoria, but may equally have been some other (likely agonistic) occasion. One of the group includes the words “city of the Ephesians, three times neokoros by the decree from the authorities”: INSCRIPTION 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mht[rÒ]poliw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ tr‹w nevk[Ò]row ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw katå tÚ kÊ[rv]yen cÆfisma. . . This phrase may allude, albeit vaguely, to whatever special permission the Ephesians had to obtain to reactivate their third neokoria. The case of Ephesos’ third neokoria shows perfectly how the evidence of coins, inscriptions, and historical references can be combined to produce a complete picture, where dependence on only one of

74

part i – section i. koinon of asia

them could have led to inconsistency. Keil offered a model for this procedure in his 1915 article on this topic, and further documents have confirmed it. Ephesos in fact received a third and a fourth neokoria in 211, the one for Geta and the other for Artemis. The third fell with Geta, while that of Artemis was eventually allowed to stand, and to be counted in for a total of three. Thus the inscription of Caracalla’s letter, no. 124, is both an informative and a misleading document. Inscribed well after the event, it did not alter the truth so much as tell a partial truth. Geta had become a non-person; if there had been any mention of him, or even if he had written the letter along with his brother, any hint of it would have been excised from the later dossier.103 The Ephesians would have been happy to avoid explicit reference to a time when they had climbed to a peak and then fallen from it. Caracalla was subsequently to give third neokoriai, both imperial, to Pergamon and Smyrna, taking the lead among neokoroi away from Ephesos and leaving the three cities again locked in competition. The cult of Artemis had finally gotten its neokoria for Ephesos, so it seems worthwhile to examine it here. The temple of Artemis at Ephesos appears on many lists of wonders of the ancient world. As it stood in Roman times, which is how I reconstruct it in the illustration (pl. 3 fig. 14), it was an enormous Ionic octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one columns along its length and nine columns across its back; the space within the peristasis measured 50.48 x 107.11 m., the stepped platform that it sat upon 63.36 x 128.20 m. The front resembled a forest of columns with sculptured bases and drums.104 In its main pediment it had three openings, the center one larger than the side two, and figural sculpture as well.105 To the west was a U-shaped and colonnaded altar court, as this temple, like others to the goddesses of Asia Minor, faced west rather than east. Even the cult statue (in some versions) may have referred to the temples that made Ephesos neokoros. The ‘heaven-fallen’ image of Artemis of Ephesos echoed the indigenous tradition of Asia Minor with its monolithic stance, elaborate costume, and hieratic 103

Mastino 1978/79. Bammer 1972 and 1984; Rügler 1988; Scherrer 1995b, 46-59; Bammer and Muss 1996, 45-61 and 65-70. 105 Trell 1945; M. Price and Trell 1977, 126-132; Bingöl 1999. Karwiese 1999 would identify two figures with raised arms in the pediment as two Victories, though wings are not apparent. 104

pose.106 The goddess is well known both from Ephesian coins and from large-scale statues of Roman date, and it is particularly interesting from the point of view of this study that she often appears with miniature temples set on top of her tall crown, as if she were another type of ‘temple bearer.’ Chapouthier even suggested that the templed headdress represented the city’s status as neokoros, with the number of temples varying to suit the number of temples for which Ephesos was neokoros.107 This particular hypothesis can be disproved from various representations whose dates are known; for example, the (probably Trajanic) ‘great Artemis’ found in Ephesos bears five temples, while the Ephesians were never known to be five times neokoroi (illus. pl. 910 figs. 28-31).108 Moreover, Fleischer plausibly identified a young hunter on the reused frieze from the so-called temple of Hadrian as Androklos founder of Ephesos, and he too bears a (three-column!) temple on his head. Examination of the various temple-crowned images shows that where there is room for detail the order of the temple(s) is Ionic, with at most four columns on the facade.109 The temples are generally assimilated to one another, just as they are on multiple-temple coins, but the central one is portrayed as dominant. On the ‘great Artemis’ the central temples are shown with discs in their pediments, and the towered city walls appear in the back.110 Though the temples are never more than generic, their Ionic order recalls the Artemision itself. The towers indicate that the crown is meant to represent the entire city of Ephesos, with its temples, including the provincial temples of the emperors and that of Artemis herself (though the latter was actually outside the city walls), as its main ornaments. Artemis wears Ephesos as a crown, in the same way that a city goddess wore a mural crown. During the reign of Caracalla’s successor Macri106 Thiersch 1935; Fleischer 1973, 1978, 1984a, and 1999. For the recent find of belts and amber objects (‘breasts’?) in the Artemision see Bammer and Muss 1996, 71-78. 107 Imhoof-Blumer 1911; Chapouthier 1938. This idea has been resurrected by Knibbe 1995b, referring only to ‘the great Artemis’ from the prytaneion, with several misinterpretations, and without response to Fleischer’s objections. 108 Fleischer 1973, 54-58, cat. no. E45. 109 Thiersch 1935, nos. 19, 26, 32, 34, 42, 44, 45, and coins on pl. 49 nos. 12, 15; pl. 51 nos. 4, 6; Fleischer 1973, cat. nos. E17, E31, E43, E45, E49, E63, E85, E88, E92, E93, E96a and coin on pl. 56a. 110 Miltner 1958b, pls. 5, 6.

chapter

4

nus, Ephesos preferred other titles (such as ‘first of Asia’) to neokoros for coin legends. There is one possible exception, but it is worn and appears reworked: COIN TYPE 17 (RECUT?). Obv: [AU] K M OPEL MAKRINO% Laureate draped bust of Macrinus r. (legend tooled?) Rev: EF[E%]I[VN] . . . [%]EBA . NEVK[OR]VN Four-column temple in which togate emperor, sacrifice of bull at altar below. a) Vienna 32385 (worn) (illus. pl. 21 fig. 72). The reverse type is similar to that of a coin that does not mention neokoros in its legend, but illustrates the annual vows taken on behalf of the emperor.111 Another Ephesian coin puts Macrinus’ name on the reverse as well as his portrait on the obverse, along with the figure and name of the goddess Justice.112 These coin types and the insistence on the title ‘first of Asia’ may tie in with an inscription in honor of an Ephesian advocate who went before Macrinus to defend Ephesos’ “primacy and the rest of the rights” and won his case.113 Why did Ephesos stop boasting on its coins of its status as three times neokoros? Winning the right, perhaps temporarily the sole right, to be ‘first’ was one reason, but another may have been a question about the neokoria itself. Asia fell into ferment on the death of its benefactor Caracalla, a state that the new emperor Macrinus tried unsuccessfully to control.114 Pergamon, perhaps deprived of previous privileges, heaped insults upon him and was dishonored further; that city and Smyrna were assigned to the special charge of the historian Cassius Dio by the emperor himself.115 Not only these cities were affected, however. Of eight cities in Asia that had become neokoros for Caracalla, six (seven if Ephesos’

111 BMC 293; Price 1984b, 214-215, 256-257, fig. 3a. For a fantastical explanation of type 17, with the invention of a ‘neokorate’ temple for Macrinus somewhere in the precinct of the temple of Hadrian, and the basilical stoa south of it as the third ‘neokorate temple,’ see Karwiese 1995a, 314-315. 112 Leypold 1995, 32-34 no. 6; also note no. 7, another ‘first of Asia’ type. 113 IvE 802; J. Keil 1956; with the caution of Deininger 1965, 50 n. 4. See also Ziethen 1994, 145. 114 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4. Macrinus’ problem in choosing a governor for Asia cannot have helped. The provincial picture is not covered, however, by Baharal 1999. 115 Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4. See chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 2, ‘Smyrna,’ and chapter 38 of part II, ‘Historical Analysis.’

– ephesos in ionia

75

coin type 17 is falsified) issued no coinage that mentioned the neokoria whatsoever in the reign of Macrinus: Pergamon, Smyrna, Laodikeia, Philadelphia, Tralles, and Antandros (the latter two intermittent anyway); some, like Pergamon and Smyrna, issued no coinage at all. Kyzikos, perhaps the only neokoros for Caracalla beside these, changed its titulature from ‘twice’ to simply ‘neokoros.’ All this indicates that some question was thrown on the neokoriai granted by Caracalla after his death. This instability is further indicated by another Ephesian inscription: INSCRIPTION 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, Beibl. 166-167 no. 3. Statue base of Caracalla as Armeniacus and new Helios. Originally erected by the council t}w pr\thw ka‹ meg¤sthw m`[htro]pÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ _[tr]´‹w [nevkÒ]r_ou pr\thw, d‹w m¢]n`´ t«n Se`[bast«n], _ëpaj d¢ t}w ÉArt°mid]o`w´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw, later changed to (d)‹w [nevkÒ]r_ou[ m¢]n`´ t«n Se`[bast«n] _ o`w`´ ÉEf[es¤vn] pÒlevw . . . Though the title was never officially granted, ‘Armeniacus’ did appear on an inscription of Caracalla after 215; the Ephesians had hailed both him and his brother as new sun gods during their joint reign, as does this inscription.116 Moreover, inscription 136, another Ephesian document, used very similar titles, both imperial and civic, and was similarly erased. The original titulature of inscription 136, ‘first three times neokoros [i.e. twice of the Augusti and alone of Artemis]’ is correct for 215. Though the editors attributed the erasure to rivalry on the part of neighbors and could go little farther, it must be seen in the context of the unstable situation, not only in Ephesos, but in many of her sister cities, during the reign of Macrinus. It is known that under Macrinus the Senate nullified certain of Caracalla’s acts.117 The removal of the title ‘neokoros of Artemis’ granted by Caracalla to Ephesos can be accounted for by such an event. Pergamon’s, and perhaps Smyrna’s, disgrace may have helped make Ephesos uncontestedly first of Asia; but the city may have still been forced yet again to drop the neokoria that Caracalla had granted, at least until the death of Macrinus and the subsequent condemnation of his memory.

116 117

Mastino 1981, 50-57; CIL 8:10236 (dated). Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5.

76

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Fourth Neokoria: Elagabalus If Ephesos had been deprived under Macrinus, it would make up for it under Elagabalus. According to Cassius Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ journey from the East, his route to Rome bypassed the province of Asia entirely.118 Nonetheless, four cities in that province would gain a neokoria during his reign, including Ephesos, which became four times neokoros, more than any other city of its day. It is certainly possible that Ephesos sent a delegation to the emperor on his passage from Antioch or during his winter at Nikomedia, or even that the emperor himself may have traveled beyond the itinerary that Dio recorded. Of the newly honored cities only Ephesos is documented as having received its neokoria as early as 220, during Elagabalus’ marriage to Julia Paula. Coin type 18, which shows him sacrificing before the temple of Artemis, seems to imply his actual presence in the city, though it may merely represent his sending honors to Artemis from a distance. COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN Laureate, togate emperor sacrifices at tripod beside four-column Ionic temple on high podium, dot and two openings in pediment, Artemis Ephesia within. a) Paris 895 b) Oxford 17.05 c) Oxford 21.84 d) Vienna 30811 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 21 fig. 73) g) New York 71.279. Types, like 19, that show the emperor crowned by Victory are likely to allude to his defeat of Macrinus, and thus are probably also early in his reign: COIN TYPE 19. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A PA%VN D NEVKORVN Victory with wreath and palm crowns togate emperor who holds phiale over altar. a) Vienna 34451.119 COIN TYPE 20. Obv: KORNHLIA PAULA %EB Draped bust of Julia Paula r. Rev: D NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Seated emperor holds wreath over 118

231.

119

Cassius Dio ep. 79.40.2, 80.3.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-

Leypold 1995, no. 8 is similar, but with mistranscribed reverse.

statue of Artemis Ephesia held out by city goddess. a) Oxford 9.95. Type 20 alludes to some sign of honor made by the emperor toward the goddess and/or the city. All these issues proudly proclaim the fourth neokoria. Even inscriptions that were already standing were recarved to read ‘four times’ rather than ‘three times neokoros’ (though inscription 137 was to have a melancholy subsequent history, see below): INSCRIPTION 137. IvE 625 (See J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 1974 280 no. 503). Statue base of a chief priest of Asia. katå tå dÒgm[a]t[a t}w |ervtãthw s]unklÆtou t}w _tet[rãkiw]´ nevkÒrou _ . . . ´ { krat¤sth boulØ ka‹ ~ |er\tatow t«n pãnta pr\tvn ÉEfes¤vn d}mow... The coin legends also take on a particularly exultant note: the Ephesians are ‘alone, first of all four times neokoroi’ (types 18, 19, 22) or the city is ‘four times neokoros, the first of all and greatest’ (type 21): COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN D NEVKOR H PRVTH PA%VN KAI MEGI% Four two-column temples in a row, outer two turned toward center; a figure in each. a) Paris 899 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 74) b) Oxford 18.52. COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN A PA%VN TETRAKI NEVKORVN Four two-column temples in a row, outer two turned toward each other, a male figure in each; in the center two temples, Artemis Ephesia and a male figure. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) SNGCop 442. COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: PRVTVN A%IA% D NEVK EFE%IVN Four temples, lower two two-column and turned toward one another, a cuirassed emperor in each; upper two four-column, Artemis Ephesia in one, a togate figure in the other; a dot in the pediment of Artemis’ temple, an opening in the other three pediments. a) BMC 305 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 75) b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) Berlin, Dannenberg.

chapter

4

COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU EFE%IVN OUTOI NAOI Four two-column temples in a row, outer two turned toward one another, a cuirassed emperor in each; in center two, Artemis Ephesia and a togate figure. a) BMC 306 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 76) b) Vienna 29867. These medallion-sized coins show all the temples that made Ephesos four times neokoros (types 2124). The most detailed examples of type 23 distinguish clearly among the cult statues: one of the center temples is the third temple for which the city was neokoros, with Artemis Ephesia inside; next to it is the new fourth temple, within which is the togate emperor. The two earlier provincial temples, to the Augusti/Vespasian and to Hadrian, shown below, depict only generalized imperial figures in military dress within. It is an interesting aspect of type 23 that all the temples appear to be Ionic. This is likely because all three imperial temples were assimilated to the most famous of the four, the Ionic temple of Artemis. Even the pedimental decoration of the Artemision is distributed among them: the Artemision retains its shield, but the three imperial temples each get one of its three pedimental openings. There are as yet no remains to tell us of the true decoration of the imperial temples’ pediments, or whether they actually had such openings, which are generally associated with epiphanies.120 Type 24 also shows the four temples and their cult statues as described above, but its legend proclaims “these temples of the Ephesians by decree of the Senate.” This must refer to the fact that it was through the Roman Senate’s decree that the temples made the city four times neokoros. The city, which had possibly lost its neokoria in the previous reign, thus publicly declared that the fourth neokoria for Elagabalus was official. Laodikeia (q.v.) also emphasized the Senate’s decree on its coins at just the same time, perhaps because its joint neokoria for Commodus and Caracalla had been questioned. All the Ephesian coins further indicate that Ephesos did have an independent temple for the cult of Elagabalus, which means that Knibbe’s attempts to associate the fourth neokoria with the construction of a new altar before the Flavian temple are not securely founded, though it is not impossible that all the 120

Bingöl 1999.

– ephesos in ionia

77

provincial imperial temples were spruced up in celebration.121 Much has been made of a series of festivals named on coins of Elagabalus and of Julia Paula, which would date the celebrations, like the fourth neokoria, to the early part of his reign.122 The appearance of a table with four crowns (three prize crowns and a wreath) may seem to tie in with the four temples on contemporary issues. The contests are called ‘great’ or ‘worldwide’ and are specified as Ephesia, Hadrianeia, Pythia (the three prize crowns) and Olympia (the wreath). But if the first two can be interpreted as festivals for Artemis Ephesia (third neokoria) and Hadrian (second neokoria), the next two don’t correspond so well to individual neokoriai. Olympia, of course, has already been determined to predate all Ephesos’ neokoriai. References to Elagabalus’ cult are equivocal, not confined to one festival: his portrait sometimes appears within the Olympic wreath, sometimes atop the Ephesia prize crown.123 Thus the correspondence of contests to neokoriai is not exact. Withdrawn: Severus Alexander After Elagabalus’ death Ephesos was able to issue at least fourteen different reverse types for Severus Alexander and two for Julia Maesa that still called the city four times neokoros. Kibyra even issued coins celebrating its concord with Ephesos as four times neokoros.124 Coin type 25 merely shows a gesture of concord, but type 26 is more explicit and probably signifies that an Ephesian embassy went to Rome to seek some decision from the emperor; both types optimistically proclaim Ephesos four times neokoros. COIN TYPE 25. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: (D, ab; TETRAKI%, c) NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on curule chair grasps hand of city goddess holding statue of Artemis Ephesia. a) Oxford 18.89 b) BMC 314 c) Vienna 32629. 121 Knibbe 1970, 281-284. Alzinger 1970, 1649-1650 offers a date for the altar only after the middle of the second century. 122 Karl 1975, 51, 118; Johnston 1984, 58. 123 Johnston 1984, 59 tentatively identified the bust on the prize crown as Julia Paula; the Empress is in fact portrayed as looking much like her husband on these issues. 124 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 98 nos. 988-992.

78

part i – section i. koinon of asia COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: TETRAKI% NEVKORVN EFE%IVN Togate emperor seated on curule chair hands scroll to city goddess who holds statue of Artemis Ephesia. a) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 22 fig. 77). COIN TYPE 27. Obv: AUT K M AUR ALEJANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EFE%IVN MONVN PRVTVN NEVK Victory writes on shield hung on palm tree. a) Vienna 17248.

The outcome, however, was not good. Elagabalus’ memory was condemned and temples to his cult were no longer viable.125 Where once neokoros had been by far the most common title on Ephesian coins, on the later coins of Severus Alexander any mention of neokoria once again lapsed (as in the reign of Macrinus) in favor of titles like ‘first of Asia.’ Coins issued after his reign confirm that Ephesos had become three times neokoros, but where cities like Nikomedia and Sardis (qq.v.) still issued coins with the title ‘neokoros’ (its enumeration decreased) during Severus Alexander’s reign, Ephesos and Beroia seem to have chosen to avoid mentioning the title at all, at least for a time. The only exception is type 27, which recalls the happier past with its claim that the Ephesians are ‘alone first neokoroi’; this is one of the only coin types from which Ephesos omitted its full enumeration of neokoriai. This lack of specificity is comparable to that of an inscription at Sardis (q.v.) that called the city ‘many times neokoros’ without specifying how many. At Ephesos, inscription 137, which as mentioned above had been joyously re-engraved to add the fourth neokoria, now had the word ‘four times’ erased. The enumeration of neokoriai returned to Ephesian coins in the time of Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus. Then it would be a sober ‘three times neokoros,’ with other legends, especially ones referring to Artemis, just as common. The multiple-temple types no longer appeared. The inscriptions, unlike the coins, make the distinction between the neokoria for Artemis and that for the Augusti instead of adding the three together. Typical of a datable group from the reign of Gordian III (nos. 138-141) is the following: 125

Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.

INSCRIPTION 141. IvE 4336. Base of statue of Gordian III. { pr\th ka‹ meg¤sth mhtrÒpoliw t}w ÉAs¤aw ka‹ nevkÒrow t}w ÉArt°midow ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒliw. . . Fourth Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Like other cities that had lost a neokoria, however, in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus Ephesos came back to the number of neokoriai that it had had under Elagabalus. The date of the grant does not conflict with that at Nikomedia (q.v.). Coins of both Gallienus’ sons Valerianus and Saloninus were issued over the transition between Ephesos’ third and fourth neokoriai. On all but one where no title is given, Valerianus is named Caesar. Thus the regranting of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria must have dated between the year 255, when he received that title, and 258, when he died.126 It is notable that Ephesos was also issuing coins with the portrait of his young brother Saloninus at the same time. Saloninus has no title, as was proper; he did not become Caesar until after his brother’s death. Both boys generally appear in armor and with laurel crowns, though Valerianus appears bareheaded on one type where his title is Caesar. Unlike Nikomedia’s, Ephesos’ coin types do not reflect any special jubilation at the return of the fourth neokoria. The reverses continue to concentrate on the gods, especially on the city’s patron Artemis in her various manifestations. Coinage that cited the neokoria, in fact all coinage, was soon to cease, whether due to inflation, war, or both. In 261/ 262 a Gothic force took ship, crossed the Hellespont, and invaded the province of Asia. One of their chief goals was Ephesos, where they pillaged and burned the great temple of Artemis for which the city was neokoros; the grim signs of burning elsewhere in the city may also have been their doing.127 Ephesos was to recover and continue, but its coinage ceased, perhaps ca. 263/264.128 The title ‘neokoros’ would not appear in its documents any more. Still, as late 126

Kienast 1996, 220-221. Jordanes 107-109; Salamon 1971, 124-125. The arguments of Karwiese 1985, for an earthquake in 262 (documented only by the Historia Augusta) causing the destruction, are based on two sections of one residential building and a statistical analysis of too few coins; the destruction layers elsewhere are not closely datable. See Foss 1979, 190-191. 128 H.-D. Schultz 1997. 127

chapter

4

– ephesos in ionia

79

Neokoros: 1. IvE 2034. Architrave of theater skene, dated either 66-67 or 85-86 C.E. See text above. 2. IvE 233. Dedication at the koinon temple of the Augusti, to the god Vespasian, over erased name of Domitian, by city of Aphrodisias under M. Fulvius Gillo, proconsul likely in 89/90.130 3. IvE 237. Similar to no. 2, dedicated by Stratonikeia under L. Luscius Ocr(e)a, proconsul likely in 90/91.131 4. IvE 236. The city of Philadelphia honors Ephesos, probably on same occasion as that of inscriptions 2 and 3. 5. IvE 508 plus errata l. 5. Dedication to an emperor, under P. Calvisius Ruso, proconsul likely in 92/ 93.132 6. IvE 415 plus addendum. Dedication of fountain to Domitian, dated by titulature to 92 C.E. 7. IvE 416. Similar to inscription 6 above. 8. IvE 3008. Building inscription to Domitian, under M. Ateilius Postumus Bradua, proconsul perhaps 94/95.133 9. IvE 449. Decree of the city on the renewal of imperial building projects, which IvE suggested referred to the provincial temple of the Augusti. Inscribed under the same grammateus as no. 8. 10. IvE 793. Honorific inscription, same grammateus as nos. 8 and 9. 11. IvE 3005. Dedication to Domitian (name erased) on agora gate. 12. IvE 264. Statue base? of Nerva dedicated by Carminius Vetus, proconsul 96/97.134 13. IvE 1499. Base of statue of the Senate dedicated

by Cn. Pedanius Fuscus, proconsul 99/100.135 14. IvE 2037. Dedication to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, dated by imperial titulature to 102-112. 15. IvE 509. Bilingual dedication of a statue group to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, under C. Aquilius Proculus, proconsul 103/104.136 This is the only example of the Latin transliteration of neokoros outside of the coins of Neapolis (q.v.). 16. IvE 517. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, similar to nos. 15, 18 and 22; dated by imperial titulature late in or after 102.137 17. IvE 27. Decree of the foundation of C. Vibius Salutaris, under C. Aquilius Proculus, proconsul 103/104.138 18. IvE 858. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, similar to nos. 15, 16 and 22, under L. Albius Pullaenus Pollio, proconsul ca. 104/105.139 19. IvE1385. Decree dated by the name of the prytanis to ca. 105. 20. IvE 3060. The city honors a citizen of Salamis in Cyprus for piety to the goddess; dated by letter forms to ca. 106. 21. IvE 36 A-D. Dedication of benefits performed by the honoree of no. 17, under L. Nonius Asprenas Torquatus, proconsul ca. 107/108.140 22. IvE 857. Bilingual dedication of a statue group, similar to nos. 15, 16, 18, under Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus, proconsul ca. 108/109.141 23. IvE 422 plus errata. Dedication of a propylon to Artemis Ephesia, Trajan, and the city, dated by imperial titulature between August 114 and February 116. 24. IvE 1500. Statue base of Trajan, under Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus, proconsul 115/116.142 25. IvE 492. Dedication by a priestess of Artemis to Artemis (restored) and [tª p]r\t_ t«n [Sebast«n nev]k[Òr]ƒ ÉEfe[s¤vn pÒlei]. The proconsul’s name is Fulvius, probably Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus as in no. 24; the Asiarch is probably also the same as the one mentioned in no. 24. The position of

129 Rossner 1974, 141, inscription of the Sempronii Aruncii, from Panamara. 130 Eck 1970, 85-86; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 76 (84-90 C.E.). 131 Eck 1970, 85, 141; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 77 (8591 C.E.). 132 Eck 1970, 84-85, 143; Thomasson 1984, 218 no. 79; Stumpf 1991, 230-232. 133 Eck 1970, 86, 145; Thomasson 1984, 219 no. 81 (Domitianic, after 84 C.E.). 134 Eck 1970, 84, 148; also Thomasson 1984, 219-220 no. 86 (if no. 85, Peregrinus, is spurious).

135 Eck 1970, 154-155; Thomasson 1984, 220 no. 87 (98102 C.E.). 136 Eck 1970, 161; Thomasson 1984, 220-221 no. 90; Stumpf 1991, 263-264; Weiser 1998, 281. On these bilingual dedications, Kearsley 1999 and 2001, 155. 137 Eck 1997b, no. 4. 138 Rogers 1991. 139 Eck 1970, 163; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 91 (105 C.E.). 140 Eck 1970, 168; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 93 (107 C.E.). 141 Eck 1970, 170; Thomasson 1984, 221 no. 94 (108 C.E.). 142 Eck 1970, 180; Stumpf 1991, 275-276; Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 104.

as the time of Maximinus Daia (305-313 C.E.), it was still considered an honor to have Asiarchs of the temples in Ephesos as one’s forebears.129 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:

80

part i – section i. koinon of asia

the words ‘of the Augusti’ is unusual; see inscription 1. 26. IvE 429. Dedication of the shrine erroneously known as the temple of Hadrian, to Artemis (restored), Hadrian, and the neokoros people, under Servius Innocens, proconsul ca. 117/118.143 27. IvE 4333. Statue base of Hadrian, under Ti. Caepio Hispo, proconsul ca. 118/119 if Servius Innocens is dated to 117/118.144 28. IvE 266. Statue base of Hadrian dated by his titulature and the proconsulate of M. Peducaeus Priscinus to 124.145 Forms a pair with no. 29. 29. IvE 280. Statue base of Sabina, forming a pair with no. 28. 30. IvE 441 plus addendum. Statue base of Sabina, under L. Hedius Rufus Avitus Lollianus, proconsul 128/129.146 31. IvE 430. Dedication of a stoa to Artemis, Hadrian (as Zeus Olympios) and the people, under Afranius Flavianus, proconsul 130/131.147 32. IvE 340. Fragment, undated. 33. IvE 480. Fragment of building inscription? Undated. 34. IvE 582. Inscription on a marble slab, perhaps an acclamation of Ephesos as neokoros. Undated. Twice neokoros: 35. IvE 986. The city honors the daughter of the builder of the shrine of no. 26 for her own building projects. 36. IvE 1089 C. Decrees of an athletic synod; an Olympic winner ca. 129 is mentioned on another fragment (B). 37. IG II2 3297. From Athens; Ephesos’ dedication of a statue of Hadrian as Olympios Panhellenios in the Olympieion, ca. 132. 38. IvE 278. From copy by Cyriacus of Ancona; statue base of Sabina, under C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus, proconsul 132/133.148 39. IvE 279. Statue base of Sabina, under T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus (Antoninus Pius), proconsul ca. 134/135.149 See text above.

40. IvE 21. Resolution for a holiday on Antoninus Pius’ birthday, probably from early in his reign, ca. 138. 41. IvE 1503. Dedication of altar to Artemis, Antoninus Pius, and the city. 42. IvE 22 [partial publication of Clerc 1885; corrected by A. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 24 (1929) 191-194]. From Nysa: the technitai of Dionysos, gathered for the Great Epheseia “in the greatest and first, metropolis of Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti city of Ephesos,” honor the citizen of Nysa T. Aelius Alkibiades, ca. 141 C.E. or shortly after.150 Lines 74-75 (not in IvE) announce a different decree, t}w |erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw] yumelik}w perip[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?] §p‹ ÑR\mhw sunÒdou.151 For the synod of the technitai at Rome as perhaps neokoros, see chapter 35, ‘Herakleia.’ 43. IvE 3035. The city honors a quaestor; set up by a member of the Vedii family, probably in Antonine times; also Antonine by letter forms.152 44. IvE 697 B. Honorific set up by a member of the Vedii. 45. IvE 2039. Building inscription for theater construction; the grammateus is one of the Vedii, dated ca. 140-144. 46. IvE 438 plus addendum. Dedication of the gymnasium of Vedius to Artemis, Antoninus Pius, and the city, under L. Antonius Albus, proconsul, whose office has been dated from as early as 146/147 to as late as 160/161.153 47. IvE 431. Dedication on epistyle of the palaestra of the gymnasium of Vedius. 48. IvE 728. Statue base of the builder of the gymnasium of Vedius. Dated after visits of Lucius Verus to Ephesos in 162 and 163.154 49. IvE 2066. The city honors a member of the Vedii family; letter forms of the late second century. 50. IvE 726. The city honors a member of the Vedii family. 51. IvE 730. The city honors a member of the Vedii

143

Wörrle Archäologischer Anzeiger 88 (1973) 470-477; Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 107 (117-119 C.E.). 144 Eck 1970, 185 n. 300, 186 n. 309; Thomasson 1984, 223 no. 106 (118 C.E.). 145 Eck 1970, 197; Thomasson 1984, 224 no. 113 (124/125 C.E.); Weiser 1998, 283. 146 Eck 1970, 202; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 116. 147 Bowie 1971, 139 n. 8; Thomasson 1984, 225 no. 118. 148 PIR2 J.141; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 120. 149 Eck 1970, 210; Thomasson 1984, 226 no. 121 (133-137 C.E.).

150

For the person and the date, L. Robert 1938. Restored by Kourouniotis 1921-22, 83-85 fig. 67. 152 For the Vedii in these and the following inscriptions, see Fontani 1996 and Engelmann 1999. 153 Early: PIR 2 A.810, Eck 1972; ca. 146-148 C.E.: Thomasson 1984, 227 no. 128; ca. 147-149 C.E.: Halfmann 1970, 148 no. 58; 148/149 C.E.: Fontani 1996, 228. Late: Bowersock 1967; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Epigraphique 1968 no. 171. 154 Halfmann 1986a, 210-211; Fontani 1996, 228, 234. 151

chapter

4

family as agonothetes for life and hereditarily of the great Hadrianeia festival. 52. IvE 661. The city honors a citizen; dated ca. 140150. 53. IvE 642. Statue base of a chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos; probably dated before the proconsulate of L. Antonius Albus (see above no. 46). 54. IvE 611. Statue base of M’. Acilius Glabrio, consul in 152 and then legatus Asiae and curator rei publicae of Ephesos.155 55. IGUrbRom 26 [IGRR 1.147]. Dedication of a building for Ephesian shipowners and merchants in Rome, to Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius Caesar, dated January 18, 154. 56. IvE 2049. Statue base of Antoninus Pius and members of his family, dated 146-161. 57. IvE 2050. Six statue bases of Antoninus Pius, each dedicated by a different Ephesian tribe. The grammateus is the same one who was in charge of setting up inscription 56. 58. IvE 282D. Statue base of Antoninus Pius, similar to no. 57. 59. IvE 1541. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore; dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius. 60. IvE 288 (4) C and D. Statue base of Hadrian son of Marcus Aurelius (born 152, died before 166).156 61. IvE 288 (5). Base of the family of Marcus Aurelius, including the Hadrian of no. 60. 62. IvE 4341. The city honors a legatus Asiae and curator of the city; dated to the 160s, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 63. IvE 696. The city honors a legatus pro praetore Asiae and curator of the city, dated before 167; set up by the same two men who set up no. 62. 64. IvE 24 B. Part of a dossier containing an edict of the proconsul C. Popillius Carus Pedo, probably in 162/163.157 65. IvE 1543. The city honors a legatus pro praetore Asiae, before 163. Except for the city’s titulature, this inscription is wholly in Latin. 66. IvE 672 A. The city honors a sophist and benefactor, ca. 166. 67. IvE 665. The city honors Pomponia Triaria, daughter of A. Junius Rufinus, proconsul of Asia, and wife of C. Erucius Clarus, consul in 170.158

– ephesos in ionia

81

68. IvE 3037. The city honors a legatus pro praetore Asiae, probably before 175-180. 69. IvE 692. Base of statue of a “twice Asiarch of Asia of the temples in Ephesos,” his career dated 154-174 (IvE 1105 A, 1130). 70. IvE 699 A. The city honors a local official; dated around the reign of Marcus Aurelius. 71. IvE 718. The city honors a quaestor pro praetore Asiae; except for the city’s titulature, this inscription is wholly in Latin. Dated by letter forms to the midsecond century. 72. IvE 2069. The city honors a chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos; dated around the midsecond century. 73. IvE 3036. The city of Selge honors an Ephesian, the son of the chief priest of Asia honored in no. 72, who was proconsul of Pamphylia and Lycia; dated after 178. 74. IvE 1555. Fragment of honorific; mid-second century. 75. IvE 721. The city honors a chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos; dated between 170 and 184/185. 76. IvE 1380 B. Dedication to an emperor who was Germanicus (Marcus Aurelius or Commodus). 77. IvE 613 A. The city honors a citizen. Dated to the reign of Commodus. 78. IvE 627. The city honors an equestrian official honored by Commodus (name erased). 79. IvE 367. The city honors an Asiarch of the temples in Ephesos; dated after the second half of the second century. 80. IvE 3049. The city honors a citizen of Tralles, father of a curator of Ephesos. Dated around the end of the second/beginning of the third century. 81. IvE 3052. The city honors a procurator vicesimae hereditatum. Dated by letter forms to the end of the second/beginning of the third century. 82. IvE 4109. Statue base of Septimius Severus and his family, dated 198-210. 83. IvE 294. Base of Septimius Severus (name restored) as ‘new Helios,’ dated by the editors to 210211; but the titulature could also be that of Caracalla, who was occasionally given the titles Arabicus and Adiabenicus after 211. The inscription would thus date before he became Germanicus in 213, like inscription 128 below.159 Thus the enumeration of

155

Merkelbach 1971; Syme 1980, 446-448. Kienast 1996, 140. 157 Hanslik, ‘Popillius. 37’ in RE 22 (1953) 67 (162/163 or 163/164); Thomasson 1984, 229-230 no. 146; Stumpf 1991, 299-300. 156

158 Eck 1999 dates the inscription to the time of Avidius Cassius’ revolt in Syria. 159 Mastino 1981, 50-57.

82

part i – section i. koinon of asia

neokoria could be [d]‹w nevkÒrou t«[n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤]vn pÒlevw. 84. IvE 1238. Base of statue of Tyche given by Pisidian Antioch; the city secretary is son of the chief priest of Asia of no. 72. 85. IvE 2052. A statue of the People set up by the council. Undated. 86. IvE 644. The city honors a citizen. Undated. 87. IvE 687. The city honors a citizen; here neokoros modifies ‘the Ephesians,’ not ‘the people’ or ‘the city.’ Undated. 88. IvE 664 B. The city honors a chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos. Undated. 89. IvE 985. The city honors a priestess of Artemis. Undated. 90. IvE 686. The city honors M. Julius Aquila, chief priest of Asia of the temples in Ephesos. See the following. 91. IvE 689. The city honors the mother of Aquila, chief priest of Asia of no. 90. Her name now restored from a new inscription from Amorion as Aelia Ammia, “chief priestess of the greatest temples in Ephesos” by Kearsley 1990. See above, n. 69. Almost certainly paired with inscription 90, above.160 Despite Kearsley’s arguments to the contrary, this indicates that Aelia Ammia served as chief priestess when her son was Asiarch (as expressed on the new inscription), presumably because he was unmarried, widowed, or simply wished to give his mother this great honor. Kearsley’s geneaology would date this to around 190 C.E. 92. IvE 1606. The city honors a winner of contests. Undated. 93. IvE 4342. The city honors a citizen. Undated. 94. IvE 649. The city honors a citizen. Undated. 95. IvE 1517. Fragment, undated. 96. IvE 1563. Fragment, undated. 97. IvE 1532. Fragment, undated. 98. IvE 2909 A. Fragment, undated. 99. IvE 1902 (1). Fragment, undated. 100. IvE 1906 (1). Top of base, undated. 101. IvE 1909 (3). Fragment, undated. 102. IvE 1913. Fragment, undated. 103. IvE 1915 (1). Top of base, undated. 104. IvE 1921 (1). Corner of base, undated. 105. IvE 1923 (1). Fragment, undated. 106. IvE 1926 (1). Fragment, undated.

160

See Wörrle 1992, 368-370, restoring sun[ierasa]m°nhn

t“ u|“ in lines 11-12.

107. IvE 1926 (2). Fragment, undated. 108. IvE 2909. Top of base, undated. Probably twice neokoros: 109. IvE 708. Statue base of a local official. Undated. 110. IvE 683 B. [Riemann, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 1 (1877) 290 no. 77, from Cyriacus of Ancona, CIG 3004]. The people honor a citizen; though the title is restored as only ‘neokoros,’ the formula is that typical of the second neokoria. 111. IvE 893. The city honors a citizen. Undated. 112. IvE 1907 (2). Top of base, undated. 113. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated. 114. IvE 1921 (3). Fragment of a base, undated. 115. IvE 1921 (2). Upper corner of a base, undated. 116. IvE 1915 (2). Fragment, undated. 117. IvE 1909 (1). Fragment of base, undated. 118. IvE 1906 (2). Top of a base, undated. 119. IvE 2908. Fragment, undated. 120. Knibbe and Iplikçioglu 1981/82, 90 no. 6. Half of a torus capital, reused; undated. 121. IvE 1918 (3). Top of statue base, undated. 122. IvE 1902 (2). Fragment of statue base, undated. 123. IvE 1810. Fragment, undated. Three times neokoros and following: 124. IvE 212. Letter of Caracalla granting neokoria of Artemis, for a total of three. See text above. 125. IvE 3001. Inscription of east hall of agora, inscribed 211, recarved 212 or after. Probably changed from ‘neokoros of Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti’ to ‘neokoros of Artemis and twice neokoros of the Augusti,’ though the enumeration is restored. See text above. 126. IvE 740. Inscription of Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, designated Asiarch, who is also mentioned in inscription 133, below. Ephesos is neokoros of Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti. Dated to 211, subsequently all erased. See text above. 127. IvE 647. Dedication to Ti. Claudius Serenus. Ephesos is neokoros of Artemis and three times neokoros of the Augusti. Dated to 211, subsequently erased. See text above. 128. IvE 297. Base of Caracalla, dated between February 212 and October 213. Ephesos is only twice neokoros of the Augusti. See text above. 129. IvE 834 plus addenda. Unfortunately fragmentary honorific, placed at this point by its use of the formula ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the most sacred Senate.’ The mention of the Senate is characteristic of the period after the grant by Caracalla and Geta, while the count of only two

chapter

4

imperial neokoriai allies it to no. 128; though it might also date to the reign of Macrinus. 130. IvE 2053. Base of a statue of the city of Carthage, one of a group including nos. 131, 132, and IvE 2055 (the latter a base of a statue of Kos on which the neokoria is only restored). Ephesos is here three times neokoros, so the occasion may have been a festival to celebrate the restoration of the neokoria for Artemis, which is being counted in. Carthage’s participation was likely in return for Ephesos’ at the inauguration of the Pythia at Carthage.161 The dedicator here later became city secretary and set up statues of Caracalla and Julia Domna after October 213 (no. 133, below). 131. IvE 2054. Statue of Knidos. See text and inscriptions 130, 132. 132. IvE 2056. Base of a statue of Nikaia in Lydia, one of a group of city statues; see above inscriptions 130, 131. Ephesos is three times neokoros. 133. IvE 300. Base of Caracalla and Julia Domna, dated after October 213. Ephesos is three times neokoros, twice of the Augusti, once of Artemis. See text above. One of the board who voted and set up the statue is Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, the designated Asiarch of inscription 126, above. 134. IvE 2040. Building inscription of theater awning. Ephesos is twice neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the sacred Senate and neokoros of Artemis, i.e. a total of three; by the wording, the Senate’s decrees seem to pertain only to the neokoriai of the Augusti. The construction was partly financed from funds found by the proconsul Q. Tineius Sacerdos, whose office has been dated ca. 206-208 by the inscription of the skene at Hierapolis.162 As that surely predates Caracalla’s grant of the neokoria for Artemis (inscription 124), however, it is clear that this inscription dates after Sacerdos’ proconsulship; the fund-gathering and reconstruction of the awning probably took some time. The titulature should postdate the reappearance of the third neokoria for Artemis in 213, as shown by inscription 133. 135. Knibbe, Engelmann, and Iplikçioglu 1989, Beibl. 165-168 no. 3. Statue of Caracalla, dated after 215. The city is originally three times neokoros, twice

– ephesos in ionia

for the Augusti and once for Artemis; later erased and changed to twice neokoros of the Augusti only. See text above. Enumeration uncertain: 136. IvE 291. Statue base of an emperor who was Germanicus Maximus and Armeniacus, probably Caracalla. Remains of the words ‘twice’ and ‘of the Augusti’ are still on the stone but are interspersed with erasures. The editors attribute this to Christians obliterating the name of Artemis, but it is more likely the result of the changes in neokoriai that occurred in the reign of Macrinus, as in inscription 135. Four times neokoros: 137. IvE 625. Base recarved from ‘three times’ to ‘four times neokoros,’ enumeration later erased completely. See text above. Three times neokoros: 138. IvE 304. Base of a statue of Gordian III, under Decimus Junius Quintianus, logistes ca. 243/ 244, at the end of Gordian’s reign.163 Ephesos is neokoros of the most holy Artemis and twice neokoros of the Augusti. 139. IvE 304 A. Base of a statue of Tranquillina wife of Gordian III, with the same formula of neokoriai and set up under the same logistes as no. 138. 140. IvE 467. Architrave inscription, one fragment of which may mention the logistes of nos. 138 and 139, and whose formula of neokoriai can be restored in the same way. 141. IvE 4336. Statue base of Gordian III. See text above. Probably three times neokoros (two of the Augusti, one of Artemis): 142. IvE 300 A. Statue base? in fragments. Formula similar to that of inscription 133. 143. IvE 284 A. Fragmentary dedication to an emperor named Ant[oninus?] and to the city: tª pr\[t_ ka‹ meg¤st_] mhtrop[Òlei t}w ÉAs¤aw] ka‹ nev[kÒrƒ...] The editors restore nev[kÒrƒ t«n Sebast«n ÉEfes¤vn pÒlei] and postulate Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius, but Ephesos was twice neokoros on inscriptions of their reigns. More likely is a restoration on the lines of no. 138; the emperor would then be Gordian III, his name Ant[onius]. 144. IvE 1910 (2). Fragmentary, undated; the city is neokoros of Artemis, first, greatest, metropolis of Asia, and twice neokoros of the Augusti.

161

L. Robert 1978a, 468-469; Weiss 1998, 59. Ritti 1985, 108-113 and L’Année épigraphique (1994) no. 1638 (206/207); for Sacerdos, PIR 3.332.170; KP 5.854 no. 3; Thomasson 1984, 233 no. 175 (under Septimius Severus?), Magie 1950, app. 1 (202-214).

83

162

163

PIR2 J.803.

84

part i – section i. koinon of asia

145. IvE 1916. Upper right corner of statue base, undated. My restoration: [k]a‹ nev[kÒrou? t}w ÉArt°mid]ow ka‹ d[‹w nevkÒrou? t«n Seba]st[«n]. 146. IvE 1904 (2). Fragment of base, undated. Could be restored as ‘three times’ or perhaps ‘four times neokoros.’ 147. IvE 1908 (3). Fragment, undated. Could be restored as twice (or three times) neokoros of the Augusti and of Artemis. 148. IvE 473 (3). Fragment of archivolt, undated. Ephesos is twice or three times neokoros. Uncertain and restored: 149. IvE 2906. Fragment of Hellenistic ashlar block. From the context, it may refer to a neokoros official rather than the city’s titulature. 150. IvE 1907 (1). Fragment, undated. 151. IvE 2040. Fragment, undated. 152. IvE 1908 (2). Fragment, undated. 153. IvE 1551. Fragment, undated. 154. IvE 1924 (3). Fragment, undated.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Nero: SNGvA 7863; Berlin (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna. Trajan: BMC 223; SNGvA 1884; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Oxford. Twice neokoros: Hadrian: BMC 227, 228; SNGMün 127; Berlin, New York, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Hadrian and Aelius Verus: Paris. Antoninus Pius: BMC 233-236; SNGCop 397; SNGvA 1888; SNGMün 132, 133; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 242; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.).164 Marcus Aurelius Augustus: BMC 243; SNGCop 400; SNGvA 1890, 1891; SNGMün 141-145; SNGLewis 1448; Berlin (10 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw. Faustina the Younger: BMC 235; SNGCop 402; Berlin (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Lucius Verus: BMC 247; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Commodus Caesar: BMC 254; Berlin, Boston, New York, Paris. Commodus Augustus: BMC 255; SNGCop 409; Berlin (2 exx.), London, New York, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). 164 One issue celebrating concord between Ephesos TR NEO and Hierapolis is presumably an engraver’s error: Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 41 nos. 323-325.

Septimius Severus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 411; SNGvA 1893, 7869; SNGMün 152-155; SNGRighetti 853; Berlin (7 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). Julia Domna: BMC 263, 265; SNGCop 415, 416; SNGvA 1895; SNGMün 158; SNGLewis 1449; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Caracalla: BMC 271-275; SNGCop 419-423; SNGvA 18961898; SNGMün 160, 161, 163, 164; Berlin (9 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.). Geta Caesar: SNGCop 425; SNGvA 7874; SNGMün 168; Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Geta Augustus: BMC 281, 282; SNGCop 431; SNGvA 1902, 1903, 7877; SNGMün 173; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Three times neokoros: Geta Augustus: Gotha (genuine?). Three times neokoros and of Artemis: Julia Domna: Berlin, London, Paris. Caracalla: SNGvA 7871; Berlin. Caracalla and Geta: BMC 292; SNGCop 436; SNGvA 1904; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Geta Augustus: Berlin, London. Twice neokoros and of Artemis: Caracalla: BMC 269. Three times neokoros: Julia Domna: BMC 266, 267; SNGCop 417; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Caracalla: BMC 276-279, Adramyttium 24, 25; SNGvA 1899, 1900, 7872, 7873; SNGMün 162, 165, 166; SNGLewis 1450; SNGParis Adramytium 59; Berlin (17 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (13 exx.), Warsaw. Uncertain: Macrinus: Vienna (falsified?). Four times neokoros: Elagabalus: BMC 300, 302-305, 307; SNGCop 442-448165; SNGvA 1905, 1906; SNGMün 184; SNGRighetti 854; Berlin (21 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (13 exx.).166 Julia Paula: BMC 308; SNGCop 453, 454; SNGvA 1907; SNGRighetti 856; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Annia Faustina: BMC 309; SNGvA 1908; SNGMün 187 (fal165 SNGCop 444 and several Berlin examples have been identified as late 17th century casts from genuine ancient coins; for the purposes of this study, the use of such casts is less problematic than the use of recut coins, as the legends and types are true copies of ancient coins, not inventions. See H.-D. Schultz 1995. 166 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 114 no. 1116, a concord coin of Laodikeia with Ephesos three times neokoros under Elagabalus, is presumably retouched on the reverse as well as on the obverse, and should be considered falsified.

chapter

4

sified);167 Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. Julia Soaemias: New York, Paris (2 exx.). Julia Maesa: BMC 310; Paris (3 exx.). Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 312; SNGMün 189; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. Severus Alexander Augustus: BMC 311, 314, 318, Kibyra 94; SNGCop 460-462; SNGvA 7880; SNGMün 190, 193, 196; SNGLewis 1453; SNGRighetti 857; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Julia Mamaea: BMC 328; Berlin. Neokoros: Severus Alexander Augustus: Vienna. Three times neokoros: Maximinus: BMC 329, 330; SNGCop 472, 473; SNGvA 1912; SNGMün 208, 209; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Maximus Caesar: SNGMün 212; London, Paris. Gordian III: BMC 331; SNGvA 1913; SNGMün 213-215; SNGLewis 1454; SNGRighetti 860; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Philip: Berlin. Otacilia: BMC 342, 343; SNGCop 486; Berlin, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna. Philip Caesar: SNGCop 488, 489; SNGvA 1914; SNGMün 224; New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Trajan Decius: SNGvA 1916; Berlin, London, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Valerian: BMC 350-358; SNGCop 496-500; SNGvA 19211923; SNGMün 234-238, 240, 241, 243; SNGLewis

167

Another coin in Munich noted as false by Klose 1997, 258, 261 no. 6.

– ephesos in ionia

85

1457; SNGRighetti 861-863; Berlin (23 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Oxford (12 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Vienna (12 exx.), Warsaw. Gallienus: BMC 370-376; SNGCop 510-512; SNGvA 19281930, 7887; SNGMün 249-254, 263; SNGLewis 1459; Berlin (20 exx.), Boston, London (5 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.). Salonina: BMC 390-394;168 SNGCop 532-534; SNGvA 1933, 1934; SNGMün 266-268, 270; SNGLewis 1461; Berlin (6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Valerianus: SNGMün 276; SNGLewis 1463; Berlin, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). Saloninus: SNGCop 541; Berlin, London, Paris. Four times neokoros: Valerian: BMC 359?, 360-363; SNGCop 501-503; SNGvA 1924, 1925; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Gallienus: BMC 377-384; SNGCop 513-521; SNGvA 1931, 7888, 7889; SNGMün 257-260; SNGRighetti 864, 867, 868; Berlin (12 exx.), London (6 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.).169 Salonina: BMC 395; SNGCop 535, 536; SNGMün 275; SNGRighetti 869; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Valerianus: SNGCop 538; Berlin, Vienna. Saloninus: Paris. 168 BMC 392 is a cast of an ancient coin. See H.-D. Schultz 1995, no. 6. 169 Includes several casts of ancient coins, e.g. BMC 380, 384; SNGCop 521; SNGRighetti 867. See H.-D. Schultz 1995, nos. 3-5.

86

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 5. Kyzikos in Mysia: Koinon of Asia Kyzikos had a checkered relationship with the emperors and their cult. According to Tacitus, in 25 C.E. the emperor Tiberius deprived it of its status as a free city for, among other serious charges, neglecting the cult of the deified Augustus. Cassius Dio amplified this account: the Kyzikenes did not complete the heroön to Augustus that they had begun to build.1 The heroön was likely a municipal shrine, as Asia’s koinon temple to Augustus was of course the one in Pergamon (q.v.). Some years later, Kyzikos produced the first inscription yet known to call a city neokoros: INSCRIPTION 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799 (IGRR 4:146). Decree honoring Antonia Tryphaena, dated to 38 C.E. meg¤stƒ ka‹ [§pifanes(tã)tƒ ye“ _Ga¤ƒ´ Ka¤sari érxa¤an ka‹ progonikØn toË g°nouw aÈtoË nevkÒron §panaktvm°nh pÒlin. . . The phrasing is unique, not formulaic; this is a metaphor, comparing the city to the neokoros official of a shrine, and does not yet represent an official title. The Kyzikenes call their city “ancient and ancestral neokoros of the family” of the “greatest and most manifest god Gaius Caesar” (Caligula, whose name was erased after his death and the condemnation of his memory), much as an Ephesian (q.v.) could call his home “neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image].” One may wonder whether Kyzikos called itself neokoros here due to the now completed heroön of Augustus, Gaius’ great-grandfather, or whether the city had a shrine honoring his grandfather Agrippa, who held imperium in the East in 15 B.C. when Kyzikos’ status as a free city was restored, and who is mentioned in line 7 of this inscription.2 The city also celebrated a festival in honor of Drusilla, Gaius’ sister, under the titles of ‘goddess, new Aphrodite,’ in 37 during her lifetime, when Gaius himself, called ‘new 1 2

Tacitus, Annals 4.36; Cassius Dio 57.24.6. Cassius Dio 54.7.6, 23.7.

Helios,’ was serving an honorific term as hipparchos, the city’s chief magistrate.3 Whatever the exact object(s) of cult to which the title alludes, this is the first use of ‘neokoros’ to describe a city’s association with the imperial cult, and indicates the conditions under which it would later become a recognized title. First Neokoria: Hadrian In 123 C.E., according to the Chronicon Paschale, Hadrian visited Kyzikos, where he founded a temple and paved a marketplace with marble.4 Though unremarkable at first sight, this reference provides an origin for a project as elusive to trace as it is important, the construction of a provincial temple to Hadrian that was to gain the title ‘neokoros’ for Kyzikos. The evidence for this temple is scattered through a number of late and obscure sources, and its very object of cult has been doubted, while the remains of the temple itself only recently began to be revealed.5 Though the Chronicon Paschale mentioned nothing of a temple beyond Hadrian’s foundation of one, a scholion to Lucian’s Icaromenippus 24 stated that the Olympieion in Athens stayed uncompleted for over three hundred years due to lack of money, like the temple in Kyzikos, and that neither of them would have been finished had not Hadrian taken up the work with public (i.e. imperial) funds.6 This information may derive from Arethas, the tenth-century bishop of Kaisareia in Cappadocia; presumably the temple at Kyzikos is introduced as a comparison 3

IGRR 4:145 (= SIG 4 798). Chronicon Paschale 475.10 (Dindorf); Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199 (preferring a date of 124); Lehnen 1997, 87; Birley 1997, 162, 164 (inferring that the temple of Hadrian was originally a temple of Zeus begun by the kings of Pergamon). 5 Excavations directed by Prof. A. YaylalÌ, with many new finds, especially of architectural fragments. See YaylalÌ 1990; Koçhan 1991; YaylalÌ, Koçhan, and Baâaran 1991; and YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. 6 Rabe 1906, 107 sec. 20, ll. 16-22. On the funds, see Winter 1996, 90, 101. 4

chapter

5

because its story was well known to him or to the scholiast. But how far is the comparison to go? The figure of three hundred years seems to refer to the Athenian Olympieion, and probably represents the interval between the start of its construction on Peisistratid foundations in 174 B.C.E. and its final dedication by Hadrian in 131/132.7 If we apply a similar lapse to the temple in Kyzikos, it too would have been founded in the second century B.C.E., but the excavation has produced no sign of so early an origin. In fact, unlike Athens’ Olympieion, whose construction seems substantially Hellenistic, the foundations of the Kyzikos temple are completely Roman, with vaulted substructures of cement and agglomerate. The scholiast, then, may be referring to some period of incompletion of a temple at Kyzikos, though not necessarily of three hundred years. He may even be conflating Cassius Dio’s reference to the heroön to Augustus still incomplete in 25 with the later temple founded by Hadrian. The words of the scholiast make no doubt, however, of the role of Hadrian and his money in both Athens and Kyzikos. The sixth-century author Johannes Malalas connected Hadrian’s foundation with aid given to Kyzikos after a disastrous earthquake. He called it “a very large temple, one of the wonders.”8 The folly of building such a large monument in a proven earthquake zone would soon become apparent. During the reign of Antoninus Pius another earthquake shook Kyzikos and threw down what was, according to Cassius Dio, “the largest and most beautiful of all temples.”9 Both accounts stress the 7

Travlos 1971, 402-411; Willers 1990; Tölle-Kastenbein 1994; C. Jones 1996, 33. 8 Johannes Malalas 11.16; ed. Dindorf (Bonn 1831) 279; E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147-148. This earthquake, on the night of November 10, probably in 120, has been associated with different seismic events of Hadrian’s reign, notably an earthquake in Nikomedia and Aoria dated to 128, by Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 112. On earthquakes and chronology in Malalas, see E. Jeffreys 1990, 155-160, 166. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 70.4.1-2; other cities were also affected. Barattolo 1995, 60-62 n. 15, attempted to move this section of Dio from the reign of Antoninus to that of Marcus Aurelius, but the argument is special pleading, largely incoherent. B. Keil 1897 dated the earthquake too early, between 150 and 155 C.E. See Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 116, where the date is no more exact than the mid-second century, and two seismic events (this at Kyzikos, and another at Ephesos and Nikomedia) that may have been diverse are again associated. But there were many earthquakes in the area during this period, and it is likely that the same cities were repeatedly shaken: Eusebius, History of the Church 4.13.

– kyzikos in mysia

87

huge size of the temple, though Dio’s epitomator Xiphilinos is not specific about its identification. The earthquake should date only shortly before Pius’ death in March 161, because his successor Marcus Aurelius gave a speech before the Senate and asked for aid to be sent to the stricken Kyzikenes, probably in August of that same year.10 In 166 or 167 the orator Aelius Aristides delivered a panegyric in Kyzikos that included the temple there as one of its main themes.11 A proper occasion for such a speech might have been the dedication of the temple, but Hasluck, disturbed by the forty-year gap between inception and panegyric, preferred to call it the anniversary of the dedication, which he placed in 139, the date suggested by Boeckh for the first celebration of Hadrianeia Olympia at Kyzikos.12 Yet such a delay from inception to completion does recall the scholiast on Lucian, though forty years cannot compare with the three centuries of the Olympieion at Athens. It is then likely that Aristides’ speech did commemorate the dedication of the temple of Hadrian; it had been begun ca. 123 or 124, had probably still been unfinished when it had been thrown down by an earthquake late in Antoninus Pius’ reign, and was finally dedicated (but was it finished?) in 166 or 167. It is unfortunate for us that Aristides’ oration is not more specific about the temple’s history and even about its object of worship, but a flowery panegyric did not need to mention such commonplace facts, well known to both orator and audience. When Aristides speaks of the temple (sections 16-21), it is in such hyperbolic and metaphorical terms that he cannot be taken literally.13 The temple competes with mountains; it is so great a landmark that navigators sailing to Kyzikos will no longer need beacon fires to guide them. Each of its blocks is as big as a temple, the temple itself as big as a sanctuary precinct, and the sanctuary precinct as big as a city. It is difficult to say whether there is more marble in the temple than had been left over in its quarry on Prokonnesos. 10 Fronto, Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4; ed. M. van den Hout 86-91. Van den Hout 1999, 231 on 89.3 dates the letter to October 161; Behr 1968, 92-93 n. 1b. Winter 1996, 102-103 put the earthquake in 160 and the speech in 162. 11 Oration 27 (Keil, 125-138); P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works, tr. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:98-106, with commentary 379-382; Heinze 1995; Swain 1996, 285-288. See also Bowersock 1973, 195-196. 12 Hasluck 1910, 187-188; CIG 3674. 13 Boulanger 1923, 342-346, esp. 344 n. 1.

88

part i – section i. koinon of asia

The orator then began his transition to the next essential part of his speech, praise of the rulers: §pegrãcasye m¢n går tÚn êriston t«n e¸w §ke›non tÚn xrÒnon basil°vn: ¥kei d¢ Ím›n tÚ ¶rgon prÚw t°low §n to›sde to›w kairo›w, o„ tå kal«n aÔ kãllista e¸lÆxasin ka‹ Íp¢r œn dikaiÒtat' ín xaristÆrion tosoËton •sthkÚw e‡h to›w yeo›w, §peidÆper oÈ =ñdion [hâ n] me›zon §jeure›n.

You [Kyzikenes] have had written [on the temple] the name of the best of rulers up to that time. But the work has come to completion in these times, which have brought about the best of good things and on account of which so great a thank-offering to the gods would have been most rightly set up, since it should not be easy to find a better one.

and dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century, lists the temple eighteenth, as “the [temple] of Hadrian in Kyzikos, unfinished.”16 If it was never finished, it was no wonder. Almost every author who mentioned the temple at Kyzikos harped on its prodigious size. Aristides dredged up hyperbole after hyperbole for it. Like Johannes Malalas, an anonymous poet during the reign of Anastasius (491-513 C.E.) classed it among the wonders of the world, though in this epigram it is specified as coming after the Roman Capitolium and Pergamon’s grove of Rufinus and before the pyramids, the colossus of Rhodes, and the lighthouse at Alexandria:

(section 22)

Presumably ‘the name of the best of rulers up to that time’ was that of Hadrian written on the temple, though even this would not assure that he was the object of cult and not simply the donor. Aristides also refers to the temple as if it were “a thankoffering to the gods,” which has made some think that this was the explanation for the temple’s foundation.14 Aristides expresses a possibility, however, not a fact: saying that the temple would make a fine thank-offering for the fortunes of present times says nothing about why it was originally built. In fact, Aristides never mentions the cult for which the temple was built in any but the most allusive (and to us, elusive) manner; he saves specificity for present times and present rulers, as when he compares Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus to Asklepios and Serapis. The speech does make clear, however, that the current celebration was in honor of a great work, i.e. the temple, which had been started in a previous emperor’s reign.15 The size and scope of the project were probably reason enough for delay, even if no earthquake had intervened; in section 21 of the speech Aristides notes that the temple’s construction had even necessitated the invention of new engineering devices and means of transport. But Aristides never states that his oration was to celebrate the completion of the temple, as is often assumed. An anonymous list of thirty things most beautiful and worth seeing, probably amassed from previous lists

14 Pace S. Price 1984b, 153; following him, Swain 1996, 285. See also C. Jones 1986, 84 n. 28. 15 This fact is passed over by Barattolo 1995.

mhd¢ tanupleÊroisin érhrÒta, KÊzike, p°troiw, ÑAdrianoË basil}ow émemf°a nhÚn ée¤seiw.

Nor will you sing, Kyzikos, the blameless temple of King Hadrian, close-joined with enormous stones. Greek Anthology 9.656

Also in the opinion of Niketas of Herakleia, an eleventh-century author, Hadrian’s sanctuary in Kyzikos was the seventh of the wonders.17 Cassius Dio (70.4.1-2) seems to sum it all up, writing that “in general, the details were more to be 16

Codex Vaticanus graecus 989, last page, 110, bound into a collection of works ascribed to Xenophon: B. Keil 1897, 503 n. 1; Corso 1991, 158-163 (giving the date). Barattolo 1995, 73 amended the Greek ét°[le]stow for no reason but his own argument, not explaining why the temple of Hadrian should be referred to as ‘fulfilled,’ t°lestow. Barattolo (71) also misinterpreted Aristides, who never said that the work came to an end “thanks to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus,” but only in their time; see also 73, where he imagined that they would have naturally put their portrait busts on the temple with Hadrian’s. For those emperors’ actual attitude toward honors to their forebears, Pekáry 1985, 38. 17 Niketas, in Philonis Byzantini Libellus de septem orbis spectaculis... aliorum scriptorum veterum de iisdem septem spectaculis testimonia, fragmenta Callinici Sophistae et Adriani Tyrii adque indicem graecitatis adiecit Jo. Conradus Orellius (Lipsiae 1816) 144. See Broderson 1992, 129. Schott 1891, 30, postulated that the temple substituted for earlier lists’ citation of the Artemision at Ephesos, though in order to support his belief in a Hellenistic dating for this reorganization, he had to state that the “temple at Kyzikos” cited in the wonder lists of Georgios Kedrenos (chart no. IX) and in the two lists in Anecdota Graeca, Codex Ambrosianus c. 222 (chart no. XIIa and b) differs from the explicitly cited “temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos” of the lists given by Niketas and Codex Vaticanus graecus 989. He chose instead the shrine cited by Pliny Natural History 36.22.98, which holds a marble statue of Apollo crowning an ivory Zeus, and then stated that this was later rebuilt by Hadrian. See below n. 63, and Broderson 1992, 66, 68, 84, 96, 106 (again explicitly naming the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos), 122 (see below), 130 (Kedrenos), 132, 136, 140 (Cyriacus’ translation of Niketas), 140, 142, 144.

chapter

5

wondered at than praised.” His further statement that each column was a single block is scarcely to be believed, especially as he gave their proportions as four orguiai (about 24 feet) thick, though that presumably represents their circumference, and fifty cubits (about 75 feet) in height, a measurement that has been found by modern scholars to be not far off the mark.18 Dio’s epitomators Xiphilinos and Zonaras agreed on the figures, though Zonaras commented parenthetically, “if these things should not appear incredible to anyone.”19 An octastyle Corinthian temple with the legend ‘neokoros’ begins to appear on coins of Kyzikos late in the reign of Antoninus Pius; the archon’s name, Hestiaios, also appears on the first coins of Antoninus’ successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.20 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI ADRI ANTVNEINO% (%EB cgi) (Laureate, ahi) head (draped bust, dgh) of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: (EPI E%TIAIOU ARXONTO%, ai; AR E%TIAIOU, b) KUZI(KHNVN, cdfgh) NEVKORVN Eight-column Corinthian temple on podium (disc in pediment, adghi) a) London 1895.6-6-14 b) London 1961.3-1-172 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 78) c) BMC 218 d) Oxford e) SNGParis 659 f) SNGParis 662 g) SNGvA 1260 h) Vienna 16147 i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. Even if the temple was not yet finished by the time of issue of these coins, it still had risen far enough to be portrayed in some detail. It would continue to be a theme of Kyzikos’ coins so long as the city issued them. Though Aelius Aristides’ speech is not a model of lucid description, it too offers some hints as to the temple’s structure and placement. In section 20, he compares it to a three-story house or a trireme in being threefold, with passages that followed a circuit from subterranean vaults to the customary shrine and then to hanging walks, presumably upper galleries. Indeed, underground vaults in the foundations of the temple have long been accessible.21 In addition, Aristides’ comment that mariners would no longer need beacons but could use the temple to guide them is quite apposite: the temple stood in the western part of the city, facing 18 19 20 21

Schulz and Winter 1990, 81. Zonaras 12.1. Münsterberg 1985, 66. Ertüzün 1964, 124-142.

– kyzikos in mysia

89

east and turning its south flank towards one of Kyzikos’ harbors, probably the Chytos.22 In the fifteenth century the main use of the temple at Kyzikos was as a stone quarry for building in nearby Bursa. It was in this condition that the traveler and antiquarian Cyriacus of Ancona saw it in 1431, with thirty-one of its columns still standing.23 He attempted to convince the governor of the province that the depredations should be stopped, but when he returned in 1444 two more columns had disappeared. In view of this, Cyriacus described, measured, and sketched what remained of the temple. His judgment was good. Bonsignore Bonsignori, who traveled in the area in 1498, saw only twenty-six columns, which he noted (against the testimony of Dio) as being not monolithic, but made in ten parts; by then, the drums were being used to make cannonballs, and large pieces of marble hid what remained of the floor.24 By the nineteenth century the structure had been plundered down to the platform. So Cyriacus’ careful account, preserved in several copies, provides information about the temple’s original state that would otherwise be unobtainable.25 Though not at his best at history or epigraphy, Barattolo has made a significant contribution towards reconstructing the temple that Cyriacus saw.26 He used the podium structure, still extant though overgrown on the site, to confirm that the temple was octastyle and contained long galleries underground, conforming to Aristides’ description. Cyriacus measured the stylobate to be 110 cubits by 40 cubits (165 x 360 feet), and originally with sixty-two columns in all, though only twenty-nine were standing when he described them. Barattolo accounted for the impossibility of reconciling all of Cyriacus’ observations with any coherent modern reconstruction of an ancient temple by positing that the colonnades of the back and both sides of the temple had been so thoroughly robbed that Cyriacus did not recognize that they had been there. Thus Barattolo made one restoration of the original temple as a monumental octastyle structure with seventeen 22

Hasluck 1910, 5; YaylalÌ 1990, 179-181. Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; Scalamonti 1996, 6162 gave the figure as thirty-three columns still standing. See also Barattolo 1998. 24 Schulz 1995. 25 Ashmole 1956; P. Lehmann 1973. 26 Barattolo 1995, 77-108; preferable to Schulz and Winter 1990, 33-82. 23

90

part i – section i. koinon of asia

columns along the flanks, dipteral, with an extra row of eight in both front and back, and both pronaos and opisthodomos distyle in antis. It is to be hoped that the new excavations led by YaylalÌ (who restores the temple with eight by fifteen columns, as here illus. pl. 2 fig. 7) will clear up the matter.27 The cella can be restored with more certainty, with two rows of five vine-wreathed columns down its center, and half-columns to match along the walls; drawings copied from Cyriacus’ originals show the cella’s interior wall topped with a continuous frieze, and fragments that conform to such a frieze (processions of Dionysiac and marine deities) are in Istanbul.28 An upper gallery resting on the cella’s interior columns would have given the temple the third, upper level of Aristides’ three-decked metaphor, and was so restored by Barattolo. Other drawings seem to indicate an arcaded forecourt in front of the temple, and this may in fact have been part of a large rectangular walled courtyard that adjoined the temple’s north flank.29 One might have expected such a monumental temple to stand in the center of its own courtyard; but archaeologists have not yet defined or dated the ‘agora’ north of the temple. A manuscript of Cyriacus also illustrates one of the temple’s elaborate Corinthian capitals adorned with gorgon’s heads.30 Fragments of capitals and columns suitable in scale and material to such a building have been identified, and Barattolo estimated the peristasis columns to have been 72.5 feet high, right between Cassius Dio’s and Cyriacus’ measurements of 75 and 70 feet respectively.31 A fragment of what was probably the exterior continuous frieze shows eastern barbarians fleeing on horseback, and more recent finds include a figure of a Roman soldier.32 Both theme and style are suitable to a date in the 160s, around the time of Lucius Verus’ Parthian campaigns.33 Also suggestive are fragments of the 27

See above, n. 5. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 133v– 136r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 35-39 and 31.3-4. 29 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fols. 132v– 133r; Barattolo 1995, pls. 32-33; Lyttelton 1974, 261-263. 30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 136v; Florence, Laurentian Library, Ms. Ashburnensis 1174 fol. 122v; P. Lehmann 1973, 48-49 figs. 30A and B. For the gorgoneion as a decorative element on the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon.’ 31 Barattolo 1995, 96. 32 Laubscher 1967; YaylalÌ 1990, 174 fig. 6. 33 Pace Barattolo 1995, 104-105, more special pleading for a Hadrianic date while ignoring the iconographic difficulties this presents for interpreting the frieze’s comparandum, the 28

eastern frieze, which may represent an emperor’s apotheosis.34 The apotheosis of Hadrian would be a very suitable subject for the entrance to his temple, especially as he had already died and been deified at Rome by the time that the frieze was finally sculpted. From over a large and magnificent door, perhaps that leading into the cella itself, Cyriacus copied the following metrical inscription:35 ÉEk dap°dou m' w[ryvsen ˜lhw ÉAs¤aw [. . .] éfyon¤_ xeir«n d›ow ÉArist(°)netow.

At the end of the first line, Reinach restored [dapãn_sin], and this was generally accepted: “from level earth, with [wealth] of all Asia (and) no lack of hands, godlike Aristenetos erected me.”36 Wilhelm pointed out, however, that the two datives and no connectives made the restoration untenable, and offered [parexoÊshw] instead: “from level earth, with no lack of hands of all Asia [offering], godlike Aristenetos erected me.”37 The genitive is still awkward, and so far no version offered has been quite satisfactory. Herrmann, however, compared this inscription with that found at Didyma concerning the craftsmen of Asia working on the temple for Gaius at Miletos (q.v.), and agreed with Wilhelm that the emphasis of the Kyzikos inscription should fall on the workers, not the wealth, of Asia.38 So this inscription cannot be used to document who (besides, of course, Hadrian) paid for the erection of a provincial temple, though likely craftsmen from all the province worked on it.39 Still, this does at least confirm that the temple that Cyriacus studied was produced by the koinon of Asia.

‘Parthian monument’ at Ephesos (for which Oberleitner 1999 gives the most cogent arguments for a date after 166, and likely after 169). In any case, as Laubscher 1967 pointed out, the Kyzikos frieze’s combats with generic easterners might be suitable for the times of either Trajan or Verus, not for the “grand programme” of Hadrian. 34 Gates 1997, 294. 35 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Lat. Misc. d. 85, fol. 133v; Barattolo 1995, pl. 34. Colin 1981, 555 preferred to interpret this (and almost all the epigrams given by Cyriacus) as copied from a Byzantine anthology; arguing for the authenticity of the inscription, Barattolo 1998, 109-110. 36 Reinach 1890; IGRR 4:140. 37 Wilhelm 1938, 56. Preger 1889 offered [ m°ga yaËma ]; this would remove the centrality of the assistance of the koinon of Asia, and should be rejected in view of Herrmann’s comments, below. 38 Herrmann 1992, 69-70; 1989a. 39 Pace Schulz and Winter 1990, 37.

chapter

5

There has been some controversy over the pedimental sculpture of the temple at Kyzikos. The earliest sources for it are the contemporary and later coins, which often show a large disc in the center of the pediment: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L AURHLIO% OUHRO% Draped cuirassed bust of Lucius Verus r. Rev: EPI KL E%TIAIOU NEVKOROU (sic) KUZIKHNVN Eight-column Corinthian temple on podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1893.4-52 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 79). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU KAI M AU(RH, abd) KOMMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., bearded. Rev: KUZIKHN(VN, cd) NEVKOR(VN, a) Eight-column Corinthian temple on podium, disc in pediment. a) BMC 241 b) SNGParis 748 c) SNGCop 122 d) SNGvA 1274. Such a disc may be merely a numismatic convention for pedimental decoration, but it could reflect reality. Johannes Malalas observed that Hadrian “set up a marble portrait, a large bust of himself, there in the roof of the temple, on which he wrote ‘of the god Hadrian,’ as it is still.”40 It is not impossible that Malalas himself saw it there.41 Cyriacus of Ancona also described (probably) pedimental sculpture in the temple at Kyzikos at his first visit as “different very splendid statues of the gods in the front,” but again later in his visit of 1444: “But those splendid and very beautiful marble statues of the gods in its noble and wonderful facade are preserved unhurt, with the best Jove himself as their guardian and with the protection of their lofty height, and they remain untouched in almost their original glory.”42 Simon Price took the phrase about Jove to refer to a specific statue of Zeus in the pediment, to support his contention that this was not a temple of Hadrian but of Zeus (see below). A closer look at other parts of Cyriacus’ journals, however, reveals that in his enthusiastic antiquarianism he was accustomed to refer to the Christian God as ‘Jove,’ with such phrases as ‘with the auspicious power of

40 Johannes Malalas 11.16 (ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1831, 279). The translation of E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, and Scott 1986, 147148 is not sufficiently precise. On the word stÆlh meaning ‘portrait,’ used both of statues and other forms, see Stichel 1982, 23-25; for the dative used for ‘portrait of’ see Tuchelt 1981, 170-171 n. 17. 41 Croke 1990, 6. 42 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28 ll. 248-251.

– kyzikos in mysia

91

Jove best and greatest and of the kind blessed Virgin and of the most holy John the Evangelist,’ or ‘the birthday of incarnate Jove,’ meaning Christmas.43 Thus Cyriacus was not describing a statue of Zeus, but saying that the statues in the pediment were protected by God’s power and their great height, which made them unreachable to stone plunderers. This sentiment conforms with both Cyriacus’ sense of mission as a preserver of the past and his tendency to conflate his Christianity with a romanticized view of the ancient world.44 Can the disc of the coins, the bust of Malalas’ text, and the statues of the gods of Cyriacus’ description be reconciled? Perhaps, if a leaf of the Destailleur manuscript of Cyriacus can be trusted.45 It shows the facade of an octastyle Corinthian temple, rather sketchily copied. In the right side of the pediment is a reclining male figure with hand outstretched toward a squiggle in the corner, and in the pediment’s center is a shieldlike disc. On that is a depiction of something the copyist probably did not understand and therefore had difficulty conveying: an abbreviated figure on a pedestal, its left arm(?) raised or with something protruding from behind its back, and squiggles to either side. The great disc, which fills the pediment’s center from base to apex, is a detail confirmed by the coins, and the object in its center, though distorted, may have been the bust of Hadrian mentioned by Malalas. Such a shield portrait is well known in Roman art, and the closest architectural parallel is offered by the bust of Marcus Aurelius set in a shield in the pediment of the greater propylaea at Eleusis.46 There are no additional statues in that pediment, but of course the propylaea was much smaller than the temple at Kyzikos, which would have offered enough room and to spare for both a shield portrait and statues. Unfortunately Cyriacus gave no explicit description of statuary in or around the temple. Miscellaneous fragments of colossal statues have been found 43 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 57 ll. 1069-1071, 1051; similar examples pp. 32, 37, 50, 58. Cyriacus himself defended this practice in a letter of March 15, 1423: Scalamonti 1996, app. 1, 166-180. 44 C. Mitchell 1960. For a disapproving view of this tendency, Colin 1981, 281-288. 45 Ashmole 1956, pl. 35c. But also note the doubts of Barattolo 1995, 88 n. 206; the drawing shows an octastyle facade, and Barattolo believed that Cyriacus thought the building to be hexastyle, even stating (p. 92) that Cyriacus described it so, which he did not explicitly do. 46 Hommel 1954, 110; Winks 1969; Deubner 1937, pls. 3942; Giraud 1989.

92

part i – section i. koinon of asia

on the site: a hand holding a sceptre, 30 cm. from wrist to end of thumb; part of a female head with an eye 75 cm. long (originally described as 7.075 m. long!); and a phallus 29 cm. in circumference. These, though they seem to suit a temple of large size, have not been proven to be from the temple of Hadrian, much less to have been its cult images.47 The church historian Sokrates wrote that Hadrian was worshipped in Kyzikos as ‘the thirteenth god,’ but outside of preserving the fact that Hadrian was indeed an object of cult at Kyzikos (and not identified with Zeus, who would of course be the first of the canonical twelve gods), this statement is too vague to base any iconographic reconstruction upon it.48 Once the cult was established, and perhaps even before the temple was completely finished, a chief priest of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos was brought to office, making Kyzikos one of the five known cities to have chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs of specific temples.49 One of the earliest may have been Gaius Orfius Flavianus Philographos: INSCRIPTION 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. 1 (IGRR 4:155). Heading of a prytany list. érxier°vw d¢ t}w ÉAs¤aw naoË §n Kuz¤kƒ G. ÉOrf¤ou FlaouianoË Filogrãfou ka‹ érxiere¤aw OÈib¤aw P\llhw, grammat°vw d¢ t}w nevkÒrou boul[}w] P. A¸l¤ou PrÒklou ÑEl°nou. . . The city’s new title ‘neokoros’ is here applied to the council in particular; the same is true for inscriptions 3 and 4 below, which are similar prytany lists. The names include only one Aelius and no Aurelii, so the list has been provisionally placed in Hadrianic times. Another inscription found near Kyzikos records three (presumable) Kyzikenes as hymnodoi ‘of Asia.’50 This office recalls the hymnodoi of the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, as well as those at Smyrna and Ephesos (qq.v.). There is no explicit documentation that a choir of hymnodoi was established at Kyzikos after, or due to, the construc47

Perrot 1876a; Mendel 1909, 275 no. 32 (cat. no. 256). Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59, ed. G. Hansen (Berlin 1995) 224; polemical, like most Christian references to deification. For another thirteenth god (Alexander the Great) see John Chrysostomos on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5; J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 (Paris 1862) 580581. 49 For other chief priests of Asia of the temple in Kyzikos, see IGRR 4:153 and 157 (Aebutius Flaccus, and nameless). Rossner 1974, 112, 134, 139. 50 Halfmann 1990; SEG 40 (1990) 1128. 48

tion of the temple of Hadrian. The date of the inscription is uncertain, but the slight prevalence of names of Aurelii and the presence of a strategos Aelius Onesiphoros, perhaps identical with an archon under Caracalla, makes it likely to have been early third century, a time when Halfmann has posited a reorganization of the hymnodoi of Asia as a unified body, covering all the neokoroi of the koinon. In addition to temple and title, a festival was granted, which was called either Hadrianeia Olympia, Hadrianeia, Olympia, or once Hadrianeia Olympia Koinon Asias.51 Its inception, if correctly dated to 135 C.E., postdates the grant of the temple by at least eleven years, and predates Aristides’ panegyric by about thirty. As in the case of Pergamon’s temple to Rome and Augustus (q.v.), a petition and grant of a festival of sacred status could accompany, but was not a necessary result of, the building of a provincial imperial temple; cities without provincial temples that celebrated festivals named for emperors are too numerous to mention.52 Therefore the old assumption that the date of initiation of a festival must be that of the dedication of the temple associated with it should not be resumed.53 Even if a temple’s roof were not on, its columns could still be garlanded, and sacrifices take place at its altar; the contests took place in the theater, odeion, stadium, or gymnasium, not in the temple.54 Olympios was an epithet associated with Hadrian, so the name Hadrianeia Olympia cannot be taken to indicate that Hadrian shared his temple at Kyzikos with another deity, Zeus Olympios. Though this festival may have been associated with the temple and granted with it, its subsequent history is not necessarily tied to the temple’s, and names of festivals were often ephemeral.55 Olympia could also mean only that 51 Moretti 1953, 266; Malavolta 1976-1977, 2056-2057. The date of inception hinges on IGRR 4:162, a document of the eleventh Olympiad. Based on IGRR 4:160, Moretti 1954, 283 n. 3 and 286 n. 1, held that the koinon Asias was founded in 139, and was a separate festival from the Hadrianeia Olympia. 52 Moretti 1953, passim. For a general view, see Ziegler 1985, 9-12 and 62-64 on provincial contests. 53 This is one of the flaws in the reasoning of Barattolo 1995; though not of Schulz and Winter 1990, 41 n. 80, 50 n. 158; Schulz nonetheless conflates the temple’s hieromenia and panegyris, celebrated by Aristides’ oration, and the Olympic contest (agones) at Kyzikos, 54-55; on the distinction see L. Robert 1969a, 54. 54 S. Price 1984b, 101-132, esp. 108-111. 55 L. Robert 1969a, 49-58; J. and L. Robert 1948, 43-48, 72-79; Herrmann 1975.

chapter

5

the festival was isolympic, modeled on that of the famous sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia, Greece. But it is likely that the name was applied well after 123 or 124, when the temple (and probably the festival) was first granted. Some years later, Hadrian had work restarted on the Olympieion in Athens, and when that was complete, subsidized the building of a Panhellenion in the same city.56 These cult names, originally of Zeus, came into the emperor’s titulature, becoming standard after 128. It is not unexpected that at Kyzikos, as in many cities throughout the East, there were dedications to Hadrian Olympios as savior and founder of the city.57 So either the Hadrianeia festival was of the Olympic type, or the name became attached to the festival as an epithet of Hadrian. Note that in the case of Pergamon (q.v.), where Trajan did share cult with Zeus (Philios), the festival was not called Traianeia Phileia, but Traianeia Diphileia, with Zeus named explicitly.58 Simon Price, however, contended that the temple in Kyzikos was not dedicated to Hadrian at all, but to another god, probably Zeus Olympios; Schulz and Winter took him up enthusiastically; and subsequent scholars have followed along.59 Price’s arguments went back to Nock’s basic belief that where emperors shared cult with gods, the emperors were subordinated; and in many cases, especially where an emperor was introduced into a pre-existing cult, this was true. In this case, however, the individual arguments are not well based, and would necessitate a preceding course of events that is far more improbable than an initial dedication to Hadrian alone. Hadrian granted a temple to Kyzikos about a year before his visit to Athens in 124/125, when he took the uncompleted Athenian Olympieion under his aegis.60 It is mainly the latter act that gave him his close association with Zeus Olympios. Are we to believe that an earlier premonition told Hadrian to 56

C. Jones 1996, 33. IGRR 4:138, 139. For similar dedications from elsewhere in Mysia, see E. Schwertheim 1983, no. 27 a-d. 58 Magie 1950, 594-595, 1451 n. 7. 59 S. Price 1984b, 153-154, 251-252; Schulz and Winter 1990, passim; Birley 1997, 162, 164; Boatwright 1997, 126-130. Barattolo 1995 seems to accept it judging from his title, but not necessarily his text, where Price is not mentioned. The error has penetrated so far that Schorndorfer 1997, 53-37, 79, 146153, has postulated from it undocumented cults of Zeus at the temples to Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna as well. Boatwright 2000, 157-162 makes similar assumptions for Smyrna. 60 This is true whether one accepts the Chronicon Paschale’s date of 123 for the visit to Kyzikos (above, n. 4), or moves it, as does Halfmann 1986a, 191, 199 to 124. 57

– kyzikos in mysia

93

endow a new temple to Zeus Olympios at Kyzikos as well? Or we could take the words of the scholiast to Lucian more literally and posit a pre-existing (for three hundred years?) cult at Kyzikos. It is even tempting to associate that unfinished temple that Hadrian took over with the unfinished heroön mentioned by Cassius Dio (but would that, likely a municipal shrine, have been so gigantic in scale?). Outside the scholion, there is no direct evidence for a standing temple or cult taken over by Hadrian at Kyzikos. Again, the only positive evidence for a cult associated with Hadrian’s at Kyzikos is the name of the festival Hadrianeia Olympia, which again brings us back to Zeus Olympios. It seems too great a coincidence for Kyzikos to have had a large and incomplete temple of Zeus Olympios for Hadrian to see and take up as a project even before his fateful visit to Athens.61 There are indeed intermittent occurrences of this cult in Asia Minor, but most of them originate with Hadrian himself and his identification with that deity.62 The name of the festival Olympia, which sometimes only indicates that the contest was modeled on that of Olympia, has been discussed above. One must also ask what effect a cult of Zeus would have had on Kyzikos’ neokoria. Price never questioned that Kyzikos first became neokoros for this temple. Yet neither on its inscriptions nor on its coins did Kyzikos call itself neokoros of Zeus, as Aezani would (q.v.). The coinage left the reason for neokoria unspecified, both at this point and later, when another (imperial) neokoria was added. Ephesos (q.v.), when it became officially neokoros for Artemis, often distinguished this honor from its imperial neokoriai, though not invariably. Price preferred what he believed was the testimony of Cyriacus to that of several (admittedly late) sources calling it a temple of Hadrian. But as we have seen, Cyriacus never identified a statue of ‘Jove’ in the pediment at Kyzikos. If Cyriacus did hint that the temple he described at Kyzikos could have been dedicated to Zeus, it was a guess based on an ancient reference (Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 36.22.98) to a statue of Zeus crowned by Apollo that stood in an unnamed shrine at Kyzikos; but Pliny wrote of this statue a half century before Hadrian 61 The attempt of Schulz and Winter 1990, 37 n. 46, to introduce the name of Zeus into the Aristenetos inscription was scotched by Herrmann 1992, 70. 62 Kruse 1939; Schwabl 1972, 342-344; idem 1978, 14661468.

94

part i – section i. koinon of asia

even visited Kyzikos to found the temple.63 And Cyriacus was only guessing: on his later visit, he implied that the temple was a different Kyzikene shrine, that of Persephone, known from other ancient references.64 The fact is that Cyriacus had no idea to whom this giant temple was dedicated. The ancient sources, however, that identify the temple by anything but its size (the fragment from the Codex Vaticanus, which groups it with monuments no later than Antonine; the poem in the Palatine Anthology; and Johannes Malalas) all call it the temple of Hadrian; and the church historian Sokrates affirmed that Hadrian was worshipped at Kyzikos. As Price noted, the cult had probably ended and the cult statues been despoiled by the sixth century, but we cannot assume that the Kyzikenes of that date had completely forgotten the object of a cult that was probably practised into the fourth, if not the fifth, century in the largest temple in their city. One would have to suppose late antiquity a dark age indeed, of the sort interposed between Cyriacus of Ancona and the ruins he was trying to interpret, to imagine that the Kyzikenes of that period had to read the dedication inscription on the temple to puzzle out what it was. In fact, the survival of the identity of Hadrian’s temple down to the wonder lists of the sixth century and beyond indicates that the emperor to whom a cult was dedicated was not necessarily subsumed into a cult of ‘the Augusti’ or of a god who shared the temple, but could stand independently to the end of the cult and beyond. Second Neokoria: Caracalla Though no inscription remains to record the honor, the coins indicate that Kyzikos became twice

63 Scalamonti 1996, 61-62; Barattolo 1995, 77 also correctly observed the chronological difficulty, 72 n. 122 and 108; Colin 1981, 480 on Cyriacus’ knowledge and use of Pliny. Pliny’s citation is indeed in a list of wonders, but it focuses on the golden tube or thread inset into the temple’s stones, not the temple itself. Nonetheless, it is likely that this citation led to much confusion for later wonder compilers. Kosmas of Jerusalem, in the eighth century, added it to his rather garbled list as a temple formerly of Apollo, now dedicated to the Virgin: above, n. 17 and Broderson 1992, 122. 64 Bodnar and C. Mitchell 1976, 28; B. Keil 1897 misidentified Dio’s very large temple destroyed by earthquake as the temple of Persephone; see P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works, trans. C. Behr (Leiden 1981) 2:379, 393.

neokoros under Caracalla. The city had already been honored with the emperor’s names in his father’s reign, as recorded on coins of his short-lived marriage to Plautilla (202-205).65 Coins of Kyzikos twice neokoros were issued later, during his sole rule; Caracalla’s portrait is mature, while his mother’s title is regularly transliterated as Augusta, rather than translated to Sebaste as on earlier coins of the city. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI M AURHLI ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: ARX AIL ONH%IFOR AUR ANTVNEINIA KUZIKH DI% NEOKORVN Laureate cuirassed Caracalla hands small temple to the city goddess, who holds another six-column temple; between them, an altar. a) Berlin 955/1904 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 80). COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AURH ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r., with spear, bearded. Rev: ARX AIL ONH%IFOROU AUR ANTVNEINIA KUZIKHNVN B NEOKORVN Two eight-column temples on podia, a disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA 7378. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI M AURH ANTVNINO% Laureate head of Caracalla, r. Rev: AUR ANTVNEINIANVN KUZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN ARX AIL ONH%IFOROU Two eight-column temples turned toward one another, a dot in each pediment. a) SNGParis 780 (illus. pl. 22 fig. 81) b) SNGParis 781. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AUT K] M AURHLI ANTVNIN[O%...] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: AUR ANT[VN]EI[NIANVN KU]ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Nine-column temple on podium, and round shrine of Demeter and Kore, the latter flanked by snake-entwined torches. a) Berlin 955/1904. Coins of the archon Aelius Onesiphoros make the most of the (probably recent) second neokoria. On type 4 the actual grant is metaphorically portrayed when the emperor hands a second temple to the mural-crowned city goddess, who already holds one. Caracalla was also shown sacrificing among military standards and saluting one of Kyzikos’ chief gods, Hades/Serapis.66 These types allude to the emperor’s presence in the area in 214-215 on his way to 65 66

Johnston 1983, 64 n. 9. SNGvA 1277, 7379; SNGParis 776-779.

chapter

5

the Parthian front; they do not necessarily indicate that Caracalla visited the city, but only that he gave honors to it and to its god.67 Coins of Onesiphoros’ archonship also show the two temples together, the new one portrayed as the twin of the eight-column temple of Hadrian. This does not mean that it was the same size as the temple of Hadrian, or even necessarily built within Onesiphoros’ term of office; it is never shown in any detail. The only coin that may portray it without its predecessor (type 7) shows it carelessly as nine-column beside the round shrine of Kyzikos’ patron goddesses Demeter and Kore.68 The temple is not identified, however, and could well be the temple of Hadrian instead. Multiple temple types usually show the temples for which the city was neokoros, but type 7 contradicts types 5 and 6 by showing the round shrine instead of a second peripteral temple. Was the imperial cult moved into the round shrine? It is possible, as Caracalla also granted neokoria to many cities in Asia, such as Pergamon and Smyrna, where the imperial cult was moved into the temple of another god. Less likely is that Kyzikos was given its second neokoria for the cult of Demeter and Kore, as no inscription states that Kyzikos’ neokoria was for any but the imperial cult. Either the interpretation of the coin type should be less strict, and it shows Hadrian’s temple and the round shrine simply as sources of civic pride to Kyzikos; or the round shrine was made the temporary home to the imperial cult until another temple could be built. In any case, the fact that two temples are generally shown on coins celebrating Kyzikos’ second neokoria should indicate that the new imperial cult was at least housed in a different temple from that of Hadrian. The current excavators of the temple, however, attribute any third-century elements found in its area to Caracalla’s introduction of the provincial imperial cult for Septimius Severus and Julia Domna into the temple of Hadrian itself.69 This contradicts the evidence of the coins’ chronology as well as iconography. Though some late architectural elements may have been due to repairs to the temple, many miscellaneous pieces of sculpture 67

Halfmann 1986a, 228. For Kore as patron, L. Robert 1978a, 460-477; for the Demeter-Kore shrine, see M. Price and Trell 1977, 109-115, figs. 198-202. Barattolo 1995, 65-67 interprets the peripteral temple as that of Hadrian. 69 YaylalÌ and Özkaya 1993, 542-543; 1994, 109-112; and 1995, 315. 68

– kyzikos in mysia

95

found at the temple’s east side came from lime kilns, may represent collection from other areas, and should not be used to recreate the temple’s history or sculptural program. Withdrawn? Macrinus Unfortunately, the honor of Kyzikos’ second neokoria was not to last long, nor to leave enough evidence for us to be sure of its nature. After the death of Caracalla, Kyzikos seems to have lost its second neokoria: on coins from the reigns of Macrinus and Elagabalus the city is only neokoros, with no enumeration mentioned. Though other cities of Asia, including Pergamon, Smyrna, and probably Ephesos, also appear to have lost neokoriai granted by Caracalla (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38), they would all have their titles restored by the time of Elagabalus. Kyzikos, however, was unique in not regaining its lost second neokoria on coins of Elagabalus. And it would (to its misfortune) be unique in gaining and losing the same honor yet again, this time for Severus Alexander. Coins of Kyzikos issued in Severus Alexander’s early years, those with military reverses proper to the time of his eastern campaign of 231, and coins with the portrait of Julia Mamaea still proclaim Kyzikos only neokoros. This is also true of a lost inscription which honored a governor of Thrace in that reign. INSCRIPTION 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (IGRR 1:797). From Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of Ancona. Statue base for M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus, governor of Thrace under Severus Alexander, benefactor of Kyzikos and patron of the concord between it and Perinthos. { lamprotãth mhtrÒpoliw t}w ÉAs¤aw nevkÒrow Kuzikhn«n pÒliw. . . Senecio is known to have been legatus Augusti pro praetore of Thrace under Severus Alexander.70 His term is not firmly dated, except that it cannot intersect with that of Rutilius Pudens Crispinus ca. 227.71 But it should also be noted that since inscription 6 only calls Kyzikos neokoros, Senecio’s governorship should not be dated to the very end of Severus Alexander’s reign, when the coins would call 70 71

Thomasson 1984, 172-173 no. 52. Sayar 1998, 203-204.

96

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Kyzikos twice neokoros (below). As for inscription 7 (below), a papyrus from Egypt, it is precisely dated to 230 C.E. but is unfortunately indecisive about the number of Kyzikos’ neokoriai. An eight-column Corinthian temple, probably the temple of Hadrian, was still used as a reverse type on coins that proclaimed the city neokoros during Severus Alexander’s reign. COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU [KAI M AUR %EU]HRO% ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., mature, with shield. Rev: EPI %TR MENELAOU K[UZIK]H[NVN] NEOKORVN Eightcolumn Corinthian temple on podium, disc in pediment. a) London 1919.4-17-147 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 82). COIN TYPE 9. Obv: M AUR %EOUHR ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEOKORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize crowns, over one a radiate bust of Severus Alexander, over the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGvA 1281.

Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander Coins that again name Kyzikos twice neokoros were minted when imperial contests were being celebrated, as the reverse of type 9 is all but identical with type 10, which now boasts the second neokoria. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander l., r. hand raised. Rev: KUZIKHNVN DI% NEVKORVN Agonistic table, upon it two prize crowns, over one a bust of Severus Alexander, over the other a bust of Julia Mamaea. a) SNGParis 821 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 83). Thus the city’s brief pretensions to reclaiming its second title probably fall in the emperor’s last years, as his portrait is fully mature, after his Eastern triumph in 233, as seen above, and perhaps only shortly before his death in a military revolt on the German front in 235.72 The evidence seems to retrace the previous vacillation to twice neokoros under Caracalla. But again, the enumeration here cannot be explained as

72

Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.

appearing only where space allowed. Under Severus Alexander, coins of Kyzikos neokoros go up to 38 mm. in diameter, offering plenty of room for the brief enumeration, were it warranted. On the other hand, coins as small as 21 mm. across can still fit in the word ‘twice.’ One magistrate’s name, Flavius Trophimos, appears on a coin of the city twice neokoros (BMC 264), not on those of the simple neokoria. There is also a tendency for coins of the second neokoria to change their spelling of the title, from that more common at Kyzikos (with an omicron) to the spelling standard elsewhere (with an omega).73 Withdrawn? Maximinus And again, Kyzikene history appears to have repeated itself: just as with Caracalla, the title ‘twice neokoros’ changed to a simple ‘neokoros’ after Severus Alexander’s death. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: G IOU OUHRO% MAJIMO% KAI Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN NEOKORV Eight-column temple on podium (disc in pediment, c). a) London 1919.4-17-151 b) Oxford c) Vienna 16188 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 84). One might suspect that the title granted by Severus Alexander was negated by his successor, Maximinus, or simply that the condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memory was here given its full effect.74 But this is true of none other of the neokoroi. It is difficult to tell the exact events from the coinage, as only nine neokoroi (Nikomedia, Kyzikos, Pergamon, Ephesos, Magnesia, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos and Tarsos) minted during Maximinus’ brief reign. None shows diminished neokoria except Kyzikos, but of course, only Kyzikos and Magnesia had been granted neokoria by Severus Alexander. Of these two, Magnesia’s honor was for Artemis and so was unlikely to be affected by a condemnation of the emperor’s memory, though its neokoria might have been threatened by a condemnation of his acts; but the latter can be ruled out, as Magnesia’s honors were untouched. 73 SNGCop 133, a coin of the second neokoria, appears to have been mistranscribed with an omicron in the catalogue. 74 Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who believed that the condemnation was unofficial.

chapter

5

What of later developments? Three other cities can be added that had been made neokoroi by Severus Alexander. Although they minted no coins that cited neokoria under Maximinus, they began to do so again soon after his reign, Aigeai as early as 238, Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/ 242. All three included their neokoriai for Severus Alexander in the count; so only Kyzikos did not. Therefore Kyzikos’ problem must have been unique to itself, and cannot be explained by a condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memory. If Kyzikos were using ‘neokoros’ and ‘twice neokoros’ indiscriminately, as Kaisareia in Cappadocia may have done (q.v.), we might expect a scattering of coins with the twice-neokoros title throughout the reigns of emperors after Caracalla. Instead, we find unanimity: Kyzikos is twice neokoros on late coins of Caracalla, on late coins of Severus Alexander, and nowhere else until ca. 258260 C.E. Was Kyzikos then behaving like Perinthos (q.v.), which continued to call itself just neokoros even after it had received a second neokoria? Not likely; though Perinthos used its title without enumeration, its coin types still showed two temples. But so far as is known, Kyzikos’ types showing two temples are confined to coins on which the title is given as twice neokoros. Perhaps more importantly, cities that did not count out all their neokoriai on their coins were the only neokoroi in their koina, unrivaled, when they did so. Kaisareia never had a serious rival in Cappadocia; and when Perinthos gained a Thracian rival, neokoros Philippopolis, it immediately began to call itself twice neokoros, as it properly could. Kyzikos, on the other hand, had any number of neokoroi in the koinon of Asia to envy and emulate. We should assume that it claimed as many neokoriai as it could. Why was Kyzikos unique in its ephemeral second neokoria? No explanation offers itself from the written records. Of course, the city had a long history of promising more to the imperial cult than it could fulfill. It had once been deprived of its freedom because it had failed to complete its promised heroön to Augustus. It certainly took a very long time to dedicate its temple of Hadrian, and when it did the temple may not have (ever?) been complete. As for the temple for which Kyzikos became twice neokoros, it appeared only briefly on coins, and then as a twin to the temple of Hadrian. Was a new imperial temple promised under Caracalla, but never built?

– kyzikos in mysia

97

Did the project get any further under Severus Alexander? Without more evidence, the question must remain unresolved. Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Like several other cities, Kyzikos regained its lost neokoria under the joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus. The restoration probably took place later here than at Nikomedia or Ephesos (qq.v.). Coins of Valerianus the younger as Caesar call Kyzikos only neokoros, while only a few coins of his grandfather Valerian proclaims the city twice neokoros. This evidence indicates a date of restoration after early 258, when the young Caesar died, and before the summer of 260, when the emperor was captured by the Persians.75 COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K LIKI OUAL[ER]IANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian, r. Rev: %TR AUR %V%TRATOU KUZ B NEVK Two snakes wound around torches drop fruit onto altar. a) SNGvA 7386. Though coins with Gallienus’ portrait proclaiming Kyzikos twice neokoros are common, those of his wife Salonina only document the simple neokoria, though she was the only other member of the imperial family to be coined for after 260.76 Of municipal officials, the second neokoria appears during the magistracies of Sostratos and of Apollonides, as coins with these names give either the simple title ‘neokoros’ or ‘twice neokoros.’ The other magistrates who subsequently issued coins with the title twice neokoros under Gallienus (with and without imperial portraits) were Cl. Basileus, Ae. Paulus and Loc. Severus.77 COIN TYPE 13. Obv: KORH %VTEIAR (sic) Draped bust of Kore Soteira, r. Rev: %TRA LOK %EBH[ROU] KUZIKHNVN DI% NEKO (sic) Eightcolumn temple, disc in pediment, and round shrine of Demeter and Kore. a) Vienna 16137 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 85). COIN TYPE 14. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: (%, a) LOK %EBHROU KU75

Kienast 1996, 214-216, 220-221. Ibid., 222-223. 77 Münsterberg 1985, 66-67. The SNGParis catalogue often misses the enumeration on these coins. 76

98

part i – section i. koinon of asia ZIKHNVN DI% NEOKORVN Round shrine of Demeter and Kore and eight-column temple, disc in pediment. a) London 1975.4-11-104 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer c) New York, Newell (illus. pl. 23 fig. 86).

COIN TYPE 15. Obv: KUZIKO% Head of the hero Kyzikos, r. Rev: KUZIKHNVN B NEVKORVN Two six-column? temples turned toward each other, dot in each pediment. a) BMC 199 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 87) b) SNGParis 548 (incorrect). This last return of the second neokoria prompted types similar to some issued under Caracalla, when Kyzikos first became twice neokoros. Type 15, like earlier types 5 and 6, shows the second temple as an exact copy of the great temple of Hadrian, though here the number of columns is abbreviated from eight. Types like 13 and 14, coupling a peripteral temple with the shrine of Demeter and Kore, resemble coin type 7. Again, this does not necessarily mean that the round shrine was a temple for which the city was neokoros, as such types may simply show the city’s chief monuments. If so, the peripteral shrine on types 13 and 14 is more likely to be the temple of Hadrian than the second imperial cult temple. But if the ‘new’ imperial cult was moved into the shrine of Demeter and Kore, perhaps just until its own temple could be built, the double-peripteraltemple types like 15 would be purely metaphoric. There is not enough evidence to decide, and it is unlikely that a new temple was built at this time. Despite its bad luck with imperial temples, Kyzikos came through the trials of the third century better than many other cities of its stature. A Gothic attack, probably in 258, had been forestalled by a flood of the Rhyndakos river, causing the Goths to double back and burn Nikomedia and Nikaia instead.78 Later, in 267/268, the Goths sent a raiding fleet into the Propontis, but Kyzikos held out against them.79 The city continued to mint coins that mentioned its neokoria down to the time of Claudius Gothicus (268-270), later than most of its neighbors. COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K M AUR KLAUDIO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Claudius Gothicus, r. Rev: %TRA %EPT PONTIKOU KUZIKHNVN B NEVKORVN Eight-column temple, disc in pediment. a) SNGParis 893 b) 78 79

Zosimus 1.35. Salamon 1971, 114.

SNGParis 894 c) Vienna 30574 (illus. pl. 23 fig. 88). Kyzikos remarkably remained twice neokoros, and the single temple on the coins, probably still the provincial temple of Hadrian, was a symbol of civic pride to the end of the city’s coinage. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Dittenberger 1960, SIG4 799. Reign of Gaius; title probably metaphoric, not official. See text above. 2. Mordtmann 1881, 42-43 no. 1. Prytany list, possibly Hadrianic. See text above. 3. Mordtmann 1881, 43-47 no. 2. Heading of prytany list similar to inscription 2 and dated shortly after it. 4. CIG 3663. Prytany list similar in type and date to inscriptions 2 and 3. 5. CIG 3665 (= IGRR 4:154). Ephebe list dated after the beginning of the third century. 6. Sayar 1998, no. 21 (= IGRR 1:797). From Perinthos, copied by Cyriacus of Ancona. Statue base for M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus, governor of Thrace under Severus Alexander, benefactor of Kyzikos and patron of the concord between it and Perinthos. See text above. 7. Zahrnt 1979, 217-218. Fragment of Egyptian papyrus dated to 230 C.E.; unfortunately the area where one could expect the enumeration of neokoria is obscure. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Antoninus Pius: BMC 215, 216, 218, 220; SNGCop 106, 107; SNGvA 1260, 1261; SNGParis 654-662, 664-666; Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Marcus Aurelius Caesar: BMC 222; SNGvA 1264; SNGRighetti 697; SNGParis 682-686; Berlin, Vienna, Warsaw. Marcus Aurelius Augustus: SNGCop 110, 112; SNGvA 1265; SNGParis 687-690, 695, 697, 699, 700; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Faustina the Younger: BMC 225-227; SNGCop 113-115; SNGvA 7373; SNGParis 702-713; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Lucius Verus: BMC 228, 229; SNGParis 715, 716; Berlin

chapter

5

(2 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.). Commodus Caesar: BMC 230, 231; SNGvA 1266-1268; SNGRighetti 698; SNGParis 724-729, 731-733; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Commodus Augustus: BMC 235-241, 245, 246; SNGCop 119-123; SNGvA 1270, 1271, 1273, 1274, 7375; SNGLewis 1312; SNGRighetti 699; SNGParis 734, 737, 740-742, 745-759; Berlin (19 exx.), Boston, London (11 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Septimius Severus: BMC 248; SNGCop 124; SNGRighetti 700, 701; SNGParis 760-772; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). Julia Domna: BMC 249; SNGRighetti 702; Berlin (2 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla: SNGRighetti 703; SNGBraun 962; SNGParis 774, 783?; London. Plautilla: BMC 256; SNGCop 127; SNGParis 789; Berlin, London, New York. Twice neokoros: Julia Domna: SNGCop 125; SNGParis 773; London, Oxford. Caracalla: BMC 225; SNGCop 126; SNGvA1277, 1278, 7378, 7379; SNGParis 776-782, 784-788; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Neokoros: Macrinus: BMC 259, 260; SNGCop 129; SNGvA 1279; SNGParis 791-793; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 261; SNGParis 794, 795, 797; Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (4 exx.), Vienna. Elagabalus: BMC 250-252, 254; SNGCop 130; SNGvA 1276, 1280, 7380; SNGRighetti 704; SNGBraun 961; SNGParis 798-810; Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Julia Maesa: Berlin. Severus Alexander: BMC 262, 263; SNGCop 131, 132; SNGvA 1281; SNGParis 812-820, 822, 823, 825; Berlin (7 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Julia Mamaea: BMC 265; SNGCop 134; SNGvA 7381; SNGParis 826; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Twice neokoros: Severus Alexander: BMC 264; SNGCop 133; SNGParis 821,

– kyzikos in mysia

99

824; London, Oxford (2 exx.). Neokoros: Maximinus: BMC 266, 267; SNGvA 7382; SNGParis 828, 829; Berlin (3 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 268; SNGvA 1282; SNGParis 830, 832, 833; Berlin (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna (3 exx.). Gordian III: BMC 269-271; SNGvA 1283-1285, 7383, 7384; SNGParis 834-852; Berlin (14 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (8 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Tranquillina: BMC 272; SNGCop 135, 136; SNGvA 7385; Berlin. Philip: BMC 274; SNGParis 853, 854; London, New York. Otacilia: Berlin. Philip the Younger, Caesar: SNGParis 855, 856; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna, Warsaw. Valerian: SNGCop 137; SNGvA 1286, 7387; SNGParis 857, 858, 862, 863; London, New York (3 exx.), Vienna. Gallienus: BMC 275; SNGvA 1287; SNGParis 865, 868, 871-875, 879-882, 885; Berlin (12 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York, Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Salonina: BMC 285-288; SNGCop 142, 143; SNGParis 890892; Berlin (7 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Valerianus Caesar: Berlin. Twice neokoros: Valerian: SNGvA 7386; SNGParis 860, 861. Gallienus: BMC 276-284; SNGCop 139-141; SNGvA 7388; SNGParis 866, 867, 870, 876-878, 883, 884, 886-889; Berlin (21 exx.), London (8 exx.), New York (10 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. Claudius Gothicus: BMC 289; SNGParis 893, 894; Vienna (2 exx.) Non-imperial obverse, neokoros: BMC 175-177, 180-184, 202-205, 292; SNGCop 87, 88, 91, 96, 99; SNGvA 1246, 1247, 1249, 1256, 7360, 7361, 7367; SNGLewis 1314; SNGRighetti 693, 695; SNGParis 525-548, 549, 556, 560-568, 570-578, 583, 586-587, 589, 590, 599, 600, 608, 610; Berlin (39 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (13 exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, twice neokoros: BMC 198-201, 206-209; SNGCop 92, 93, 95-97, 102; SNGvA 1248, 1250, 1251; SNGRighetti 694; SNGParis 605, 607, 609, 611, 612-614, 616-619; Berlin (12 exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (9 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.

100

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 6. Sardis in Lydia: Koinon of Asia Sardis was among the most ancient and eminent cities in the province of Asia. Despite the ravages of an earthquake not ten years before, in 26 C.E. it had been one of two finalists in the contest to build the provincial temple of Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate.1 Along with rich countryside, wide rivers, and good climate, the Sardian ambassadors boasted of their kinship with the Etruscans and a long alliance with Rome. Though Sardis lost that contest to Smyrna, its qualities did not allow it to go unrecognized for long. We shall see that definitely by the time of Lucius Verus, and very likely due to his adoptive father Antoninus Pius, Sardis became neokoros for the second time. This means that at some time after the city’s unsuccessful try in the reign of Tiberius and before its second success for Antoninus Pius, Sardis built a provincial temple for which it first received the title ‘neokoros.’ First Neokoria Unfortunately no known documents, inscriptions or coins attest Sardis’ first koinon temple. A process of elimination may reveal the emperors to whom it might have been dedicated, however. We may assume (or at least, there is no evidence to the contrary) that the policy of one temple per emperor per province continued up to Hadrian. Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius may be ruled out, as their provincial temples were elsewhere; Claudius is possible, Nero less so, as Ephesos may have been the chosen neokoros for his cult (q.v.).2 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius are highly unlikely due to the shortness and the hectic nature of their reigns: there is not likely 1 Tacitus, Annals 2.47, 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ On the earthquake, see n. 29 below. 2 There were, however, municipal temples to Augustus and to Tiberius in Sardis: Herrmann 1995. A coin of Nero that seemed to declare Sardis twice neokoros (SNGLeypold 1214) does not in fact exist: the reverse is that of a coin of Julia Domna, SNGLeypold 1220.

to have been enough time to get a vote through the koinon and send out an embassy before the emperor to be honored had fallen. Vespasian, Titus, or Domitian could possibly be available, though again subject to the prior demands of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos. Nerva is possible, but Trajan’s temple was in Pergamon. Hadrian granted several temples to Asia, however, and Sardis’ may have been yet another. One inscription from Sardis mentions a Hadrianeion, possibly in association with Sardis’ participation in the Hadrianic Panhellenion in Athens; and a Hadrianeia festival is also known, but there is no evidence as to whether either the building or the festival was of provincial status, or local to Sardis.3 A coin with the portrait of Antinoös that purported to show Sardis as neokoros provides no proof, as it has been found to be a recut or retooled coin of Delphi.4 In any case, Sardis is one of the five cities known to have had a chief priest of Asia to preside over its provincial imperial temples.5 All four of the other cities (Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Kyzikos) had received at least one provincial temple by the time of Hadrian. Therefore it is likely that Sardis did as well. There is one further piece of evidence, great but enigmatic: part of a large temple found on the northern slopes of the Sardian acropolis (illus. pl. 2 fig. 10).6 Two seasons of limited excavation revealed only the eastern corner of the structure. It probably faced southeast, on the same orientation as the still unexcavated theater and stadium of the city, to its east.7 The temple was pseudodipteral Ionic or

3 Herrmann 1993a, 213, 217-218; Buckler and Robinson 1932, nos. 13, 14. 4 In Naples; Blum 1914, 51 Sardes no. 3; A. Johnston, in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 11 n. 36. Johnston’s corpus of Sardis’ coins is forthcoming. 5 Campanile 1994a, 25-27; Rossner 1974, 119 (a chief priest of temples in Sardis, of the time of Elagabalus), 132 (Libonianus, below), and 140 (a chief priestess, of the third century). 6 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986. 7 Vann 1989, 47-55, 100.

chapter

6

Corinthian (no column capitals were found), probably octastyle with prostyle porch, and perhaps 20 x 32 m., on a scale about the same as that of the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (q.v.). Unfortunately no further excavations were done, and none of the probes included layers beneath the foundations, so the structure can only be dated on stylistic grounds. From the building technique of mortared rubble in the foundations, the temple has been plausibly dated after the time of Augustus.8 The style of the small amount of architectural ornament found is suitable to a first century date, but one cannot be precise without more extensive comparanda from Sardis itself; though Howe leaned toward a period in the second or third quarter of the first century (based on comparisons from Ephesos and Ankyra), his less precise but more assured date was ‘Augustus to Hadrian.’ The temple’s basic structure was finished: its column bases were elaborately decorated, the one partial column that has been found was fluted, and the stylobate was used long enough to have had graffiti carved on it. Fragments of monumental bronze sculpture (including the paw of a lion), some of it gilt, were found in the excavations, hinting at rich decor or dedications. But many fragments of the superstructure and decorative details from the top of the temple were left roughly claw-chiseled, not polished down to their final finish. Among these fragments is one that gives rise to the probability that this temple was provincial. It is a section of the left-hand raking cornice, including a half-finished egg-and-tongue molding and the surface of one of the pediments. 9 Though it has clamp-cuttings with lead and iron in them, indicating that it was put into place on the temple, its face was only claw-chiseled; a broken-off extrusion likely attached to pedimental relief sculpture, though it is impossible to say what sort. Most importantly, to the left of the extrusion was the word ADRAMU/THON, in letters 8 cm. high, deeply cut and carefully shaped but again only claw-chiseled and without serifs. The word is a version of the name ÉAdramÊteion, Adramyteion, a city in Mysia which was, like Sardis, the 8 Waelkens 1987, 96-97 noted that Sardis had a local tradition of mortared rubble walls, and so more readily adopted that Roman technique, especially after the earthquake of 17 C.E. and the massive rebuilding of the city under Roman supervision. 9 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 54-55, 63-65, pl. 3 fig. 3.

– sardis in lydia

101

center for a judicial district of the province Asia.10 About the only way to account for this block is that a personification of the city of Adramyteion was depicted, or was intended to be depicted, in the temple’s pediment, and about the only way to account for that is to suppose that this was a koinon temple, whose sculptural decoration included patron deities, heroes, or personifications representing major cities of the province. The close association between the thirteen centers of judicial districts in Asia and the construction of a provincial imperial temple has already been shown by the inscription of neopoioi for Gaius’ temple in Miletos (q.v.). In the case of this temple at Sardis, that association may have been immortalized in its pedimental sculpture. It is difficult, however, to find a precise parallel. There are certainly precedents for the appearance of unlabeled personifications of cities that participated in a certain cult (e.g. the frieze of the temple of Hecate at Lagina), or of named cities (the Puteoli base of cities restored by Tiberius) or of named peoples on a building associated with the imperial cult (the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias).11 There are city goddesses in pediments, but not identified by label; inscriptions in pediments tend to be votive or grave inscriptions.12 The letters on the Sardian pediment block are too large and long to be a builder’s inscription, like the one matching a personification to its base at Aphrodisias.13 In any case, the placement of cornice blocks would have been architecturally more self-evident than that of the Aphrodisias reliefs. As ‘Adramyteon’ is nominative but neuter, what sort of personification could it have been? On the Puteoli base, some personifications of cities with masculine-form names are masculine (Tmolos, Temnos), though Ephesos is represented by one of its founding Amazons; all the rest are female. Adramyteion could have been represented by the normal city goddess, or perhaps by Adramys/ 10 SEG 36 (1986) 1103; Habicht 1975, 70. See below, chapter 11, ‘Antandros.’ 11 Kuttner 1995, 69-93 with these and many other examples; though on 249 n. 52 she went beyond the evidence regarding the Sardis pseudodipteros, which she called a Sebasteion, restoring “at the corners enthroned figures facing and framing the center” on its pediment. Lagina: Webb 1996, 108-120. Puteoli base: CIL 10.1624; Mingazzini 1976 (who attempted to move its date from 30 to 81-90 C.E. mainly based on style); Vermeule 1981. Aphrodisias: Reynolds 1981, 323327; Smith 1988. 12 Hommel 1954, 52, 105-106. 13 Smith 1988, 61.

102

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Adramytes, its eponymous founder. Whatever its date and decor may have been, the temple at Sardis did not have long to flourish. A layer of dark grey ash lying directly on top of its podium and similar destruction layers to the north produced bronze coins of Hadrian, Faustina the Elder thea (‘goddess’), and Marcus Aurelius Caesar, some of the latter in mint condition.14 As Sardian coins that titled Faustina Sebaste, ‘Augusta,’ are earlier than those that title her thea, the coin finds should probably be placed after her death in 141 C.E.15 Thus the temple had to have been destroyed sometime after 140-150 C.E. It appears to have been intentionally dismantled after an accidental collapse, its parts being broken down and burnt for lime right on the podium. After that, the site was abandoned to later Roman waterworks, conceding to the slope’s natural drainage. Foss identified the pseudodipteros as the first provincial imperial temple of Sardis.16 Though that may well be correct, it is by no means the only alternative, as we shall see. Foss, probably influenced by the bounds of Howe’s preferred limits (second to third quarters of the first century) for the ornamental style of the temple, limited the object of cult to emperors up to Vespasian. If we disregard that limitation in favor of Howe’s more extended but surer dating, we end with Nerva and Hadrian, as we have seen. Foss inclined toward Vespasian due to a series of coins with tetrastyle temple reverse issued at Sardis during his reign, but there is nothing on these to indicate that this is even an imperial temple.17 Foss also guessed that since this was the first provincial temple, after its destruction the cult moved elsewhere while resources concentrated on the temple that gained the city its second neokoria, i.e. that of Artemis (below); or even that the first provincial imperial cult moved in with the second, which would have stuffed the precinct that still belonged to Artemis with three temples’ worth of cults. Having two provincial imperial cults housed in the same temple would have made rather a mockery of the 14 The identification of coin C81.82 in Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 48 n. 7 is in error: this is a coin of Sardis with portrait of Faustina the Elder, not the Younger, of the type SNGvA 3154, BMC 139. 15 Dated coins of Alexandria show the change very clearly: Geissen 1992. In other cases, the term theos/thea is often used for the living ruler: S. Price 1984a. 16 Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 63-68. 17 BMC 67-70; SNGvA 3148; Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, Greek nos. 246, 247, 251-255.

term ‘twice neokoros,’ though, especially at this early period. There is another problem with Foss’ chronology. The roughed-out state of the pediment and fragments of the decoration indicate that the temple still lacked only some few final touches, mainly on the upper levels of the building, before it was finished. These were moldings, surfaces, and inscriptions, basic tasks of journeymen carvers, not master sculptors, and though placed high, they were important and in full view.18 If this were a temple to Vespasian, it would have stood for seventy or eighty years in this state, its inscriptions blurry, its moldings rough, when only a minimum of work could have brought it to completion. But if the pseudodipteros was only built a short time (perhaps a decade or two) before its destruction, the architectural sculptors of Sardis would not be as dilatory as it previously seemed, though they might stand out as being quite conservative in their style. If the preponderance of the evidence should tip the scales toward Sardian conservatism, the pseudodipteros might represent yet another provincial temple of Hadrian; if toward a building project left long unperfected, then possibly a cult for Claudius, for whom no Asian temple has yet been found. Any decision must await further evidence. There is yet another (though more remote) possibility for the pseudodipteros. As we shall see, Sardis’ second provincial imperial cult, for Antoninus Pius, was moved into the old temple of Artemis. This is the first known instance in which a provincial imperial cult was set up in a previously existing structure rather than a new one. Such a measure cannot necessarily be explained by lack of funds: Sardis, like most of the cities of Asia that would have contributed to a provincial temple, was prosperous in Antonine times.19 It may be accounted for, however, if a new temple just on the point of completion had been demolished by an earthquake and/or landslide. When this happened at Kyzikos the temple was rebuilt on the same spot. The pseudodipteros at Sardis, however, was abandoned, perhaps because the site had become too uncertain to build upon. It is just possible, then, that the pseudodipteros was built as Sardis’ second provincial temple, not its first, 18 See Rockwell 1990. Though the ‘Sebasteion’ sculpture stood with many roughed-out details, its inscriptions were carefully finished. 19 Hanfmann 1983, 145.

chapter

6

early in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but was destroyed by some natural disaster only about a decade later. The mid-second century was a bad time for earthquakes in Asia Minor, and according to Cassius Dio 70.4, many cities were shaken in Antoninus’ reign.20 Faced with the daunting necessity of starting from scratch, a decision may have been made to move the provincial imperial cult into an older temple instead. The tumbled remains of the new temple could be reused elsewhere or burned for lime on the spot; the destruction layers of the pseudodipteros are indeed the result of such a limeburning process. Again, this would explain why the pseudodipteros’ upper architectural ornament was only preliminarily roughed out, never finished, though it would make the architectural sculptors of Sardis even more stylistically conservative than they had appeared before. Second Neokoria: Antoninus Pius We reach more certainty once Sardis became twice neokoros for a cult of Antoninus Pius. An inscription records that a certain L. Julius Libonianus was chief priest of Asia ‘of the Sardian temples in Lydia,’ i.e. at a time when Sardis had more than one such temple; this same Libonianus served as strategos in the reign of Trajan, and his career cannot have lasted much more than twenty-five or thirty years.21 A hint at significant honors granted to Sardis early in Antoninus Pius’ reign is a dedication to that emperor which, though dated after his death in 161 (by the term ‘hero’), gives his titulature as it was in 139 at the start of his rule.22 Yet another dedication names him Olympios, a continuation of the epithet best known for his adoptive father Hadrian.23 This may date the inscription soon after Hadrian’s death and Antoninus’ succession, and may also hint at his divine role at Sardis (below). Certainly Sardis was twice neokoros, and probably had been for some time, by the reign of Antoninus’ sons and successors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The rather simple declaration ‘twice neokoros’ on a statue base 20 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 236-237 no. 116, probably referring to several separate incidents. 21 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 47; Hanfmann 1983, 144; Campanile 1994a, 101-102 no. 99. 22 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 58. 23 Sardis inventory no. IN 70.4; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 161.

– sardis in lydia

103

of Lucius Verus perhaps dates to his return from his eastern campaign in 166: INSCRIPTION 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss 1986, 169-170 no. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093).24 { b' nevkÒrow Sardian«n pÒliw... This means that one cannot attribute Sardis’ second neokoria to Septimius Severus, as has recently been done.25 As is mentioned above, it is just possible that the provincial cult of Antoninus Pius was originally centered in the pseudodipteros at Sardis but had to be moved when that temple was destroyed sometime after 140-150. Whether or not that was so, the cult ended up in a temple that was and is one of Sardis’ landmarks: the temple of Artemis, where in 1882 George Dennis, the British Consul at Smyrna, found among the ruins the head of a colossal statue of Faustina the Elder, Antoninus’ wife. In later and more formal excavations at the temple, H. Butler found a companion piece, the lower part of the colossal head of Antoninus himself.26 More recent excavations have shown the temple to have been well populated with colossal sculpture, and pieces of at least six statues in all (three male, three female) have been found. The history of the temple of Artemis before the arrival of the imperial cult is controversial, as are the adaptations that were to accommodate that cult thereafter.27 Designed as a huge (45.51 m. x 97.94 m.) eight-by-twenty-column Ionic structure, aspiring toward the lines of the great temples at Ephesos or Didyma, it was probably begun in the third century B.C.E. Like other temples to Artemis, at Ephesos and Magnesia, it opened to the west. The earliest design may have been for a dipteral temple, with two rows of columns ranged around the cella, but if so, the plan was changed before the foundations for the colonnade could be built. Instead, it was 24 See J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques 75 (1962) 200 no. 290; Herrmann 1993b, 251. 25 Herz 1998, 134 n. 3. 26 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79 and 251, the latter now in the British Museum. 27 F. Yegül is to publish an analysis of the temple; see Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675; also Howe 1983 and 1986. Early description: Butler 1925. For Hanfmann’s views vs. those of Gruben 1961: Hanfmann 1983, 119-121 (by W. Mierse). Hoepfner 1990a, 3-7 proposed moving columns for a prostyle east porch, but this has been disproved by the current excavations.

104

part i – section i. koinon of asia

to be treated as a pseudodipteros, with an interior aisle instead of a double colonnade. Some time after the long, west-facing cella was completed, it was lengthened, divided in half by a cross wall, and a door was opened through its eastern wall into the opisthodomos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9). This produced two back-to-back cellas, one facing west, the other east. The original statue base, with two hoards of third-century B.C.E. coins still wedged into the stones of its foundation, now lay in the eastward-facing cella, while a new base of similar size was constructed for the shortened western cella.28 Ironically, the alteration was aided by the fact that the building had been shattered by the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E., and reconstruction was proceeding slowly, if at all.29 New excavations indicate that many of the columns on the flanks of the temple were never erected.30 Hanfmann held that the division of the cella was done at the end of the third century B.C.E. for the introduction of a cult of Zeus. He based this on an inscription that refers to the precinct of Artemis and Zeus Polieus, and on a colossal bearded head in whose battered features he discerned a likeness to the Seleucid pretender Achaeus, who held Sardis from 220 to 214 B.C.E.31 Thus the male god would have a proper east-facing cella, while Artemis held the west-facing one as before. Howe saw the divided cella as a Roman innovation, however. He discerned no mid-Hellenistic architectural phase, but held that the cella was only divided in the second century C.E. to accommodate the provincial imperial cult. Limemortared rubble typical of the Roman period was indeed found under the new door to the eastern cella, in the new west statue base, and reinforcing the dividing wall between the two cellas, as well as in the foundations of the outer colonnade. Greenewalt has noted that the back-to-back cellas recall the temple of Venus and Rome in Rome, in whose design Hadrian was said to have played a decisive role, but which may have only been completed as late as the reign of Antoninus Pius.32 28

On the hoards, LeRider 1991. Tacitus, Annals 2.47; Hanfmann 1983, 141-142; Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 180-185 no. 79. 30 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 673-675. 31 Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8, of 2 B.C.E.; Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 102. 32 C. Greenewalt, Jr., personal communication of April 3, 2001; I am most grateful for his help and information regarding these and other Sardian matters. For the temple in Rome, 29

As has already been mentioned, Faustina the Elder’s colossal presence in the temple of Artemis is assured, and Antoninus Pius’ head has been plausibly identified. R. Smith has now reidentified a longknown colossal head, which Hanfmann thought was Zeus in the guise of the Seleucid pretender Achaeus (above), as Antoninus’ son and successor Marcus Aurelius, and part of another colossal head found at the temple as Marcus Aurelius’ son Commodus.33 In addition, parts of two female colossi beside the elder Faustina have been found. All colossi were acrolithic, with some parts executed in materials other than stone, probably erected on a wooden framework.34 Fragments from the statue of Antoninus Pius indicate that he (or another of the male colossi) was about four times life size, nude, and seated.35 His head, turned strongly to his left, was diademed with a plain fillet, and he likely held a sceptre or spear in his left hand (illus. pl. 11 figs. 32, 33, pl. 17 fig. 45). The pose and attributes are those of Zeus, which recalls the fact already mentioned, that Antoninus was called by the epithet Olympios at Sardis. The portrait was carved with a lavish use of the running drill to produce rich baroque contrasts of light and dark in the curls of the moustache and beard. As on the colossal portrait of Titus from Ephesos (q.v.), the mouth is slightly open, conveying the ideal of an inspired ruler; that and the turn of head produced a dynamic effect.36 The head of Antoninus does not fit into any known type, but shares features of both early (Croce Greca 595) and late portraits (Vatican, Sala dei Busti 284) of the emperor.37 One notable idiosyncracy is the fan-shaped tuft of hair isolated between lower lip and line of beard. The mien of Faustina the Elder is more composed, as was usual for a lady and an empress (illus. pl. 12 figs. 34, 35). Her head is turned slightly to her right, her lips just barely parted. But where other portraits show Faustina’s eyes as unremarkably alBoatwright 1987, 119-133; Gros 1996-2001, 1:179-180, cites earlier examples of such cellas. 33 Greenewalt and Rautman 2000, 675-676. 34 For the acrolithic technique, see chapter 39 of part II on temples and cult statues. 35 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, nos. 79-87, esp. 79, 81, 82 and 87. The description of no. 79 seems in error, as the illustrations show that the neck and head turn to the viewer’s right, not the figure’s. 36 Zanker 1983, 21-22 saw these traits as typical to Asia Minor, with roots in Hellenistic ruler portraits. 37 Wegner 1939, 15-25, 125-153.

chapter

6

mond shaped, the colossus’ eyes are exaggerated and deepset, with intense shadows under the brows, a sculptural effect designed to dramatize the statue’s gaze, so far above the viewer in the darkened cella. Seen face-to-face, the eyes seem preternaturally wide and blank. The hair is carved into loose, rippling waves, once again with copious use of the drill. Like all acrolithic heads, this one was hollowed out to reduce the weight, with dowel holes left for attaching other parts (illus. pl. 13 no. 36). Perhaps the back of the head was covered with a veil of painted, gilt, or metal-sheathed wood. The veil is not only characteristic of Faustina’s posthumous coinage, but as an attribute of Hera would make her the perfect pairing for her husband posed as Zeus.38 Her statue’s prototype and date are slightly more secure than those of the Antoninus. Despite the peculiarities and distortion engendered by her colossal size and her function as a deity, the Faustina has been closely allied to a type (Imperatori 36) classified by Wegner as standard in Rome around 138-139.39 She stood between three and three-and-a-half times lifesize, thus on a slightly smaller scale than the Antoninus Pius. This may have been a way of denoting her position as subsidiary to the emperor’s; on the other hand, if they were posed as a pair and he was seated and she standing, her smaller scale would have made the difference in their heights less obvious. Smith’s confirmation that the colossal head once identified as Zeus was actually Marcus Aurelius adds to the consistency of an Antonine family group (illus. pl. 14 figs. 38, 39). Hanfmann dated the work to Hellenistic times because of the preponderance of chisel-work over drillwork in its sculptural treatment, but it is possible that the showier and higher-relief passages of drillwork in the moustache and beard have been battered off; the head is badly damaged, and looks as if it was defaced by deliberate hammering.40 From what is preserved, the mouth was open and breathing, shadowed by a wide, full moustache. The beard started just below the gently rounded but narrow cheekbones, and there is a sensuous contrast between the skin’s high polish and the feathered opacity of the edging locks of beard. Three isolated locks come down in a triangle from the lower lip. The beard itself was full and wide, rounded at its 38 Mikocki 1995, 62. For possible models, see chapter 39 of part II on temples and cult statues. 39 Wegner 1939, pls. 10, 13B; pls. 4, 6B; 26-32, 153-166. 40 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 102.

– sardis in lydia

105

meeting with the neck. As with the Antoninus, the head was about four times life size, and turned to its left. The back of the head preserves several of the dowel holes that keyed the great weight of the head into the armature of the acrolithic statue (illus. pl. 13 fig. 37). Other fragments, including more pieces of a head and a hand curved as if to hold a sceptre, have been tentatively assigned to this statue.41 But a problem comes with Smith’s identification of a new fragment as Marcus Aurelius’ son and successor Commodus. The implication would be that he (and likely his wife, Crispina) were added as a third generation of colossi, to stand with his father and (adoptive) grandfather. Commodus, however, was murdered at the end of 192 C.E., and his memory condemned.42 Though his name was rehabilitated and Septimius Severus deified him as his brother in 195, one wonders what would have happened to his colossal statue in the intervening time. It is possible that it simply stood there, waiting for a decision to be made; or discredited portraits could be stored up in ‘recycling centers’ to be recarved, meaning that this one could have been rescued from such a marble yard and reinstalled after Commodus’ consecration.43 As for Crispina, she had been accused of adultery, exiled to Capri, and then killed in 192; her memory was condemned, with no rehabilitation. The new fragment consists of the lower part of a bearded face and powerful neck (illus. pl. 15 fig. 40). The acrolithic treatment is the same as that of the other male heads, as is the scale, though the regularity of the neckline hints that this statue was clothed, probably cuirassed. The mouth is open, with the teeth visible. The moustache is sketchy and light, only gently overshadowing the upper lip, which is noticeably fleshy and full. The beard grows in baroque twisted locks from just below the cheekbones, with strong accents of drillwork among curls that are lightly windswept to the figure’s left. The chin is marked by two swirling double-ended locks. The line of the mouth and the outgrowth of the beard from between the corners of the lips and down to the chin forms a rectangle, in the center of which is an isolated tuft of three locks of hair, which flare out from under the lower lip. 41

Ibid., nos. 103-105. Kienast 1996, 147-151. 43 Kinney 1997, 134-135; Varner 1993, 295-341 on the condemnations of Commodus and Crispina elsewhere. 42

106

part i – section i. koinon of asia

This idiosyncratic portrait does not correspond exactly with any one portrait type of any Antonine or Severan emperor. Still, the colossus of Antoninus Pius shows that idiosyncratic likenesses conforming to no exact type should be no surprise here. The physiognomy is quite dissimilar to Marcus Aurelius’ mature portraits, in which an abundant moustache (like that of his reidentified Sardian colossus) always covers the upper lip.44 The same is true for Septimius Severus, though the locks of the beard and the squareness of the patch of skin below the mouth recall several of his portraits.45 Commodus’ lips are thinner than those of the fragment in question, especially the upper one, and his moustache is more luxuriant. The likeliest subject for the new Sardis colossus is Lucius Verus. His portraits show the individual traits of full lips, a wispy moustache, and a full curling beard that often falls into separate locks, sometimes with an isolated tuft of hair above it. The patch of skin between lower lip and beard on most of Verus’ portraits, however, is not generally so rectangular as on the Sardis fragment, but more ovoid. Still, a portrait head from Athens (National Museum 3740) is closely comparable to the Sardis head.46 But the best argument for this being Lucius Verus is that the absence of a portrait of him in a group that included his co-emperor and adoptive brother Marcus Aurelius would be almost inexplicable, especially at the time of the Parthian war, when he himself often visited the province Asia. Two further colossal acrolithic heads of females were found at the Artemis temple. One has been variously identified as Artemis, as Faustina the Younger (wife of Marcus Aurelius), or as Lucilla (wife of Lucius Verus).47 The front of this head (illus. pls. 15-16 figs. 41-43) is well preserved except for a broken-off nose, and its baroque drilled style is entirely consistent with the Antonine date of the other colossi, though it is slightly smaller in scale (the head is .80 m. tall, where the elder Faustina’s head is .91 m. from chin to crown). The woman’s face is broad and square, with the plump cheeks of youth. As on the colossus of Faustina the Elder, the eyes are unnaturally wide, but here the brows are arched 44

Wegner 1939, 33-47, 166-210 (Marcus Aurelius), 66-73, 252-274 (Commodus). 45 McCann 1968; perhaps the portrait closest to the Sardis representation is Dresden Kunstsammlung (Albertinus) 393. 46 Wegner 1939, pl. 45; 56-65, 226-249. 47 Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 252.

until they are almost semicircular. The mouth is small and open, and probably had cupid’s-bow lips. Unfortunately the back of the head does not survive, and with it went the details of hairstyle that are such indicators for the Antonine empresses. Still, what is left shows a simple central parting that breaks into wind-tossed waves, seemingly blown to her left. Though it is possible that this head represents a goddess rather than a human, the clean separation of the face indicates that it was an acrolith, probably attached to a veiled head in another material; such a depiction would be very unusual for the Artemis suggested by Hanfmann, though it would suit a Hera, a Demeter, or an empress as one of the goddesses, as it did Faustina the Elder (above). It is more likely to be a portrait of a young girl with not very individualized features. The head resembles neither Faustina the Younger nor Crispina, both of whom had thinner, more oval faces; Faustina’s hair generally fell in crisp scallops to frame her face, while Crispina’s browline was more ogival.48 The resemblance is closest to Lucilla, daughter of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, who married her father’s co-emperor and adopted brother Lucius Verus when she was still in her early teens. A lifesized portrait in Izmir is closest to the Sardis head: it shows a similar broad flat face with full cheeks, though the eyes are more almond shaped and the style flatter and less sculptural.49 The Sardis head’s drilled and wind-tossed hair, its wider eyes, emphasized by deepened lids, and its parted lips are probably due to its colossal size and its aim of portraying an apotheosized ruler. The main group of Lucilla’s portraits probably dates between the time of her marriage to Lucius Verus, ca. 163 or 164, and the time of his death in early 169; when paired with him, she is sometimes shown wearing a diadem, or with a veil, as Ceres. But Lucilla was implicated in a plot against her brother Commodus shortly after his accession, probably in 181. She was exiled to Capri and killed, and there are signs that some of her portraits underwent defacement, although no true condemnation of her memory is documented.50 48 Wegner 1939, 48-55, 210-225 (Faustina the Younger), 74-78, 274-276 (Crispina). 49 Von Heintze 1982, no. 5. See also Wegner 1939, pls. 47, 64; 74-78, 249-252 (Dresden and coin portraits, of same subgroup); and Fittschen and Zanker 1983, 24-25 no. 24 pl. 33 (Conservatori, Braccio Nuovo inv. 2766). 50 Pace Varner 1993, 317-319, 322; Kienast 1996, 145-146.

chapter

6

As for the other female head, there is little left of it but a fragment of a wide-arched eye, nose, and cheek, consistent in style with all the others (illus. pl. 17 fig. 44).51 If one of the colossi was Marcus Aurelius, this may have been his empress, Faustina the Younger. It is likely, then, that the colossi from the temple of Artemis at Sardis represented Antonine rulers and their consorts. The emperor Antoninus Pius and his wife, Faustina the Elder, were almost certainly present. Antoninus’ adoptive son and successor Marcus Aurelius, and his wife, Antoninus’ and Faustina’s daughter Faustina the Younger, were likely present. The third imperial couple were probably Lucius Verus and his wife Lucilla, as Marcus Aurelius raised Verus to be his full partner and co-ruler. Though none of the statues is strictly datable, it is most likely that Antoninus and Faustina the Elder were the original cult pair. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger were added at a time when he was fully mature and well bearded, either as designated successor or after succeeding Pius. A joint succession was unexpected, so Lucius Verus could have only been introduced after Pius’ death, and Lucilla after their marriage. Each of the male heads has an isolated tuft of hair under the lip which, though differing in form, may be a grace note typical of an eastern, perhaps Sardian, sculptural workshop. Though no scientific testing has yet been done, all the colossal marbles are consistent with the products of local quarries. It is not certain how these statues were arranged. They show slight differences in scale, with males largest, the senior female (Faustina the Elder) slightly smaller, and junior females (e.g., the portrait here identified as Lucilla) smaller still. Though it is most likely that they stood as pairs of consorts, it is not impossible that the males took one area of the temple, perhaps the eastern half, while the females stood with Artemis in the west. No matter how large the temple, six colossal statues would be difficult to place. The cella was 18.35 m. wide, and in its divided form, each side had a statue base of approximately six m. square wedged between its central columns. This base could have supported one colossus, or a pair if one were standing; the senior pair, Antoninus Pius and the elder

51

Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, no. 88.

– sardis in lydia

107

Faustina, may have stood in the east-facing cella.52 It is extremely unlikely, however, that any imperial image displaced Artemis from the western cella. Sardian Artemis’ sanctuary had received the coveted title asylos, confirmed by Julius Caesar himself shortly before his death.53 The city would not have forgone this honor to rededicate the temple entirely. Still, imperial colossi could have been placed elsewhere than on the cella bases. The head attributed here to Lucius Verus shows marks of water that flowed down its neck when it still stood upright, indicating that it may have stood in a semi-exposed area, perhaps in one of the temple’s porches; in fact, it was found in a late Roman pit in the eastern porch. Hanfmann noted that the colossi had varying fates: Faustina and Antoninus Pius apparently stayed in the temple until their wooden parts fell to pieces, while the head here identified as Marcus Aurelius was badly battered, and a piece of it ended up built into a church foundation.54 It is certainly possible that one or more of the heads could have been exposed to the elements in this period of dereliction. Statue groups of the Antonine family were not uncommon.55 Also, more is becoming known about the grouping of freestanding imperial statues, especially in Sebasteia and Kaisareia.56 But the Sardis group is a special case. All are colossi, and all are in or around a temple whose purpose was the provincial imperial cult; and if the identifications proposed above are correct, all the individuals portrayed were reigning emperors and their consorts. Other Antonine groups often include children as well as rulers, while municipal temples might have been more idiosyncratic than provincial ones. The comparanda are discussed more fully in part II, in the summary chapter 39 on temples and statues, but a few may be mentioned here. Strongest among the parallel cases are those of the other neokoroi. At Ephesos, Titus’ colossal statue stood in a 52 For such a composition, see the relief of the Severan arch at Leptis Magna (below, n. 57). 53 Herrmann 1989b, 127-158; Rigsby 1996, 433-437. 54 Hanfmann 1983, 193. 55 For several examples, Bol 1984, 31-45, 88-89. Also Moretti 1968 (IGUrbRom) fasc. 1 no. 25, a Delphian dedication at Rome. An inscribed base from Patara in Lycia (IGRR 3:665) places Marcus Aurelius in the center, with his wife Faustina on the left (at his right hand) and Lucius Verus on the right. 56 Pekáry 1985, 92-96, 104-106; Inan 1993; Rose 1997a, 147-149 with bibliography.

108

part i – section i. koinon of asia

temple of (probably) Vespasian, while at Pergamon, Hadrian’s colossus stood near or with the temple’s original inhabitants, Zeus Philios and Trajan. Among municipal imperial temples, acrolithic statues of Augustus and Rome held the dual cellae of their temple in Leptis Magna, while Tiberius and Livia were enthroned elsewhere, perhaps in the porch. At the temple of the Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul, the cella was probably held by the emperor under whom it was dedicated, Severus Alexander, perhaps accompanied by his mother Julia Mamaea; acrolithic statues of his forebears, Septimius Severus and Julia Domna, could have stood in the great niches at the back of the precinct. The tiny Sebasteion at Boubon showed that Septimius Severus could be imported into an Antonine family group, which becomes an important precedent if the Sardis colossus here identified as Lucius Verus should prove to be Septimius Severus instead. Another trend at Boubon was to place an empress at her husband’s right hand. If that was true at Sardis, however, the pairs of consorts would be portrayed as looking away from one another, which is not what Julia Domna and Septimius Severus do on the Severan arch at Leptis Magna.57 Posed as Juno and Jupiter of the Capitoline triad, she stands gesturing toward him, while his throne is canted toward her. A Fortuna figure and a peacock were added on Julia’s side to echo the standing Minerva and owl beyond Severus, thus bracketing and emphasizing the imperial couple rather than the triad. The pattern of seated male/standing female was not unusual: enthroned statues of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus were found with a diademed statue of Faustina the Younger and a veiled statue of Lucilla in the theater at Bulla Regia.58 Unfortunately, there is too little evidence to tell how the Sardis colossi were arranged around the temple of Artemis. Perhaps the most logical arrangement is based on pairs of consorts. Antoninus Pius and Faustina the Elder, as the senior pair, would have taken the main statue base in the eastern cella, he enthroned, she standing, possibly at his left hand (on the right), and were probably installed during his reign and lifetime. The statues of his successors and their consorts would have been added later, 57

Bartoccini 1931, 83-85 fig. 48. Von Heintze 1982, 171 no. 9; similar dynastic groups came from the theater in Leptis Magna and the temple at Sabratha, 174. 58

perhaps as a group rather than piecemeal; the earliest possible date for this addition would be 163 or 164 C.E., after the marriage of Lucius Verus and Lucilla. This took place not so far away, at Ephesos, and the ceremonies connected with the wedding and the emperor’s progress among the cities of western Asia Minor toward his Parthian war may have been the impetus behind the addition of the new colossi.59 But where they stood is uncertain, as no other pedestals have been found. If placed one by one, the four statues could have been set among the columns on either side of the eastern cella, before their enthroned parents. If they stood as two pairs of consorts, they would have fit better in the eastern porch, in the open space on either side of the entry stairs. In either case, it is likely that they remained, despite the opprobrium into which Lucilla fell, until paganism was replaced by Christianity at Sardis. Though Foss has stated that the new, imperial incarnation of the Artemis temple is “evidently” recognizable on coins, the case is slightly more complex.60 The coins in question, issued by Claudius Fronto as Asiarch and strategos, show on the obverse Faustina the Elder thea and on the reverse a hexastyle temple with a standing male figure (in a short costume and holding a sceptre) inside. The clearest examples, however, show that the hexastyle temple is of the Corinthian order, while the temple of Artemis at Sardis was Ionic.61 So if the coin type represents any provincial imperial cult temple in Sardis, it should be the first one, not be that of Antoninus Pius and Artemis. Following this chain of remote possibilities, if the pseudodipteros were the first provincial imperial temple of Sardis, a coin commemorating it would be found in the debris of its destruction. The coincidence would be pleasantly ironic, though the multitude of other possibilities make its likelihood remote. Moreover, the figure in the temple, unlike Antoninus Pius, is beardless, and may in fact depict some god who was generally represented in a short tunic. That costume, which has been taken to repre59

Lehnen 1997, 260; Halfmann 1986a, 210-212. Karwiese 1990 seems to be based on an argument from silence and a series of misreadings. 60 In Ratté, Howe, and Foss 1986, 66 n. 98; also Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12 no. 289; S. Price 1984b, 260. 61 BMC 139; SNGvA 3154; Sardis C81.82 (found in the destruction layer of the pseudodipteros, above); Paris (Babelon 1898, 5254).

chapter

6

sent an emperor’s military costume, is probably different from that of the imperial image from Sardis’ temple of Artemis, where, as has been discussed, Antoninus was probably enthroned and caparisoned as Zeus. On the other hand, numismatic convention often showed the emperor in cuirass, because he was more recognizable that way. Could the figure in the temple be the (clean-shaven) emperor for whom Sardis was first neokoros? A more distinct possibility is that the coins show a temple of Dionysos, whose origins were thought to be Lydian, and whose cult is well documented at Sardis.62 A similar temple, little clearer except for a tall leaflike attribute (a thyrsos?) in the central figure’s right hand, appears on a coin of the koinon of thirteen Ionian cities, of which Sardis was not a member.63 This type was issued by the same man who issued the Sardis coins, the Asiarch Claudius Fronto, but here he gave his title as chief priest of the Ionian koinon, whereas on the Sardis coin he stood in the office of strategos of that city. Though he used the title ‘Asiarch’ on both issues, this does not necessarily mean that he issued these coins in that capacity, or that the office had anything to do with the subject of the coins’ reverses.64 But the cult of the wine god was a major theme of the series of Ionian coins underwritten by Fronto.65 On balance of evidence, then, the temple portrayed on Fronto’s issues at Sardis is more likely to be that of Dionysos than that of Antoninus Pius and Artemis. So far as is known, the temples that made Sardis twice neokoros only appear on the multiple-temple coins so dear to neokoroi cities. Sardis began to issue such types about as soon as it began to include ‘twice 62

Hanfmann 1983, 93-94, 118, 133, 155 with particular note of the coins of Fronto showing Hermes and Dionysos. The temple is tentatively identified as Dionysos’ by M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 380, though their catalogue (268 n. 486) continued to call it an imperial temple. 63 SNGvA 7814. 64 Campanile 1994a, 80 no. 67. 65 Engelmann 1972, not a very acute analysis; 188 n. 4 states that the dies of SNGvA 3154 (the Sardis coin) and SNGvA 7814 (the Ionian league coin) are “almost identical,” a meaningless term even if direct comparison between the photographs did not show great differences in legends and proportions between both pairs of dies, though the reverses may show the same temple. Engelmann is followed by Lindner 1994, 144-149, and by Kampmann 1997, who would attribute the connection between Sardis and the Ionian cities to a simultaneous celebration of the koinon games of Asia for the dedication of Sardis’ second provincial temple and a festival for the thirteen Ionian cities, specifically between 141 and 145 C.E. See also Kampmann 1998, 379-380.

– sardis in lydia

109

neokoros’ on its coins, early in the reign of Septimius Severus (when Albinus was still Caesar, perhaps 193195).66 The type remained popular throughout the Severan period. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPTIMI %EOUHRO% PERTINAJ Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI G I KRI%POU ARX %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples, a disc in each pediment, turned toward one another; a leafy wreath over one, a plain one over the other. a) SNGvA 3155 b) Paris 1248 c) Ireland 2000, no. 1714. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI L %EPTI %EOUHRO% PER Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: EPI %TR[A K]OR OUETTHNIANOU A%IARX D %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% A%IA% Two sixcolumn temples, a disc in each pediment, turned toward one another; a leafy wreath over one, a plain one over the other. a) Paris 1248A (illus. pl. 24 fig. 89). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% K[...] Draped cuirassed bust of Geta as Caesar r., boyish. Rev: EP %TRA KOR OUETTHNIANOU [...] %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN MHTROPOLEV% A%IA% Two six-column temples turned toward one another, a wreath over each. a) SNGvA 3162. As usual, the buildings are assimilated to each other to convey the concept ‘temples for which the city is neokoros,’ though architecturally they may have looked quite different and been far separated from each other. The only distinction is in the (agonistic?) wreaths, one smooth, one leafy, that are shown over the temples. This may indicate that contests in honor of the two temples were of different types: for example, a wreath of laurel might symbolize a Pythian festival, one of olive an Olympian. Also associated with the two provincial imperial temples is the enigmatic draped figure of a goddess, the Lydian Kore.67 She is not there as an object of koinon cult but as Sardis’ patron deity. Artemis Ephesia had appeared in the same way on coins of Ephesos (q.v.) as early as the reign of Antoninus Pius.

66

Kienast 1996, 160-161. Identified by a scene of Kore’s abduction by Hades on a statue of Lydian Kore in Padua: Fleischer 1999, 606; for other evidence, idem 1973, 187-201; 1984c. 67

110

part i – section i. koinon of asia

At Sardis, Kore was shown between the two temples, either alone or in her temple. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IOULIA %EBA%TH Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: EPI G I KRI%POU AR %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples, a leafy wreath over one, a plain one over the other, turned toward one another; between them Lydian Kore. a) Paris 1251 b) Vienna 19580. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %E ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI AN ROUFOU ARX(ON, d) A TO G %ARDIANVN DI% (B, cde) NEVKORVN Three temples, side ones six-column with emperor within each (four-column in three-quarter view, no figure, cde; a wreath over each, abe), center one four-column with arched entablature, Lydian Kore within. a) H. W. Bell 1916, 300 b) Oxford (illus. pl. 24 fig. 90) c) Paris 1268 d) Paris 1269 e) SNGCop 532. These coins, and coin type 6, below, provide evidence against the theory that the Lydian Kore was identical to Artemis, and thus was worshipped in the temple of Artemis at Sardis.68 As the temple of Artemis was also the second temple of Sardis for the provincial imperial cult, that of Antoninus Pius, it must be one of the two ordinary imperial temples shown on the coin. Yet the temple of Kore is shown as distinct from it. Nor is it likely that the temple of Kore and the imperial temple represent two ‘aspects’ of the same temple. In other cases where an emperor moved into a god’s temple, for example Caracalla at Pergamon and at Smyrna, or Elagabalus at Nikomedia, only a single temple is shown, never two. The fact that Kore stood as patron and symbol of the city on some of its coins does not necessarily mean that she and Artemis were one and the same. Unlike Ephesos with its Artemis, Sardian loyalty seems to have swayed among a number of divine patrons. For example, when Hellenistic kings had wished to inscribe their letters in the preeminent temples of Asia Minor, they chose the Metroön (probably the temple of Kybele) at Sardis, not the Artemis temple.69 And when the city chose a patron divinity to represent it on concord coins, Zeus Lydios occasionally took Kore’s place in that role.70 68 Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 7-10, ultimately an argument from silence; see Hanfmann 1983, 129-135. 69 Gauthier 1989, 54-58; Knoepfler 1993; Roller 1999, 196.

In the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta, Septimius Severus’ successors, Sardis began to use more magniloquent titulature, including mention of the Senate’s role in according neokoria and the fact that Sardis was twice neokoros of the Augusti. These details are documented by the building inscription of the ‘marble court,’ the magnificent central room of the bath/gymnasium complex at Sardis: INSCRIPTION 2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (Herrmann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). { mhtrÒpoliw t}w ÉAs¤aw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Sebast«n katå tå dÒgmata t}w |erçw sugklÆtou f¤lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow [ÑRvma¤vn] ka‹ o¸ke›a t«n kur¤vn {m«n aÈtok[ratÒr]vn Sardian«n pÒ[l]iw. . . Other major cities, such as Ephesos and Smyrna (qq.v.), also began to proclaim that their neokoriai were according to decisions of the Senate at this time.71 It is possible that this practice started after Ephesos obtained two neokoriai at once, a deed previously unprecedented; the Senate’s decrees seem to be cited to affirm that the titles are official. Sardis, however, did not gain any new neokoriai at this time. Third neokoria: Elagabalus Sardis had already been issuing coins for Elagabalus for some time before it became three times neokoros. The coins issued under the archon Claudianus still call the city twice neokoros, while those of Hermophilos include the third neokoria for the cult of the emperor. Coins of Hermophilos issued for Severus Alexander as Caesar would date his office, and the grant of the third neokoria, to include June 221 or shortly thereafter.72 Sardis issued medallionsized bronze coins to celebrate its new honor: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: %ARDIANVN TRI% NEVKORVN EP ERMOFILOU AR A TO B Four temples; below, two six-column temples turned toward one another; above, one six-column temple with emperor within and a four-column temple with arched entablature, Lydian Kore within. a) BMC 171 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 91). 70 BMC 214; Pera 1984, 67unverified; her results are vitiated by an unwary use of old catalogues. For a subtle investigation on the pecking order of deities, see M. Nollé and J. Nollé 1994, 248-249. 71 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II. 72 Kienast 1996, 177-179.

chapter

6

This type again includes the temple of Kore with the temples for which the city was neokoros, just as type 5 had. The latter had been similar to the more impressive types of cities like Pergamon and Smyrna that were three times neokoros, though the legend never claimed more than the proper two for Sardis. This tendency simply continued on type 6 under Elagabalus: though Sardis was only three times neokoros, with the addition of the temple of Kore its multiple-temple reverses resembled contemporary issues of four-times neokoros Ephesos (q.v.). Some doubt has been expressed as to whether this or any temple to Elagabalus was ever built.73 Though Johnston never made the logic behind her skepticism explicit, her reasoning appears to be that there were simply too many temples to Elagabalus crammed into too short a reign; therefore his cult must have been moved into other temples, likely including that of Kore at Sardis. It is true that at Nikomedia and at Philippopolis there is coin evidence that the emperor’s cult was moved into the temple of the city’s chief deity. But for Sardis as for Ephesos, Miletos, and Hierapolis (qq.v.), the coins are our only form of evidence and we cannot disregard what they say. The coins of Sardis show a third imperial temple for Elagabalus, separate from the temple of Kore. They give no indication that the emperor shared his temple with any other deity. That no such temple has yet been found is insignificant, an argument from silence: none of these cities has been excavated so completely that we could expect to find all its temples. As for the shortness of Elagabalus’ reign: that may have affected whether temples to him were completed, but it should not affect whether or not they were begun. Any city that became neokoros for Elagabalus presumably trusted that his would be a long and honorable rule, perhaps to be followed by legitimate successors, and that the Severan dynasty would continue. The fact that the historical sources preserved to us are unanimously hostile and portray Elagabalus as a sexcrazed religious maniac should not lead us to imagine that he could be slighted with impunity by

– sardis in lydia

the people he ruled. So far as this study has found, the title ‘neokoros’ had historically implied the existence of a temple, and where these have been found, they have not been small shrines but large, independent peripteral structures. This is what the coins show for Elagabalus as well, and that is what we should believe unless there is some positive evidence against it. Sardis coin type 6 illustrates the temple to Elagabalus as six-column, a shield in its pediment. The imperial statue shown within is very small but appears to be the usual cuirassed figure, with left arm raised, perhaps propped on a sceptre or spear. Contemporary coins under Hermophilos show a parade of agonistic types, often with four prize crowns, recalling type 6 with four temples.74 Only three of the temples made the city neokoros, however, and none of the ‘worldwide’ contests on the coins can be tied to any specific emperor. The Koina was indeed a provincial imperial festival, but had already been celebrated at Sardis since the first century.75 A festival called Elagabalia at first looks promising, but is in fact named after Elagabalus the sun god of Emesa, not the emperor properly known as Antoninus.76 The nickname ‘Elagabalus’ would not have been publicly used for the emperor at any time before his death. Though a festival for his god might well have been allied with one for the emperor, there is no evidence for or against it. Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Sardis does not appear to have issued coins for Severus Alexander’s sole rule that still claim the city’s third neokoria. That there was a period of indecision about the status of the neokoria for Elagabalus, however, is shown by Sardis inscription 7: INSCRIPTION 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 no. 2 (Sardis inventory no. IN 82.16). [t}w prvtÒxyonow ka‹ |erçw] t«n [ye«n ka‹ mhtropÒlevw t}w ÉAs¤a]w ka‹ L[ud¤aw èpãshw ka‹ 74

73

Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 9-10, 12; Johnston 1984, 58. If her theory that the temple of Kore was the temple of Artemis were also correct, the temple of Artemis would have then housed two provincial imperial cults, that of Antoninus Pius and his house, and that of Elagabalus. This makes the temple as crowded as did Foss’ theory that the first provincial imperial cult moved into the temple of Artemis, above.

111

Karl 1975, 76-79, 134-135; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 12-14. 75 Moretti 1954, the earliest document Neronian; also note Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527, which mentions the Severeia koina Asias in Sardis, a festival that could not have originated from any of Sardis’ provincial imperial temples, though they may have been involved in its celebration. 76 L. Robert 1976, 53-54; apparently unknown to Johnston 1984, 58.

112

part i – section i. koinon of asia

pr\thw ÑEllã]dow ka‹ pollãkiw [nevkÒrou t«]n Sebast«n katå tå [dÒgma]ta t}w |erçw sugklÆtou f¤lhw ka‹ summãxou ÑRvma¤vn ka‹ o¸ke¤aw toË SebastoË t}w lamprotãthw Sardian«n pÒlevw.

This is a statue base of an agoranomos, C. Asin(n)ius Neikomachos Frugianus.77 His grandfather as strategos had donated toward celebrations for a visit of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; this can be dated to their eastern tour from late 175 to 176 C.E., and conforms with a date around the time of Severus Alexander for this inscription (below).78 The city’s full titulature is given, but includes ‘many times neokoros of the Augusti by the decrees of the sacred Senate.’ This wording is unique. The neokoroi were generally meticulous about including the number of times that they had been given the honor, both on inscriptions and on coins. The reason must be either that the correct title was still in adjudication, or that the Sardians did not wish to admit openly that due to the condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory they, like many other cities, had lost a neokoria.79 The former is more likely, as the coins issued under Severus Alexander return with no sign of hesitation to the title ‘twice neokoros’ and the type of the temple of Kore between the two imperial temples: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [...] AUR %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI [...]A[...] %ARDIANVN DI% NEVKORVN Three temples, each with wreath at peak; side two six-column, an emperor in each; center one four-column with arched entablature, Lydian Kore within. a) Oxford 17.57 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 92). COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX G A%IN NEIKOMAXOU FROUG %ARDIANVN B NEVKORVN Lydian Kore and Demeter. a) Vienna 19587 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 93).

his name appearing on coins of Severus Alexander with the legend ‘twice neokoros’ (e.g. type 8).80 Despite the loss of its third neokoria for Elagabalus, Sardis continued to feature its neokoria prominently on its coins. Under Maximinus a representation similar to type 4 was revived: COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K G IOU OUH MAJIMEINO% %EB Laureate draped bust of Maximinus r. Rev: EPI %EP MENE%TRATIANOU [ARX A?] %ARDIANVN (D[I%], a; B, b) NEVKORVN Two four-column temples, over each a wreath, emperor? in each; between them, Lydian Kore on pedestal. a) Paris 1300 b) Vienna 32632. A gap occurs in the recording of neokoria on Sardis’ coinage with imperial portraits from after the reign of Philip into that of Valerian; the bulk of the coins were issued with non-imperial obverses. This explains why so few coins with portraits of Valerian or Gallienus proclaim Sardis only twice neokoros. That would soon change, however, when Sardis joined the many cities that had lost neokoriai for Elagabalus but regained the honor under Valerian. Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Types 10 and 11 assure us that Sardis became three times neokoros once more during the magistracy of the magniloquent Dom(itius) Rufus, Asiarch, son of a twice-Asiarch, the most powerful first archon, who served during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, and whose coins appeared with both titles, twice and three times neokoros.81 COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLIHNO% AU Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K UIOU B A%IARX K KRATI%T AR A %ARDIANVN B NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic table. a) SNGvA 8262.

The coinage also confirms the chronology of inscription 7, as after C. Asinnius Neikomachos Frugianus’ term as agoranomos he became archon of the city,

COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K P LIK GALLIHNO% %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: EPI DOM ROUFOU A%IARX K UIOU B A%IARX K KRAT ARX A %ARDIANVN G NEVKORVN Three prize crowns on agonistic

77 Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 provided a full discussion of the family. 78 Halfmann 1986a, 212-216. 79 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.

80 Münsterberg 1985, 148-149; Neikomachos’ grandfather is likely the Neikomachos named on coins of Marcus Aurelius. 81 For the magistrate, Herrmann 1993b, 257 n. 84.

chapter

6

table. a) Paris 1332 b) Vienna 33649 c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. It is noteworthy that festival types 10 and 11 both feature three prize crowns, though type 10 only counts two neokoriai. This indicates once more that since coincidences between number of times neokoros and the number of contests in other cities may be coincidental, a direct connection between neokoria and festivals should not be assumed without direct evidence. Sardis can boast the last known document that called a city neokoros, up to one hundred fifty years later than the latest ones otherwise, at Side, Synnada, and Sagalassos (qq.v.). The massive changes that took place in that interval can be found in any history of late antiquity.82 The Empire and its emperors became Christian; the provinces were subdivided and administered by a complex hierarchy of imperial officials; the cities, though they clung to the names of their old institutions, gradually lost administrative, financial, and ultimately legal autonomy to the central government. Independent civic coinage became a memory, and even the carving of civic inscriptions dwindled away. Though Christianity had a deep effect, there was still some continuity in culture, in education, in the manner of life; yet the motives and the rationale behind all of these had changed. A notable product of that change is Sardis inscription 12. INSCRIPTION 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 18 (Le Bas-Waddington 628; CIG 3647). [t}w] lam(protãthw) Sard(ian«n) mhtropÒlevw (line 2) . . . §n tª lam(protãt_) ka‹ d‹w neokÒrvn Sard(ian«n) mhtrop(Òlei). . . (lines 4-5) This inscription records an agreement and oath from a hereditary corporation of builders and artisans to the defensor of Sardis, an imperial overseer who, as defender of the common people, took many civic functions out of the hands of the city’s elite. Whether owing to strikes or to contractual disputes, some builders had apparently undertaken projects and then abandoned or even obstructed work on them. The inscription lays out a system of contingencies and terms by which this problem could be solved.83 The document is dated April 27, 459 C.E. and is sworn to “by the holy and life-giving Trinity and by 82 83

A. Jones 1973 and MacMullen 1976 are still classic. Foss 1976, 19-20, 110-113 no. 14.

– sardis in lydia

113

the safety and victory of the lord of the inhabited world Flavius Leo, eternal Augustus and emperor,” yet it is placed “in the most illustrious and twice neokoros metropolis of the Sardians.” Some who have dealt with this inscription have assumed that the continuation of the title ‘neokoros’ meant the continuation of the imperial cult even in a Christian empire.84 One detail that stands in the way of this interpretation, however, is the fact that the city is only twice neokoros. What happened to the third neokoria re-granted by Valerian and Gallienus? The evidence is scanty, but the cases of Perge and Side tend to indicate that the neokoriai they granted were not withdrawn, but even added to, in later years. Then why is that last known neokoria of Sardis not counted in this inscription? To answer, we must ask how those who composed and engraved this inscription could have found out how many times Sardis was neokoros. If ‘neokoros’ were an important title in common use or a source of civic pride, we might expect it to be common knowledge that the correct number was three, or possibly more, but no less. The fact that the number is given as two argues not for continuity but for discontinuity of the imperial cult. Those who set up the inscription had forgotten exactly how many times neokoros Sardis was, and perhaps even what the title meant. This failure of memory contrasts with the longheld memory of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos (q.v.). But that building, surely the city’s largest, had been magnificent enough to be classed as a wonder of the world, and may have stood substantially intact to the eleventh century and beyond. Any temple that made Sardis three times neokoros, even if begun under Elagabalus, may have only been built in the mid-third century, when unsettled political and economic conditions made any construction beyond defensive walls haphazard, if not impossible.85 If it was ever finished, it does not seem to have impressed itself on the minds of the Sardians. How, then, did inscription 12 come up with the title ‘twice neokoros’? The answer lies on the stone itself. The agreement of the builders and artisans, for example, is inscribed on an old statue base of Septimius Severus. Such relics of the earlier empire were everywhere in the city, available for perusal and often reuse. The majority of them, however, named 84 85

Buckler 1923, 36-48; see Hanfmann 1983, 193. S. Mitchell 1993, 2.238.

114

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Sardis twice neokoros, a title that the city held for over a century at the time of its highest prosperity. Inscriptions of the third neokoria would naturally be rarer: that title was correct only from perhaps 220 or 221 to 222 during the reign of Elagabalus, and by the time it was reinstated in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, probably just before 260, few inscriptions were being set up. It is no accident that of Sardis’ eight inscriptions citing neokoria (where enumeration is preserved, and other than this last one), only one records the city as three times neokoros.86 In fact the source of the titulature may have been right above the builders’ noses. Members of their corporation must have been involved in the various renovations and building projects of the bath/gymnasium complex at Sardis from the late fourth through the fifth century. Perhaps the most extensive of these renovations was commemorated in a long inscription, dated in the middle to late fifth century, around the podium of the ‘marble court.’87 And just above, on the entablature, ran the great dedication inscription from the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta, cited above, calling Sardis ‘metropolis of Asia and twice neokoros of the Augusti.’ Despite its best efforts, Sardis appears to have been fated to go down the centuries as only twice neokoros. But thanks to that error, we can recognize that the last known document of the neokoria commemorates not the survival of the imperial cult, but an attempt to recapture the glories of the past. By the mid-fifth century, the title ‘neokoros’ was a dead letter. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. S. Johnson 1960, 10 no. 4 (Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178 no. 276; Foss 1986, 169-170 no. 2; SEG 36 [1986] 1093). Dedication to Lucius Verus, probably ca. 166. See text above. 2. Foss 1986, 170 no. 3 (SEG 36 [1986] 1094; Herrmann 1993b, 233-248 no. 1). Inscription of ‘marble court,’ dated to 211 by dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name erased. See text above. 86

Sardis inventory no. IN 76.4, unpublished: Herrmann 1993b, 252 n. 63. 87 Foss 1976, 40, 113-114 nos. 15, 16; Hanfmann 1983, 160; Foss 1986, 171-172 no. 8.

3. Hanfmann and Ramage 1978, 178-179 no. 277 (Foss 1986, 170-171 no. 4; SEG 36 [1986] 1095). Statue base of children of Kore, dated to 211 by dedication to Caracalla and Geta, the latter’s name erased. 4. L. Robert 1967, 48 n. 6 (Foss 1986, 171 no. 5; SEG 36 [1986] 1096). Statue base of Caracalla, probably dated to his sole rule (212-217), as the epithet ‘relative of the lord emperor’ is singular not plural; the two neokoriai of the Augusti are by decrees of the Senate. 5. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 63 (Cichorius 1889, 371-373 no. 3; IGRR 4:1528; corrections by L. Robert 1940, 56-59). Sardis is twice neokoros of the Augusti by decrees of the Senate. Similar in form to inscription 4 except for added titles ‘sacred’ and ‘first of Hellas.’ The more grandiose formulae are peculiar to Caracalla’s reign, but Bowersock 1995, 85-98 tried to redate inscription 5 to Lucius Verus’ time. For a rebuttal, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 2353. 6. Sardis inventory no. IN 74.7, unpublished. Titulature similar to no. 5; again, the neokoriai are by decrees of the Senate. Many times neokoros: 7. Herrmann 1993b, 248-266 no. 2 (Sardis inventory no. IN 82.16). Probably dated to Severus Alexander’s reign, 222-235 C.E. See text above. Neokoria of indefinite number: 8. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 64 (CIG 3464; SEG 4:638; IGRR 4:1516; corrections by L. Robert 1929, 138 n. 2). Fragment of honorific. Titulature other than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7; Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus Alexander–Gordian III? 9. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 70. Fragment; neokoria by decrees of the Senate. Titulature other than neokoria similar to that of inscription 7; Herrmann 1993b, 240-241, time of Severus Alexander–Gordian III? 10. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 67. Fragment. 11. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 69. Fragment. Twice neokoros: 12. Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 18. From the reign of Leo, dated 459 C.E. See text above.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: Albinus Caesar: BMC 146; Berlin, London, Vienna. Septimius Severus: SNGvA 3155; SNGRighetti 1087; Berlin, Paris (4 exx.).

chapter

6

Julia Domna: BMC 147-157; SNGCop 529, 530; SNGvA 3156, 3157, 8256; SNGTüb 3815-3816; H. W. Bell 1916, 299; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 53-54 nos. 293-296; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.). Geta Caesar: BMC 168; SNGvA 3162; Berlin, Paris. Caracalla: BMC 158, 162-167, 214; SNGCop 531-534; SNGvA 3159-3161; SNGTüb 3818-3821; SNGLewis 1511; SNGRighetti 1088, 1089; H. W. Bell 1916, 300; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 54 nos 297-299; Berlin (10 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Macrinus: Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 54 no. 300; Berlin, Boston, Paris. Diadumenian: BMC 169. Elagabalus88 (C. Sal. Claudianus archon for the second time): BMC 159-161; SNGvA 8257; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 55 nos. 301-304; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Three times neokoros: Elagabalus (S. Ulp. Hermophilos first archon for the second time): BMC 170-172; SNGvA 8295; SNGTüb 3822; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 55-56 nos. 305-306; Berlin, Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Julia Soaemias: BMC 173. Julia Maesa: BMC 174; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 56 no. 307; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Severus Alexander Caesar: Oxford, Vienna. Twice neokoros: Severus Alexander (archons Damianos, C. Asin. Neikomachos Frug.): BMC 175-179; SNGTüb 3823; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 56 nos. 308, 309; Berlin; Oxford; Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). 88

coins.

Elagabalus is often misidentified as Caracalla on these

– sardis in lydia

115

Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 8260; SNGRighetti 1090; Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Maximinus: BMC 180; H. W. Bell 1916, 302; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 181; Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Gordian III: BMC 182, 184-191; SNGCop 535-538; SNGvA 3163, 8261; SNGTüb 3824, 3825; H. W. Bell 1916, 303, 304; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 56 nos. 310, 311; Berlin (12 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Tranquillina: BMC 192-195; SNGRighetti 1091; H. W. Bell 1916, 305; Berlin (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverses, time of Gordian III: BMC 89; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (2 exx.). Philip I: BMC 196-199; SNGCop 539; Berlin (4 exx), Boston (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.). Otacilia: BMC 200, 201; Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Philip II Caesar: BMC 202-205; SNGCop 540-542; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 57 nos. 312, 313; Berlin (5 exx.), New York, Oxford (6 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Philip II Augustus: New York. Non-imperial obverses, time of Philip: London, Paris. Gallienus (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): SNGvA 8262. Non-imperial obverses, twice neokoros: BMC 83, 84, 9092, 94-96; SNGCop 511-513; SNGvA 3141; SNGLewis 1512; SNGRighetti 1081; H. W. Bell 1916, 275, 276, 278; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 47-48 nos. 260, 261, 264-266; Berlin (12 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.). Three times neokoros: Valerian (Dom. Rufus, Asiarch): BMC 206, 207; SNGvA 3164; SNGTüb 3826; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Gallienus: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Salonina: BMC 208-211; SNGCop 543, 544; SNGvA 3165; Johnston in Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 57 no. 314; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. Non-imperial obverses, three times neokoros: Berlin (2 exx.).

116

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 7. AIZANOI

IN

Neokoria of Zeus: Commodus Coins and inscriptions of Aizanoi agree in proclaiming the city to be neokoros of Zeus, though both do so only rarely. Starting from the reign of Commodus, the documents make this the first official neokoria for a deity yet known; though in Acts of the Apostles 19.35 a magistrate of Ephesos had earlier hailed his city as neokoros of Artemis (q.v.), that was not yet an official title. Aizanoi is so far the only city known to have been neokoros of Zeus. Two coin types mention neokoria in their legends, both showing the mature, bearded portrait of Commodus likely to date from Saoteros’ fall in 182 (see ‘Nikomedia,’ chapter 15) to the end of Commodus’ reign, in 192. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMODO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN TOU DIO% Seated mother goddess with tympanum holds the infant Zeus, a lion at her feet; three Korybantes around her.1 a) Boston 1973.606. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU KAI M AURH KOMODO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Commodus r., bearded. Rev: AIZANEITVN NEVKORVN TOU DIO% Zeus with sceptre and eagle.2 a) Paris 241 (illus. pl. 24 fig. 94). The imagery of these types refers to the cult of Zeus as practiced in Aizanoi: his birth to the mother goddess, Meter Steuene, in the grotto Steunos south of the city;3 his adult manifestation; and on another coin his open-air cult place: a high column on which an eagle perches, flanked by an altar and a tree.4 Zeus’ cult was important enough to win asylos status as well as the neokoria for Aizanoi.5 1

Von Aulock 1968, 48 pl. 3.9. Babelon 1898, no. 5581. 3 Roller 1999, 189, 336-341. 4 L. Robert 1981a, 352-353; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques (1982) 406 n. 399. 5 Rigsby 1996, 447-448; see inscriptions 1 and 2, below. 2

PHRYGIA: KOINON

OF

ASIA

The temple of Zeus, which still stands in great part today, apparently formed the centerpiece of a whole new urban plan for Aizanoi.6 The date of this plan can be postulated from the remains of the temple’s foundation documents, preserved on its north pronaos wall. The income from cleruchic land, allotted to Zeus by decisions of kings of Pergamon and Bithynia, had lapsed, and a reorganization was undertaken under Hadrian; the emperor himself wrote letters concerning it, and they were proudly inscribed on the walls of the new temple.7 New boundary stones had been laid out in 127/128 C.E., and the return of income no doubt paid for the new temple of Zeus and prompted the city’s reorganization and renewal.8 This fostering of Hellenic civic life is typical of Hadrian, and it is probably no coincidence that the cult of Zeus at Aizanoi got this boost at the same time as that of Zeus Olympios at Athens. Later, a prominent citizen and descendant of a family deeply involved in the temple’s building would represent Aizanoi in Hadrian’s Panhellenion in Athens.9 The blocks of the pronaos’ southern and door walls are missing, and would likely have been as carefully inscribed as its north wall was.10 Names that probably stood among the missing documents can now be restored from inscriptions found elsewhere in the city.11 Surely M. Ulpius Appuleius Flavianus and his family were among them, as a letter from Antoninus Pius honoring his grandson Eurykles was among the preserved documents on the north outer wall of the pronaos.12 A prominent citi-

6 R. Naumann 1979; Rheidt 1995, 715; Gros 1996-2001, 1.183. 7 Smallwood 1966, 165-166 no. 454; Laffi 1971. 8 Levick 1987; Levick, S. Mitchell and Potter 1988, xxiiixxix; Winter 1996, 89-90. 9 C. Jones 1996, 35-36, 41. 10 R. Naumann 1979, 34-36. 11 F. Naumann 1985; Wörrle 1992. 12 Oliver 1989, 321-322 no. 155.

chapter

7



zen of Aizanoi, Appuleius Flavianus undertook embassies to Rome, likely concerning the cleruchic land income. He also held the koinon position of chief priest of Asia for the temples at Pergamon (the plural showing that his post was held after 114-116 C.E. when Pergamon was made twice neokoros). He passed his civic interests down to his son: M. Ulpius Appuleianus Flavianus was priest of Zeus for life and agonothetes (and likely founder) of the first-ever Deia contest held in Aizanoi in Zeus’ honor. In the next generation, Eurykles became his city’s representative to the Panhellenion in Athens, and this honor stands among the foundation documents of the temple at Aizanoi, giving Naumann his closing date for the building of the temple. The grandfather’s advocacy for the temple and the father’s role in starting the Deia festival help to explain the son’s prominent place in the temple documentation. It is also possible that either the grandfather or the father of Eurykles may have helped to get other honors for his city and temple at the same time, perhaps even the title ‘neokoros’ itself. One cannot date the careers exactly; the grandfather reached the provincial summit of chief priesthood of Asia sometime after 114, and his grandson’s activities stretch from Antoninus Pius’ reign to Commodus’. One would imagine that the new title, and perhaps the Deia festival, followed the confirmation of land rights and the building of the new temple under Hadrian; but absolute certainty is not yet possible. According to Naumann’s analysis of the documents inscribed on its cella wall, the temple of Zeus was built between 126 and 157, in the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.13 Strocka’s wide-ranging studies of Hadrianic architecture in Asia Minor, however, categorize the temple’s architecture and details as too all-of-a-piece to have been produced over such a stretch of time. He agreed with Naumann in associating its origins with a confirmation of land rights for the cult of Zeus and the mother goddess after 125/126; but he preferred to date the start of work in 128 or 129, and the finish within only a few years.14 Presumably, then, there was space left on the cella’s walls for subsequent inscriptions to be carved. The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi (illus. pl. 3 fig. 13) was an impressive Ionic pseudodipteral structure 13 14

R. Naumann 1979, 36, 65-75. Strocka 1981, 29-30 and n. 83.

AIZANOI IN PHRYGIA

117

with eight columns on the facades and fifteen along the sides.15 Its stylobate was approximately 21.5 x 36.5 m. It stood on a high podium, broached only by an eastern staircase; atop the podium, and presumably giving access to the temple on all sides, was a seven-stepped krepis, unfortunately omitted from this plan. The temple stood in its own colonnaded court (130.5 x 112 m., illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), and was approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95 m. square, whose entry aligned with the temple court’s original entry stairway (later a propylon), the altar, and the east door into the cella itself. The cella, with four composite columns set before its porch, faced east and was dedicated to Zeus. The west-facing opisthodomos had two more composite columns in antis, and contained two doors that led via stairs to the roof, or down to an underground vault that was likely the domain of the mother goddess.16 No remains of cult statues or hints at their arrangement have been found.17 That Zeus had had some sort of shrine even before the completion of this temple is shown by coins from the time of Domitian that portray Zeus in a four-column Ionic temple.18 These coins indicate the temple’s lintel as either flat or arched to show the cult image within; the arched facade also appears on coins of Hadrian.19 In the reign of Antoninus Pius an eight-column facade with a disc instead of a cult statue within it appears, possibly celebrating the completion of the new temple. After Marcus Aurelius’ accession, however, the type reverts back to Zeus in his four-column arched shrine. It may be that the four-column structure represents an aediculum rather than the full-scale temple; more likely, it is shorthand for a temple, and the arch is a convention that allows the cult statue to be displayed more prominently.20

15

R. Naumann 1979, passim. R. Naumann 1986 defended these identifications. 17 R. Naumann 1986, however, placed a small statue of Kybele (i.e., the mother goddess) centrally in the underground vault; reports of an aediculum in the cella are the result of a misinterpretation of the opisthodomos wall (R. Naumann 1979, 18). 18 R. Naumann 1979, 63-64 would consider restoring an earlier temple west of the Doric courtyard which abuts and enters the new temple’s courtyard at the southeast corner; this suite would have provided a model for the new temple and the agora that approaches it. 19 Von Aulock 1979, nos. 43, 44, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59. 20 Drew-Bear 1974; M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-33. 16

118

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Neither of the two known coin types that use ‘neokoros’ in their legends explicitly refers to this temple, nor do they appear to celebrate a new grant of neokoria. It is therefore possible that the title was given earlier, perhaps when the Hadrianic temple was completed. That it was retained after Commodus’ death is shown by the two inscriptions, one certainly and the other probably of Severan date, which call Aizanoi neokoros of Zeus. INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG 3841d; IGRR 4:567). Base of statue of Caracalla dated to 198-210. { bou[l]Ø ka‹ ~ nevkÒr[ow] t[oË D]iÚw |erÚw ka‹ [êsul]ow [A]¸[zaneit«n] d}mow. . . INSCRIPTION 2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG 3841g; IGRR 4:581). Fragment of a seat from the temple area, Severan letter forms. [t}w |erçw ka‹] ésÊlou ka‹ [nevkÒro]u toË DiÚw [A¸zanei]t«n pÒlevw [{ filos°ba]stow boulØ [ka‹ ~ lamprÒta]tow d}mow. . . The question must arise, was this neokoria for the chief god of a city sanctioned by the Roman authorities, or was it simply assumed by Aizanoi with no need for official approval? The latter has been assumed, but there is in fact no explicit evidence that any city could use the title ‘neokoros’ as a result of its own decision, and there is some indirect evidence that it could not.21 Only three cities—Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Magnesia—are known to have ever called themselves neokoroi of a divinity. If it were a title that any city could claim, why did not more do so? Yet even Ephesos (q.v.), which in one literary source had been called neokoros of Artemis as early as the middle of the first century, did not use the title for its god once ‘neokoros’ became an official title connected with the koinon temples of emperors. Only later would Ephesos become officially neokoros of Artemis, and then it would only be by permission of the emperor Caracalla himself. Thus it is probable that Aizanoi too would have needed imperial approval to call itself neokoros of Zeus. There is no evidence that the koinon of Asia counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus among its provin21

Magie 1950, 637.

cial temples, even though that temple had gained its city the title of ‘neokoros.’ This is despite the fact that some dedications pair honors to the emperors with those to Zeus.22 The distinction between cities that were neokoroi for the emperors and those that were neokoroi for gods also meant that the former’s temples (at least, in the five metropoleis of Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis)23 were administered by officials of the koinon, while the latter’s probably continued to be run by their own priesthoods. Though Appuleius Flavianus and Eurykles both held chief priesthoods of Asia, neither held that office in their own city, as could most likely have been arranged if Aizanoi had had a koinon temple.24 To sum up, neokoria for a god appears to have been an honor that was only to be assumed by permission of the authorities, but was metaphorical in value. The city that received it was assured that even if it lacked a provincial imperial temple, its own patron god’s temple was as renowned as any of the provincial temples and that its status was to be compared to that of the other neokoroi.

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros of Zeus: 1. Le Bas-Waddington 988 (CIG 3841d; IGRR 4:567). Base of Caracalla. See text above. 2. Le Bas-Waddington 875 (CIG 3841g; IGRR 4:581). Severan? See text above.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros of Zeus: Commodus: Boston, Paris.25

22 Wörrle 1995b, 68-76. Fischler 1998, 166 n. 8 misinterpreted a priestly official neokoros as the title of the city. 23 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in Part II. 24 Campanile 1994a, nos. 110 and 110a. 25 There has been some confusion due to coins of Aizanoi that mention the title ‘archineokoros,’ but this an individual’s, not the city’s, title: see Münsterberg 1985, 156. Both archineokoroi and neokoroi for the temple of Zeus are well known at Aizanoi. For the prominent status of these officials, see Levick 1987, 262, 267; Wörrle 1995a, no. 4; idem 1995b, 71-72.

chapter

8

– laodikeia in phrygia

119

Chapter 8. Laodikeia in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia In 26 C.E., during the competition among eleven cities for the second koinon temple in Asia, the Roman Senate eliminated Laodikeia (among others) as unequal to the honor.1 Laodikeia may have been a judicial center and a faithful ally, but the temple of Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate went to one of the greatest cities of the province, Smyrna.2 Only by the late second century did Laodikeia at last achieve the title of ‘neokoros.’ Many of Laodikeia’s monuments (theaters, an amphitheatral stadium, bath/gymnasium complexes) are still only lightly covered with earth, permitting a fairly accurate appraisal of the ruins from the surface.3 Where excavation has taken place, results have been rewarding, as for example in the discovery of an unusual nymphaeum.4 Recent surveys have even revealed what may have been the site of a ceremony held by the emperor Caracalla himself (below). First Neokoria: Commodus/Caracalla Regarding the establishment of the neokoria, however, one of Laodikeia’s most important documents has already come to light: INSCRIPTION 1. Corsten 1997 (= IvL) no. 45; L. Robert 1969b, 281-289 no. 5. Fragment of statue base. Original inscription: [{ _ne]okÒrow´ La[odik°vn pÒ]liw. . . Engraved over erasure: [fi]los°bastow This inscription was masterfully explicated by Louis Robert, who noticed that though it referred to Laodikeia as ‘Augustus-loving,’ that title was engraved over an erasure, from the traces of which Robert read the title ‘neokoros.’ As the inscription also

preserves the name ‘Commodus’ or ‘Commodan,’ Robert reasoned that Commodus must have made Laodikeia neokoros, but that the title was withdrawn after his death and the (short-lived) condemnation of his memory.5 Barnes suggested that, since Commodus made Nikomedia (q.v.) neokoros due to the influence of his chamberlain Saoteros, Laodikeia probably got the honor for the same reason, via Saoteros’ successor Cleander.6 The Historia Augusta, Commodus 7.1, records that one of Cleander’s last actions was to have Arrius Antoninus condemned on false charges as a favor to one Attalos, whom Antoninus, as proconsul of Asia, had judged against. Barnes identified this Attalos as P. Claudius Attalos, the son of the orator Polemon of Smyrna (q.v.). Like his father, he was a sophist and a citizen of both Smyrna and the smaller Laodikeia. Did he get the neokoria for Laodikeia as his father had for Smyrna? The influence in this case, however, would be indirect (Attalos influenced Cleander, who influenced Commodus), where for Nikomedia it was direct (Saoteros got Commodus to make his own home city, not someone else’s, neokoros). We must also wonder why, if Attalos’ influence at court was so great, Arrius Antoninus dared to pass an unfavorable judgment on him. Did this seasoned official willingly martyr himself for the sake of his principles?7 Though not impossible, the case for Attalos’ obtaining the neokoria for Laodikeia (as well as revenge against Antoninus for himself) is tenuous, but would date the grant to 185-189, the time of Cleander’s greatest influence. But there is an important piece of evidence that suggests that the honor was granted very early in Commodus’ reign, not later. Laodikeia often issued coins that celebrated its concord with other Asian

1

Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ Mileta 1990, 440-442. 3 Bean 1971, 247-257; YÌldÌz 1994; Traversari 2000 (with color aerial photos). 4 Des Gagniers 1969; for a critique, Sperti 2000, 40. 2

5 L. Robert 1969b, 281-289; detail pl. 112. See also S. Price 1984b, 264-265. 6 Barnes 1969. 7 Pflaum 1972, 212-216, 246-247.

120

part i – section i. koinon of asia

cities, but on only one occasion did it mint for a Bithynian city: coins with obverses of Commodus as Lucius, thus dated before October 180, and of Crispina, whom he married in 178, show that the two cities shared some important connection at this time.8 It is most likely that both became neokoros for Commodus early in his reign, and Laodikeia issued the coins commemorating this bond. Nikomedia’s neokoria was so strongly tainted by association with Saoteros that it was withdrawn during Commodus’ own lifetime, after 182. It is doubtful that Laodikeia would choose to issue coins for the embarrassed city after that point. Laodikeia’s, however, may have been associated with the emperor, not with his satellites. Its loss and eventual restoration might reflect what happened to Commodus. On the last day of the year 192, Commodus was assassinated by a palace plot. The next day, January 1, 193, he was declared a public enemy, his statues torn down and mutilated, his name erased from all public and private records.9 This act meant that Laodikeia’s temple of Commodus, as well as the part of the Deia Kommodeia festival that celebrated his cult along with that of Zeus, were officially wiped out.10 As enforcement was spotty, especially far from Rome, one cannot tell how far the Laodikeians went in expunging their cult of Commodus. Tarsos (q.v.) seems to have regained its neokoria for Commodus as soon as the reign of Septimius Severus, who claimed Commodus as his brother and thus rehabilitated his memory.11 Laodikeia’s documents, however, only show the return of the Deia Kommodeia festival under Severus.12 Its neokoria would not return to sight until the sole rule of that emperor’s son, Caracalla. Titulature that is almost certainly that of Caracalla on Laodikeia’s inscription 2 shows that the neokoria had returned while

8 Kienast 1996, 147-150; Franke and Nollé 1997, 107, 117 nos. 1152-1158; Weiss 1998, 64. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 74.2.1-3; Historia Augusta, Commodus 1820; Varner 1993, 295-317. 10 L. Robert 1969b, 283-284. Karl 1975, 80-81 suggested that the contest’s name meant that Commodus became a cult partner in Zeus’ temple, but this is unnecessary: such festival names are agglutinative. See Miranda 1992-1993, 75-76. 11 Merkelbach 1979. 12 On coins: Berlin; Paris (2 exx., one of them Babelon 1898, no. 6295). S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221: “Commodeia at Laodicea...were renamed Severeia,” overinterpreted Robert in implying that the name of Commodus was lost. For the survival of

he was still three times imperator, between October 213 and an unknown month of 214; his fourth (unofficial) acclamation would come with his campaign against the Parthians.13 INSCRIPTION 2. Moretti 1968, IGUrbRom 37 (IG 14:1063; IGRR 1:130). Statue base, from Rome. [{] Laodik°vn t«n prÚw t“ LÊkƒ ne[vkÒrvn] pÒliw . . . The restoration of neokoria to Laodikeia thus antedates the Parthian campaign, though it has often been connected with Caracalla’s presence on the eastern front.14 Later Laodikeia celebrated the renewal of its neokoria, among other things, with a special issue of coins labeled ‘year 88’ or ‘the eighty-eighth,’ with obverse portraits of Caracalla and his mother Julia Domna; reverse types show temples within the city: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Three temples on high podia; side two twocolumn and turned toward the center, in one a female or togate figure, in the other a male with sceptre; the center temple four-column, male figure with sceptre within. a) SNGvA 3858. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN T PH Six-column temple with arched entablature and pagoda-like roof, togate emperor with phiale within. a) Paris 1611 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 95). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Sixcolumn Ionic temple with arcuated lintel, cuirassed emperor with sceptre and phiale on pedestal within. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 25 fig. 96).15 If type 3 is not a reworked version of type 2, the deliberate distinctions between the imperial images within the temples should indicate that two separate Kommodeia (coupled with Antoneina, with Deia, and with other festivals), see below. 13 Kienast 1996, 162-165. 14 Levick 1969, 433-434 no. 43; Johnston 1983, 70 no. 43. 15 Imhoof-Blumer 1901-1902, 273 no. 49; there are several unusual features of its module and types which led Bernhard

chapter

8

– laodikeia in phrygia

emperors are intended. Type 1 shows three temples, and if coins like Ephesos’ inspired this type, the side temples should be those of the emperors (unfortunately faint, but the figure in the left temple is perhaps togate, while the right one does appear to be cuirassed). The center temple, like Ephesos’ of Artemis, may be that of Laodikeia’s patron god, Zeus Laodikeus, though all that can be seen of the central figure is that it is male and holds a spear or sceptre, while Zeus Laodikeus generally carries an eagle as well. A possible alternative is offered by coins issued at the same time that emphasized festivals rather than temples. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU [K M] AU ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Three prize crowns, center one labeled ANTVNIA, right one [KO]M[ODIA], left one obscure; all on agonistic table, its edge labeled [. . .]EIA, three amphorae below. a) Vienna 34019. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVNHNA, and two purses on agonistic table, its edge labeled A%KLHPEIA, amphora with palms and the word PUYIA below. a) Paris 1617 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 97). COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN TO PH Prize crown with palms, labeled ANTVN, (and two purses, bc) on agonistic table, its edge labeled KOMODEIA (KOMODO%, c), hydria with palms below. a) BMC 230 b) Paris 1616 c) Vienna 34278. Type 4 shows three prize crowns just as type 1 showed three temples, but unfortunately only the center one is legible, and it proclaims the Antonia or Antoneina festival for Caracalla. Types 5 and 6 both show the Antoneina prize crown alone, but the name of the Komodeia festival for Commodus is added to the table upon which the crown sits on type 6, whereas type 5 has Asklepieia/Pythia instead. Thus Asklepios, whose festival was being celebrated on the same coins of ‘eighty-eight’ as those for Caracalla and Commodus, may be the figure in the center temple.

121

‘Eighty-eight’ on these issues has been interpreted as the year 88, indicating a Laodikeian era that probably started with a documented visit by Hadrian in 129 C.E.16 If so, the eighty-eighth Laodikeian year would be mid-August 215 to mid-August 216. It is not impossible that the celebration was connected with Caracalla’s passage through Asia Minor on his way to the Parthian War. But it should be noted that the coin types of ‘eighty-eight’ refer more to the city’s temples and festivals than they do to the imperial presence. Instead, undated issues in the name of the Asiarch P. (or L.) Aelius Pigres (minted with obverse heads of Julia Domna, of Caracalla, and of the ‘People of Laodikeia neokoroi,’ in this case a recognizable portrait of Caracalla) are the ones whose reverse types indicate Caracalla’s presence and activities in the area. Coins of Pigres show Caracalla in a chariot, but instead of commonplace horses he is drawn by lions or centaurs; sometimes he rides a horse over a fallen enemy.17 These are generic representations for a triumphant emperor, but other Laodikeian issues of Pigres are more specific and hint at a possible visit by the emperor to Laodikeia itself, which after all seems to have been the site of a temple to his cult that made the city neokoros. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EPI L AIL PIGRHTO% A%IAR LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Veiled, togate emperor stands between Zeus Laodikeus and Asklepios. a) London 1970.9-9-125. COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: EP[I AIL PIG]RHTO% A%IAR LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Emperor, togate with phiale over tripod, presides at sacrifice before eight-column Ionic temple with three openings in the pediment; at his side two city goddesses holding statues; to the left, attendants (accompanied by aulos-player) slaughter a bull before a military

Weisser of the Berlin Münzkabinett to suspect it of being false or recut. My thanks to Dr. Weisser for his communication in this matter (letter of 19 Dec. 2002). 16 Leschhorn 1993, 382-385; despite the doubts of L. Robert 1969b, 263. Duke 1953, no. 11, misdated the era to 124 and was justifiably blasted by J. and L. Robert in Bulletin Épigraphique 1954, no. 231, but inexplicably followed by Johnston 1983, 70

122

part i – section i. koinon of asia

standard.18 a) Berlin 664/1914 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 99). COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: L AIL PIGRH% A%IARXH% G ANEYHKEN LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN In a two-column temple within a rectangular precinct (seen from above), the emperor holds a wreath toward citizens who advance from either side.19 a) Boston 1971.45 (illus. pl. 25 fig. 100) b) BMC 227 c) Oxford d) Paris 1689 e) Paris 1690 f) Paris 1695 g) Berlin h) Berlin 5182. Type 7 shows Caracalla greeted by Zeus Laodikeus and Asklepios, perhaps signifying a welcome to the city, while type 8 shows him presiding at a sacrifice before a temple that resembles that of Artemis at Ephesos or of Artemis Leukophryene at Magnesia; two city goddesses flank the emperor, but they are not specifically identifiable. Type 9 represents a bird’s eye view of a ceremony taking place in a forum-like precinct whose sides are lined with an honor guard of soldiers. On the steps of the two-column temple at the far end stands the emperor, in military dress. Five citizens in Greek himatia advance to salute him and over the head of the foremost one, shown as bearded on example h, he holds a wreath. Not only is this representation unique, but this is the only reverse type that specifies that Pigres, Asiarch for the third time, ‘dedicated’ it. It may be that the citizen being crowned is Pigres himself, that he wished his honor to be commemorated, and that the ‘forum’ pictured was in Laodikeia. The survey team that worked at Laodikeia from 1993 to 1999 located remains that resembled, at least superficially, this ‘forum.’20 It consists of a large colonnaded temenos set on a major street near the city’s eastern gate. On a low podium at its back (north) wall was a monumental building, probably a temple, with spiral-fluted columns set on square bases. No excavations were carried out and no measurements given, but from the plans, the temple appears to have been about 20 m. on its long side, the temenos perhaps 30 x 65 m. The layout thus no. 43; though she, like the Roberts, corrected his addition. For Hadrian’s visit, see Halfmann 1986a, 193, 204. 17 Lions: BMC 225, Berlin 604/1913; centaurs: Paris 1688; on horseback: Paris 1604. 18 M. Price and Trell 1977, 129 fig. 226, incorrectly as six column. 19 Ibid. fig. 23.

resembles that pictured on coin type 9. The model for the design was likely the imperial fora of Rome, and the use of spiral columns indicates a date after the mid-second century. But until full excavations are done, it remains uncertain whether this complex was extant at the time of Caracalla. It is even more uncertain whether this temple is one of those that made Laodikeia neokoros, as Sperti hypothesized. Though the legend on the ‘forum’ coin includes that title, so do most of the other coins of the city at that time. The type, however, celebrates the emperor’s presence and his honors to various men, likely including Pigres. Whether Caracalla stood on the steps of his own (or Commodus’) temple on a visit to Laodikeia cannot be assured. It is possible, then, that coin types 7-9 refer to an imperial visit to Laodikeia.21 On the other hand, type 7 might represent a metaphor for the welcome that was sent by all the cities to the emperor on his route, whether he visited them or not; type 8 could refer to a sacrifice at Ephesos or Magnesia, not Laodikeia; and the scene on type 9 may have been enacted elsewhere. Two thin and enigmatic figures that stand in the center of the columned facade of the ‘forum’ may possibly be the twin Nemeseis of Smyrna, which would set the ceremony in that city.22 And in the two outer spaces of the facade, figures seem to be raising their arms to snakelike ribbons that hang from the columns, a detail that is hard to place in any particular location. In any case, Pigres’ issues are not explicitly dated to the year of the ‘eighty-eight’; Caracalla may have visited Laodikeia, but if so, the date remains uncertain. The nature and objects of cult of the neokoria declared on Laodikeian coins of the time of Carascalla are clarified by an extraordinary series of coins minted subsequently under Elagabalus. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., beardless. Rev: KOMODOU KE AN[TV]NEINOU LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN DOGMA[TI] %UN[KL]HTOU Emperor crowned by eagle, between two captives; he holds statue of Zeus Laodikeus. a) Paris 1693.

20 Sperti 2000, 91-92 (building 12), pls. 8, 18, 22. Plate 18 shows the temple actually projecting out of the temenos, but plan 22 shows its back wall as coterminous with that of the temenos.

chapter

8

– laodikeia in phrygia

COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: KOMODOU KE ANTVNEINOU LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two four-column temples turned toward each other. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 25 fig. 98) b) Berlin 622/03. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU Two two-column temples on high podia turned toward each other, a figure in each. a) BMC 242 b) Paris 1615. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: IERO% DHMO% LAODIKEVN Laureate draped bust of the People of Laodikeia r. Rev: NAOI AGVNE%; DOGMATI %UNKLHTOU; OIKOUMENIKOI; LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Four prize crowns on agonistic table, amphora below. a) SNGvA 8414. Type 10 declares “Laodikeia neokoros of Commodus and Antoninus by decree of the Senate.” Type 11 shows and identifies the two imperial temples, each with a wreath, perhaps symbolizing a festival, above it, and type 12 reiterates the Senate’s decree. In fact, most of Laodikeia’s coins proclaim the city neokoros by decree of the Senate at this time. Type 13 states “temples, contests, by decree of the Senate, worldwide, of the neokoroi Laodikeians” and illustrates a table with four prize crowns.23 The reason for this insistence on the Senate’s decree on coins of the time of Elagabalus is unknown.24 Sardis, Smyrna, and Ephesos had often referred to themselves as neokoroi by the Senate’s decrees on inscriptions from about the time of the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta. Under Elagabalus, Ephesos also issued a coin which mentioned “these (four) temples of the Ephesians by decree of the Senate.” Perhaps there was some wide-ranging investigation into the cities’ proper titulature or honors after the reign of Macrinus; Laodikeia is not known to have issued any coinage that specified it as neokoros during that troubled time. Or perhaps there had been a challenge to the legitimacy of 21 Lehnen 1997, 77-84, 182, 353, more on literary than visual evidence, and on the latter tending more to the late antique Roman than to the high empire in the provinces. 22 Halfmann 1986a, 228-229. 23 Karl 1975, 65 held the noun ‘temples’ ( NAOI) equivalent to the adjective ‘sacred’ (IEROI) but gave no reason or precedent for it. I take it to be simply a case of asyndeton, not

123

Laodikeia’s neokoria and the status of its contests in particular. Though types 11 and 12 show only two temples, type 13 specifies four festivals (unfortunately unnamed) as ‘worldwide’ and allies them with the (two?) temples under the rubric of the Senate’s decree. Perhaps it is only that the Senate had finally confirmed Laodikeia’s unusual dual neokoria and the status of the allied two imperial contests of the four ‘worldwide’ ones it boasted. Whatever the details, these coin types add valuable evidence that as late as the third century, the Senate played a vital role in confirming the status of cities, including their neokoriai. The question could be asked, how many times was Laodikeia truly neokoros? On none of its coins or inscriptions does any enumeration appear before the title. The coins show the existence of two separate temples, one for Commodus and the other for Caracalla, but type 1 adds a third, unidentified temple and type 13 refers to four festivals. It is just remotely possible that Laodikeia was in fact twice neokoros, once for Commodus (a title perhaps restored in the reign of Septimius Severus, as Tarsos’ was), then again for Caracalla. It seems odd, however, that a city in Asia, that hotbed of neokoroi, with a rival neokoros like Hierapolis not far away, should be so particular to claim that it was neokoros by Senatorial decree but fail to specify that it held that honor twice over. More likely Laodikeia was only once neokoros but gained the title for unifying a former cult of Commodus with that of his posthumously adopted nephew Caracalla during the reign of the latter. No other city is known to have been once neokoros for two different imperial temples. Laodikeia continued to commemorate its two imperial temples, its festivals, and its title ‘neokoros’ on coins down to the reign of Philip.25 COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M IOUL FILIPPO% KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Philip Caesar r. Rev: LAODIKEVN NEVKORVN Two two-column temples on high podia, an emperor in each, turned toward one another. a) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer b) SNGvA 3864. A different Laodikeian coin type of Philip mentions a ‘renewal,’ probably referring to a renewal of ties

uncommon in coin legends where much information must be crammed onto a small surface.

124

part i – section i. koinon of asia

of kinship with the other cities of Phrygia and of Caria (see below).26 Just after the time of Philip, probably ca. 250 C.E., Laodikeia’s region of Phrygia was detached from the province Asia and joined with Caria to become the independent province of Phrygia and Caria.27 Laodikeia, then, was separated from the province for which it held its imperial temples and neokoria, and may have lost its primacy in the area to Aphrodisias.28 It is uncertain what, if anything, was done to regularize the situation. A fragment of a letter from an emperor or governor found at Laodikeia may refer to the rivalries of this time.29 Did the new province equip itself with a koinon? Some coins of Apamea mention a koinon of Phrygia, but they extend back as early as the reign of Nero, and do not seem to extend the koinon’s sphere beyond Apamea itself.30 Another early text that distinguishes Phrygia from Asia is Acts of the Apostles 2.9-11, where a passage mentions Jews from “Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.” Though the text is not exactly dated, it surely refers to a time when Phrygia was administratively part of the province Asia; so ‘Asia’ can refer specifically to the Greek cities of the Aegean coast.31 Dräger attempted to date the new province of Phrygia and Caria’s existence as far back as the time of Caracalla, despite the fact that Laodikeia then still celebrated the Koina Asias and called itself ‘metropolis of Asia’ (inscription 4). The coin type (BMC 228) he used as evidence, however, only showed the city’s goddess between personifications of Phrygia and Caria, in whose borderlands Laodikeia indeed stood, just as a similar coin type of the time (BMC 229) presented the same goddess between personifications of the city’s rivers, the Lykos and Kapros. The formation of the province should remain dated to the 250’s, as above. Unfortunately, we have no documents of any koinon of Phrygia and/or Caria (outside of the Apamean one) organized after the new province, nor do we know how Laodikeia held its status of neo-

24 Talbert 1984, 95-97; see chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II. 25 Deia Kommodeia and Koina Asias under Philip: SNGCop 606 (mistranscribed); SNGvA 8422. 26 Hecht 1968, 30 no. 9 (pl. 4.8, sic): reverse of the city goddess between Phrygia and Caria. For renewal of kinship ties between cities, see L. Robert 1977a, 119-129. For a misinterpretation of ‘renewal’ and this coin type, see below, n. 30. 27 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158.

koros after the change. It is likely that it did, however, as even Synnada (q.v.), up in the central Phrygian highlands, could call itself twice neokoros at the end of the third century. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. IvL 45. Inscription of time of Commodus, with ‘neokoros’ erased. See text above. 2. IGUrbRom 37. Statue base from Rome, dated October 213–214. See text above. 3. IvL 50 (= CIG 3938, IGRR 4:863). Statue base, dated by neokoria after Caracalla. 4. IvL 135 (= L. Robert 1969b, 288; IGRR 4:859). Fragment including the titulature ‘the emperor-loving neokoros metropolis of Asia, Laodikeia,’ dated by neokoria after Caracalla. 5. IvL 136 (= CIG 3941). Fragment dated by neokoria, though it may refer to neokoroi officials (as in IvL 53). COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Caracalla: BMC 225-236; SNGCop 589-591; SNGvA 38563862, 8418, 8419; SNGRighetti 1200, 1201; Berlin (25 exx.), Boston (8 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (7 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.).32 Julia Domna: BMC 213-218, 221; SNGCop 583-586; SNGvA 3851-3854, 8417; SNGLewis 1608; SNGRighetti 1197; Berlin (13 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Non-imperial obverses, time of Caracalla: Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford. Elagabalus:33 BMC 228-245; SNGCop 595-597; Berlin (9 exx.), London, New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.). Annia Faustina: BMC 246; SNGCop 598; SNGvA 3863; SNGRighetti 1202; Berlin, Paris, Vienna. Julia Maesa: BMC 247-250; SNGCop 599; SNGvA 8420; SNGLewis 1609; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Severus Alexander Caesar: BMC 251-253; SNGCop 600,

28 For a criticism of Roueché’s argument, Haensch 1997, 297 n. 199. 29 IvL 10.

chapter

8

– laodikeia in phrygia

601; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.34 Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus: SNGvA 8414; Berlin, Paris. Philip: New York, Paris, private collection (Hecht).35 30

Dräger 1993, 70-77. Trebilco 1994, 302. 32 Warsaw exx.: Corsten and Huttner 1996, nos. 29, 30. 33 See also Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 31 (private collection). 34 Warsaw ex. incorrectly assigned to dates of sole reign by Corsten and Huttner 1996, no. 32. 35 See above, n. 26. Also Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 229 nos. 2370-2371, for an issue of Tripolis under Philip, celebrating concord with neokoros Laodikeia. 31

125

Otacilia: BMC 254-258; SNGCop 602-605; SNGvA 3866; Berlin (12 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.). Philip the Younger: BMC 259-261; SNGCop 606-609; SNGvA 3864, 3865, 8421, 8422; SNGLewis 1611; Berlin (13 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Non-imperial obverses: BMC 126-132; SNGCop 540, 541; SNGvA 3832; SNGLewis 1610; SNGRighetti 1195; Berlin (10 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).

126

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 9. PHILADELPHIA First Neokoria: Caracalla In the case of Philadelphia, one document gives us more information on its neokoria than we have for cities with hundreds of coins and inscriptions. Philadelphia inscription 1 gives the text of a letter from the emperor Caracalla to a man named Aurelius, whose cognomen, now established as beginning with an M, has been erased: INSCRIPTION 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000 (Buresch 1898, 15-26 no. 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG4 883). Stele in the form of a distyle Ionic temple with rounded pediment, on its entablature: ÉAntvne›now se kt¤zei. Between the columns: AÈtokrãtvr Ka›sar Mçrkow AÈrÆliow ÉAntvne›now EÈsebØw SebastÚw ParyikÚw m°gistow, BrettanikÚw m°gistow, GermanikÚw m°gistow AÈrhl¤ƒ _ . . . ´vi t“ timivtãtƒ xa¤rein: e¸ ka‹ mhde‹w a|re› lÒgow tÚn Filadelf°a ÉIoulianÚn épÚ t«n Sardian«n e¸w tØn t}w patr¤dow metaye›nai filoteim¤an, éll' ˜mvw sØn xãrin {d°vw toËto poi«, di' ˜n ka‹ tØn nevkor¤an aÈtØn to›w F[il]adelfeËs[in d°]dvka: ¶rrvso M_ . . . ´e, timi\tat° moi ka‹ f¤ltate. ÉAnegn\syh §n t“ yeãtrƒ ¶touw sme', mhnÚw ÉApella¤ou e' é(piÒntow). The letter concerns one Julianus, presumably a client or relative of Aurelius M., who was to be allowed to perform a liturgy (likely provincial) in his home city of Philadelphia and not in Sardis (the closest city that had a provincial imperial temple).1 This bit of business, though doubtless of importance to Julianus, is not what caused the letter to be read out in the city’s theater and then inscribed on a 2 m. high temple-shaped stele with the declaration “Antoninus 1 Oliver 1989, no. 263. The cognomen was supposed by Buresch and all who followed him to be (another) Julianus: A. Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne 1961, no. 279. Guarducci 1969-1975, 119-120 even believed that the addressee and the liturgist were the same. The misinterpretation of this inscription by White 1998, 343-344 was egregious.

IN

LYDIA: KOINON

OF

ASIA

founds you” on the epistyle. The important phrase comes at the end of the emperor’s letter: “I do this gladly for your sake, on account of whom I have given even the neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.”2 This phrase may explain why the letter was carved on a stele shaped like the new temple that Caracalla had founded with his grant.3 It is also possible that the epistyle inscription represents an acclamation that was shouted in the theater, or even that the emperor was honored as kt¤sthw (presumably of the city) for granting the neokoria.4 It is unlikely, however, that Caracalla actually contributed toward the temple’s construction.5 The imperial grant of neokoria was enough. Aurelius M., whom Caracalla addressed as “most honored and beloved by me,” but whose name was later erased, is otherwise unknown. As for Julianus, that name frequently appears for magistrates on the coins of Philadelphia, including those of Geta Caesar (before 209) and later under Elagabalus and Severus Alexander.6 This profusion of Juliani prohibits us from identifying any of the archons named on coins as the reluctant liturgist. We can be certain only that the neokoria was granted by November 18 or 19, 214 C.E., when the letter to Aurelius M. was read in the theater.7 At that time, Caracalla was in Asia Minor for his Parthian campaign.8 No 2 Williams 1979, 87-88 found the fulsome language and emphasis on personal benefaction typical of Caracalla’s style. 3 Most authorities on this inscription have interpreted the second person (rather than first person) singular pronoun to mean the temple or the neokoria. See S. Price 1984b, 69 n. 61, 259. 4 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 185; S. Mitchell 1987, 20-21. 5 Winter 1996, 71, 335 no. 55; contra Guarducci 1969-1975, 119-120. 6 Münsterberg 1985, 145. 7 Bartels and Petzl 2000, 188; Philadelphia used the calendar of the Province Asia, which began the year on Augustus’ birthday. Note, however, that in Syria the Aktian era began in October 32/31, and the month Apellaios fell early in the year, thus still in 213: Jalabert, Mouterde, and Mondésert 1959, no. 2085, with a conjunction between Aktian and Seleucid eras. 8 Levick 1969, 432 no. 30; Johnston 1983, 68, though John-

chapter

9

– philadelphia in lydia

visit to the city is specifically mentioned, however, so we have no evidence of any particular motive for granting a neokoria to Philadelphia outside of the personal influence of Aurelius M. It is suggestive, however, that Aurelius’ petition to let a (koinon?) liturgy be fulfilled at Philadelphia rather than its grander neighbor Sardis was part of the same package as a request for the neokoria for his city. The petition implies that Julianus would need a temple in order to fulfill his liturgy, and that Caracalla’s grant of neokoria would result in the foundation of a koinon temple which he could serve in Philadelphia. Julianus’ office is then unlikely to have been agonothetes, since a provincial temple was not necessary to a city that held a provincial contest; Philadelphia itself had already been the site of the Koina of Asia as early as the mid-second century.9 Could the office have been a chief priesthood or Asiarchy? Chief priests or Asiarchs are only specified as having served in the temple(s) of five cities, later called the five metropoleis (below); if the other neokoroi cities had koinon officials to serve their temples, we do not know their statuses or names. Inscription 1 also draws attention to the city’s ambition, or rather, the ambition of the citizens for their city. Philadelphia was to be raised in rank, made equal to the other neokoroi, or at least to the cities that had one neokoria. In 214, these would have been Kyzikos, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and perhaps Miletos and Laodikeia, all once neokoroi; while Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna were twice neokoroi, and Ephesos alone, though its titles waxed and waned, may have been three times neokoros. As will be seen below, the Philadelphians wished their city to rank among the highest as well as wanting their provincial benefactions exercised in their own city, not a neighboring one. Coins of Claudius Capito as archon are the first to show the new temple for which Caracalla made Philadelphia neokoros. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR %E ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: EPI KL KAPITVNO% ARX A FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN Fourcolumn temple with arch in entablature, emperor with radiate crown and sceptre within. a) BMC ston 1982, 114, had previously misdated the grant to 212. See Halfmann 1986a, 229. 9 Moretti 1954.

127

86 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer c) Berlin 28425 d) Berlin 5292 e) New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 101) f) SNGvA 3081. The figure that stands within and identifies this temple is distinctive to Philadelphia: he wears a short tunic, perhaps a cuirass, a cloak, military boots, and a radiate crown; he holds a short sceptre, shouldered rather than raised. The catalogues identify him as Helios, but though that god does appear frequently on Philadelphian coins he is generally shown naked and running, with rays in halo-fashion emanating from around his head.10 The figure in this temple clearly wears a separate crown with parallel spikes attached, as Caracalla does on the antoniniani of his reign, and though it is too small to be a real portrait, its blunt features and stocky body hint at Caracalla rather than the idealized Hellenic Helios. All the Severans had frequently been associated with solar imagery; Caracalla (both with and without Geta) was hailed as ‘new Helios’ at Ephesos.11 At Philadelphia, Caracalla also appears as triumphator in a frontal chariot like that of the sun god.12 It seems likely, then, that Caracalla was assimilated to Helios (at least, in some attributes) in his temple at Philadelphia. The same temple continues to appear on coins of Severus Alexander, during the archonships of various Juliani: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUHR ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI ARX A TIB IOUL IOULIANOU FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN Four-column (Ionic, a) temple with arched entablature, within it emperor with attributes of Helios. a) BMC 94 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 102) b) Paris 1019. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUHR ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: EPI IOUL ARI%TON IOULIANOU ARX FL FILADELFEVN NEVKORVN Four-column temple with arched entabla10

BMC 86; cf. BMC 73 (pl. 22:10) or SNGvA 3085. Yalouris and Visser-Choitz 1990, 1030 do not even distinguish between the naked Helios (no. 367) and the clothed emperor/Helios (no. 368). The only other sun god shown in military dress, that of Palmyra, has a rayed halo, not a radiate crown. 11 Bergmann 1998, 267-274, 277-281. On emperors in general assimilated to Helios, Hijmans 1996, 147-149. 12 Harl 1987, 46-47; for the coin of Capito found at Sardis, see list below.

128

part i – section i. koinon of asia

ture, within it emperor with attributes of Helios. a) BMC 95 b) Paris R 3853 (1964) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA 3083. The coins record the temple with at least four columns, and the best-preserved specimen distinguishes them as Ionic, which agrees with the stele on which inscription 1 was engraved. In all cases the temple is shown with an arched entablature; and the stele, though unfortunately never illustrated by those who published it, is described as having a round-topped pediment filled with spiral ornament, and with a decorated cornice.13 This agreement of two forms of evidence, numismatic and sculptural, on some round feature associated with the temple’s pediment, hints that such a feature actually existed.14 An example of both an arcuated and a rounded pediment used on the same sacred building is the small streetside shrine formerly known as the ‘temple of Hadrian’ in Ephesos (q.v.). Philadelphian coins under Caracalla also feature new agonistic types. Like the temple of Caracalla/ Helios, they appear on coins that name Claudius Capito as archon, and either show the prize crowns of two festivals on an agonistic table or name the festivals themselves: the Deia for Zeus and the Haleia for Helios.15 There is no mention of the emperor’s name, though the abbreviation of festival names was usual on such small documents as coins. It is only Caracalla’s assimilation to Helios, documented on other coins, that possibly associates the temple for which Caracalla gave Philadelphia the title ‘neokoros’ and the Haleia festival. As Philadelphia is not known to have issued coins with ‘neokoros’ in their legends under Macrinus, it is impossible to tell whether its neokoria for Caracalla was threatened or withdrawn by that emperor (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). Under Gordian III, Philadelphia as neokoros issued coins of concord with Smyrna, three times neokoros. The two cities had issued earlier concord coins, under Commodus and the Severans, but this is the first to call both cities neokoroi.16 Unlike the

13 Buresch 1898, 15. Though the stele itself is lost, Bartels and Petzl 2000, 183 cited extant squeezes of it; an illustration would have aided its study immeasurably. 14 M. Price and Trell 1977, 19-21; Lyttelton 1974, 196-197. 15 L. Robert 1937, 161-164; Karl 1975, 53-54. 16 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 177-179 nos. 1745-1781 would date this coinage to Caracalla’s time, though the style and legends only match concord coins with obverses of Gordian

case at Hierapolis (q.v.), the designs of the Philadelphian coins carefully separate each of the two cities’ titles, with Smyrna receiving its full enumeration of neokoriai. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M ANT GORDIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: FL FILA NEVK KE %MUR (ZMUR, b) G NEVK(OR, a) EPI (AUR, a) MARKOU ARX A TO B; OMON(OIA, a). Artemis (huntress, a; Anaitis, b17) between the two Nemeseis of Smyrna. a) BMC 119 b) SNGCop 393. In 255 C.E. Philadelphia successfully petitioned Valerian and Gallienus to be released from its contribution to the metropoleis toward the support of the provincial chief priesthoods and festivals, on the grounds that it had once (under Elagabalus) been a metropolis itself.18 Just as when Julianus had transferred his liturgy from Sardis to his home city and Aurelius M. had requested the neokoria, Philadelphia was again trying to raise itself to the level of the highest cities of the province, Ephesos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Sardis, and Kyzikos, the cities where the chief priests and/or Asiarchs served.19 Valerian’s reply also hinted at this social-climbing aspect to the Philadelphians’ request, and warned them to take their success in a modest spirit, as if the metropoleis themselves had agreed to it, and not as if it would be a deprivation to them or to any other city. This warning shows that the emperor was fully aware of the discord that could arise from rivalry and ambition like the Philadelphians’.

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Bartels and Petzl 2000 (Buresch 1898, 15-20 no. 13; IGRR 4:1619; SIG4 883). Grant of neokoria by Caracalla. See text above.

III (ibid. 179-180 nos. 1782-1790). See also Pera 1984, 115116. 17 On the Artemis Anaitis of Philadelphia, often mistaken for Artemis of Ephesos, see Diakonoff 1979, 172-173. See below, n. 20. 18 SEG 17:528; Oliver 1989, no. 285, mis-cites the evidence for the title metropolis under Elagabalus: it is BMC (Lydia) 92, below. 19 On the five metropoleis, FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), ll. 2327, dated ca. 270. See summary chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in Part II.

chapter

9

– philadelphia in lydia

2. “Funde” in Mitteilungen des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 20 (1895) 231-244, esp. 243-244 (from G. Sarantides, N°a SmÊrnh June 2, 1895). The council and the “most illustrious and neokoros people” vote honors to a grammateus of the great sacred Deia Haleia Philadelpheia.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Caracalla: BMC 86, 87; SNGvA 3081; Buttrey, Johnston, MacKenzie, and Bates 1981, 41 no. 178; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris. Julia Domna: BMC 79-82, 84; SNGTüb 3757; SNGRighetti 1063; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London, New York, Paris (4 exx.). Elagabalus: BMC 92; Berlin. Julia Maesa: BMC 93; London. Severus Alexander: BMC 94-102; SNGvA 3083, 3084, 8241; SNGTüb 3760, 3761; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris (8 exx.). Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 386; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Gordian III: BMC 103, 119, 120; SNGCop 387, 393; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Paris (5 exx.).

129

Philip: BMC 104, 105; SNGCop 388-390; SNGvA 8242; New York, Paris (5 exx.). Otacilia: Paris. Philip Caesar: BMC 106, 107; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Trajan Decius: SNGvA 3085; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.); SNGRighetti 1065.20 Etruscilla: BMC 111; SNGvA 3086; SNGRighetti 1064; London, Paris. Herennius Etruscus: BMC 108-110; SNGCop 391; Berlin (2 exx.). Hostilian: Berlin. Non-imperial obverses: BMC 37-47, 49, 50, 113-118; SNGCop 355-361, 365-368, 392; SNGvA 3064-3070; SNGTüb 3752-3755; SNGRighetti 1054, 1055; SNGBraun 1124-1126; Berlin (33 exx.), Boston, New York (11 exx.), Oxford (21 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.). 20 Franke and Nollé 1997, 175 nos. 1729-1731, listing the type as Tyche of Philadelphia and possibly the Dioskouroi before a temple; it in fact represents Iphigeneia holding the Taurian Artemis (Anaitis, the point of contact between Ephesos and Philadelphia), with Orestes and Pylades approaching her temple. Both images were ‘heaven fallen’ (Artemis Ephesia: Acts 19.35; Artemis of the Taurians: Euripides, Iphigeneia among the Taurians ll. 87-88, 977-978, 1384-1385). I will publish an analysis in a forthcoming article, to be entitled ‘Iphigeneia in Philadelphia.’

130

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 10. TRALLES

IN

The documents for Tralles as neokoros are few, scattered, and difficult to pin down. Its ruins were used as a stone quarry, a lime kiln, and a statue mine, and as the city is now buried beneath the present-day provincial capital of Aydin, any remains of the temple that made it neokoros or sculpture associated with it are unlikely to be found.1 First neokoria: Caracalla Some of the first coins to declare Tralles neokoros seem to appear with a portrait of the mature Caracalla, datable to his sole rule, on the obverse. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU(T, c) KAI M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., (youthful, a; bearded, c). Rev: EPI GR PO KL PAGKRATIDOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Two six-column temples, each with disc in pediment, on long podium; within one, seated Zeus Larasios, within the other, emperor with sceptre and globe. a) Boston 63.2586 b) Paris 1697 c) Paris 1698 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 103) d) Paris 1699 e) New York, Newell f) SNGvA 3290. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded. Rev: EPI GR EUELPI%TOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN Asklepios, a snake untwining from his staff. a) London 1926.16-2. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust r., bearded. Rev: TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EB Female (Artemis?) with laurel branch. a) Paris 1702 b) SNGCop 696. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: [A K M AUR] ANTVNEINO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust r., mature. 1

Magie 1950, 129-130, 991-992; Bean 1971, 208-211; S. Price 1984b, 260-261; Özgan 1995, 4-11.

LYDIA: KOINON

OF

ASIA

Rev: [TRALLIANVN NEV]KORVN TVN [%EB] Tyche with rudder and cornucopia, wheel at feet. a) Vienna 19684. The identification of the broad-headed, mature and bearded portrait as Caracalla is not without its problems. The most important reverse type, no. 1, seems to illustrate the city’s title of ‘neokoros’ by showing its six-column imperial temple, a cuirassed statue within, next to the six-column temple of Tralles’ chief god, Zeus Larasios. Issued under the grammateus P. Claudius Pankratides, the obverse portraits vary from bearded and mature to a more youthful image. Though the latter can be interpreted as Elagabalus, that the same grammateus’ name on the same coin type should overlap those two reigns at a distance of over a year seems unlikely.2 The confirmation of Caracalla is crucial because the title neokoros is known to appear afterwards on Tralles’ coins only during the reigns of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. If no coins of Caracalla had been found (or if it could be proved that Caracalla’s portrait was being reused for his putative son), it would have appeared that the title was granted by Elagabalus and then withdrawn under Severus Alexander, as would be the case for Beroia, Nikomedia, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and Hierapolis.3 Inscriptions would normally be used to clarify the situation, but unfortunately in Tralles’ case the inscriptions have generally been dated from the neokoria and provide little independent evidence. One may make the attempt to identify the honorees of the inscriptions with magistrates on the city’s coins, but the repetition of cognomina down the generations makes any conclusion less than certain. For example, inscription 1 honors an agoranomos and logistes, Tiberius Claudius Glyptos. 2 Johnston 1983, 69 no. 3 apparently accepted the identification as Caracalla, though in her previous article, Johnston 1982, 116, she implied that the youthful variant must be Elagabalus. 3 See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ for Elagabalus’ neokoroi.

chapter

10

INSCRIPTION 1. Poljakov 1989 (= IvT) 74. t}w lamprotãthw pÒlevw t}w nevkÒrou t«n Sebast«n |erçw toË DiÚw katå tå dÒgmata t}w sunklÆtou Trallian«n. . . Poljakov dated this inscription broadly to the third century, but mistakenly alleged that Tiberius Claudius Glyptos’ full name had appeared on Tralles’ coinage; instead, the single name ‘Glyptos’ appeared as grammateus on coins predating the neokoria, during the reign of Septimius Severus.4 If this were the same man, inscription 1 could antedate his becoming grammateus, but that would date the use of neokoros on Tralles’ inscriptions well before the word ever appears on coins. That is a heavy conclusion to draw from what seems to be a common name in the city; a P. Licinius Glyptos was grammateus later, in the time of Philip the Arab, according to IvT 55. Similar is the case for inscription 2: INSCRIPTION 2. IvT 81. [t}w] lamprotãth[w mhtro]pÒlevw t}w [ÉAs¤aw ka‹] nevkÒrou t«[n Sebast«n] ka‹ |erçw toË [DiÚw toË La]ras¤ou k[atå tå dÒgmata] t}w |ervtã[thw sunklÆ]tou Kaisa[r°vn Trallia]n«n pÒl[evw]. . . There the council and people honor Flavius Diadoumenos; there is a gap of one letter’s size after his name, and he is categorized as ‘of the emperor’ and ‘a relative of consulars.’ Poljakov dated the inscription specifically under Caracalla, before 217, though his reasoning was nowhere made clear; Buresch had allied it to Caracalla’s grant of neokoria to Philadelphia (q.v.), which he dated incorrectly to 215, but was willing to place the inscription at any point from that time to the reign of Severus Alexander.5 On IvT 55, the same inscription of the reign of Philip on which a Glyptos also appeared, a (restored) T. Fl. Diadoumenos the Younger was among the grammateis, and coins of Philip also cite that post as held by “the associates of Flavius Diadoumenos”; presumably he himself did not serve due to youth or inability.6 Buresch posited that this last Diadoumenos was the son of the Fl. Diadoumenos of inscription 2, and that an ancestor, one Ti. Claudius Diadoumenos, had made a dedication to an emperor whose name 4

IvT 55 ll. 13-14; L. Robert 1937, 418, citing coins from Paris and Berlin (Imhoof-Blumer); SNGvA 3289; Münsterberg 1985, 153. 5 Buresch 1894, 111-115. 6 Münsterberg 1985, 153; BMC 357.



TRALLES IN LYDIA

131

was erased, perhaps Nero.7 But such a proliferation of Diadoumenoi does not help us to date inscription 2 independent of its mention of neokoria. In fact, none of the six inscriptions so far known to call Tralles neokoros can yet be independently dated. From the first, both coins and inscriptions declare that Tralles was neokoros (singular) of the Augusti (plural).8 This not only confirms that the title was held for the imperial cult and not (for example) for Zeus Larasios, but also shows how pervasive was the tendency to associate other emperors with the one who allowed the original grant and title. That the grantor was Caracalla, incidentally, cannot be definitely affirmed. The appearance of the title is irregular, so the evidence can only affirm that the title was held during Caracalla’s reign but not when it was given. Coin type 5 mentions an Augousteia among other festivals: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% (%EB, c) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: GR AUR MENEKRATOU% EUTUXIDOU TRALLIANVN NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN; OLUMPIA AUGOU%TEIA PUYIA Festival names in three wreaths on an agonistic table. a) Paris 1700 b) Vienna 19682 c) Berlin, Fox. Though Augousteia may well be a festival in celebration of Tralles’ temple of the Augusti, the type does not establish any more specific connection with the original grantor, and likely object of cult, of the neokoria. Augousteia might refer to any emperor, though most references to that festival date later than this coin, to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus.9 It is worth noting that inscription 1, and probably 2 as well, mention plural decrees of the Senate. While these decrees may have concerned only their immediate antecedent, the city’s status as sacred to Zeus Larasios, it is tempting to connect them with the neokoria as well, the mention of which immediately precedes that phrase. Despite the old view of the Senate as playing a diminished part in administration, cities like Tralles, Ephesos, Smyrna, Sardis, and Laodikeia specified that they were neokoroi by decree(s) of the Senate in the third cen7 IvT 42; Buresch 1894, 111-115; Barbieri 1952, 381-382 no. 2177. 8 L. Robert 1967, 55 n. 1. 9 Karl 1975, 24-26, though with errors, and unaware of this coin type for Tralles.

132

part i – section i. koinon of asia

tury.10 The cities apparently hoped that the Senate’s approval would confirm the legality of their titles and set the seal on the emperor’s grant.

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros of the Augusti: 1. IvT 74. See text above. 2. IvT 81. See text above. 3. IvT 52. Inscription of “the most illustrious metropolis of Asia and neokoros of the Augusti Caesarea Tralles” honoring a proconsul. Dated under Caracalla (by neokoria?).

10 See chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’ Talbert 1984, 9597; also note IvT 16, an inscription for a priest of the god Senate, found between Tralles and Magnesia.

4. IvT 94. Fragment, probably same formula as no. 3. Dated to third century, by neokoria. 5. IvT 58. Fragment of honorific to a consular, same formula as no. 3. Dated under Caracalla (by neokoria?). 6. IvT 59. Fragment mentioning an Antonine (emperor?), probably same formula as no. 3. Dated to third century, by neokoria. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Caracalla: SNGCop 696; SNGvA 3290; Berlin, London, New York, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna. Elagabalus: SNGvA 3291; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Severus Alexander: BMC 161; SNGTüb 3878; Paris, Vienna. Julia Mamaea: BMC 164, 165; SNGvA 3292, 3293.

chapter

11

Chapter 11. ANTANDROS



IN THE

Antandros was a small city in the southern Troad, facing onto the gulf of Adramyteion, its back to Mt. Ida. Its origins seem to have been so ancient that no one could agree on who its founders were.1 Though its ruins have been noted as “a city of some importance,” it has never been excavated.2 It was best known as the administrator of a local shrine of Artemis; there are few other facts to color its insignificance. Its far more important neighbor, Adramyteion, was the center for the judicial district, but was never neokoros, so far as is known.3 First Neokoria: Caracalla Thus the discovery of a single coin of Caracalla declaring Antandros neokoros comes as a complete surprise.4 Cities like Laodikeia and Philadelphia at least had pretensions toward being of importance within their koinon; so far as we know, Antandros had none. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT?] KAI M AUR AN[TVNINO%] Radiate head of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: ANTANDREVN NEVKORVN Bearded god with sceptre (Asklepios, Zeus, or Serapis). a) Athens, Numismatic Museum (illus. pl. 26 fig. 104). Though the coin does not appear to have been recut or in any way falsified, it has some odd features that do not jibe with the (admittedly scanty) corpus of 1

133

ANTANDROS IN THE TROAD

Hirschfeld 1894, 2346. 2 Cook 1973, 267-271. 3 Habicht 1975, 70; see above chapter 6, ‘Sardis.’ SNGParis (Mysie) xxxvii and Adramyteion 67, on which B NE has been taken to attribute a second neokoria to Adramyteion, represents the name of the strategos, Aur. Gaius B NEOU: Münsterberg 1985, 262. 4 Formerly in the Evelpides collection. Thanks to Alan Walker, for the initial information and casts; to Eos Tsourti, of the Athens Numismatic Museum; and to Kenneth Sheedy, who recently re-examined the coin and provided the illustration.

TROAD: KOINON

OF

ASIA

imperial coins from Antandros. First, the reverse type looks like the Asklepios common on other Antandrian coins, but lacks his serpent-entwined staff.5 Second, though the coin’s spelling of ANTANDREVN is known on coins up to the time of Antoninus Pius,6 later coins of Commodus, Septimius Severus, of Caracalla himself, and of the time of Elagabalus generally spell the city’s name ANTANDRIVN.7 All these features might be explicable if there were more Antandrian coins known with which to compare them, but there are not. Thus there remain questions about the sole document for neokoria. Only extraordinary circumstances could explain Antandros as neokoros, and the most extraordinary circumstance available is the emperor’s presence in the area. At the end of the year 213, Caracalla crossed the Hellespont to Asia to begin his campaign against the Parthians.8 Among his first stops was Ilion, and there he imitated Alexander by paying special honor to the tomb of Achilles.9 Herodian even states that he gave one of his favorite freedmen a funeral like Patroklos’, by some accounts having poisoned him for that purpose. Though Antandros is not far from Ilion, it is not recorded as one of Caracalla’s stops. Still, the historians’ accounts of his eastern travels and Parthian campaign are extremely sketchy. Some demonstration of devotion to the emperor (or to Alexander), or some whim of Caracalla’s, could have made the Antandrians neokoroi. But the title should still be 5 Asklepios reverses: BMC 13 and Berlin (Kraft 1972, pl. 89 no. 22a) (Commodus); BMC 14 and Paris (Kraft 1972, pl. 65 no. 16b) (Septimius Severus); SNGCop 221 and Paris (Septimius Severus), SNGCop 223 (Julia Paula, first wife of Elagabalus). See Schwertheim 1996, 104 for a discussion of the cult of Asklepios in the Troad, and 109-110 for a decree from Antandros. 6 BMC 11 (Marcus Aurelius Caesar). 7 All in n. 4 above, plus SNGCop 222 (Caracalla). 8 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Letta 1994b documents the emperor’s arrival in winter quarters at Nikomedia on 1 January 214. 9 Cassius Dio ep. 78.16.7; Herodian 4.8.4-5.

134

part i – section i. koinon of asia

confirmed by further coins and inscriptions; one unique coin is not a firm foundation for anything but vague speculation. No inscriptions of Antandros as neokoros are yet known.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Caracalla: Athens, Numismatic Museum (formerly Evelpides collection).

chapter

12

Chapter 12. HIERAPOLIS

135

– hierapolis in phrygia

IN

The city of Hierapolis is well described by its Turkish name Pamukkale, ‘Cotton Fortress.’ Set high on a terrace formed by cascades of white travertine from its own mineral springs, its strategic position guards both the plain where the Lykos joins the Maeander River and the passage from Phrygia across the mountains into Lydia.1 First Neokoria: Elagabalus There was some initial thought that Caracalla visited Hierapolis and made it neokoros in honor of his late teacher, the sophist Antipater, whose home it was.2 In his final days, however, Antipater’s actions had not been calculated to please Caracalla: he wrote the emperor a lament on the death of Geta, then starved himself to death.3 It seems more likely that Hierapolis’ neokoria was for the homonymous successor and putative son of Caracalla, Elagabalus.4 The city issued an unusually lavish series of coins to celebrate becoming neokoros. The series includes coins for Elagabalus’ second wife Aquilia Severa, a Vestal Virgin whom he may have married, divorced, and then remarried all in the space of a year, 221; for Annia Faustina, married in the interval between his marriages to Aquilia Severa; and for Severus Alexander as Caesar (late 221-early 222).5 These coins date late in Elagabalus’ reign, after he had settled in Rome. It is then curious that Hierapolis also issued coins that seem to allude to the emperor’s presence in the city. He sacrifices before a temple of Apollo, is greeted and crowned by the city goddess, or sacrifices at the same altar with her; another type shows the emperor riding over an eastern enemy, which

PHRYGIA: KOINON

OF

ASIA

would logically suit a date early in the reign, when he was making his way west from the area of the Parthian War and his contest with Macrinus for the Empire.6 In Johnston’s view, all the coins for Elagabalus and his family were issued around 221, so the types that appear to be earlier would be retrospective, referring back to the time when the emperor was in the East. Though the coin types seem to imply that Elagabalus visited Hierapolis and sacrificed at the temple of Apollo (and perhaps at that of the moon god Men, below), this implication contradicts Cassius Dio, who implied that he passed from Syria to Bithynia by the direct route, via Cappadocia.7 We may perhaps be able to believe that Elagabalus sacrificed at the temple of Artemis at Ephesos (q.v.); it was, after all, one of the seven wonders of the world, and he might even have journeyed from his winter quarters in Nikomedia to see it. But it is extremely doubtful that he would have turned so far aside from his route to visit Hierapolis. It is most likely, then, that Hierapolis’ coin types are allegorical, referring to benefits and honors to the city that were conferred from a distance. Certainly Hierapolis was named neokoros on no form of evidence that need be dated earlier than 221. On their coin reverses, some cities added their patron god’s temple to the temple(s) that made them neokoroi, resulting in a more impressive picture. Hierapolis went even further, placing its single imperial temple between two others. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT K M AUR AN]TVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., beardless. Rev: IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN; AIYUP (PUYIA retrograde); [ AKTIA] Three temples on podia, the outer two turned toward

1

D’Andria 2001; De Bernardi Ferrero 1993; Ritti 1985; Humann, Cichorius, Judeich, and Winter 1898 (= AvH). 2 Cichorius, in AvH 26. 3 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 2.24; Ritti 1988. 4 Johnston 1984; von Papen 1908, 178-181.

5

Kienast 1996, 172-175, 177-179; Barnes 1972, 74. Johnston 1984, 64-65 nos. 5, 9-11, 4. 7 Cassius Dio 79.39.6-40.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; pace Johnston 1984, 60. 6

136

part i – section i. koinon of asia

the center, the center one four-column, an arch in the pediment; within, emperor in military dress with sceptre, r. arm outstretched; above, two wreaths. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer8 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 105). The result resembles triple-temple coins that had recently been issued by such eminent cities as Ephesos, Pergamon, Sardis, and Smyrna (qq.v.); the latter was still using this type. The side temples have no identifying figure within, but the fact that two wreaths float before their rooftrees may signify that they are the temples for which Hierapolis celebrated sacred festivals (below). The central temple has no wreath, but is distinguished by a cuirassed figure standing within, and should represent the imperial temple for which Hierapolis became neokoros. A similar figure appears within a lone temple on types 2 and 3: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AU ANTVN[EIN]V% %B (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., beardless but mature. Rev: IERAPOLEITVN NEVKORVN Six-column temple on three-step podium, in pediment a facing bust with crescent at shoulders; within, emperor in military dress holds phiale over altar. a) Berlin, Löbbecke9 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 106). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %E Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r., beardless, youthful. Rev: [IERAP]OLEITVN NEVKORVN Two-column temple in three-quarter view, disc in pediment; within, emperor in military dress with sceptre holds phiale over altar. a) Paris 1335.10 Here the additional space allowed the die-cutter to indicate a detail omitted on the triple-temple type: the emperor is shown offering sacrifice. A similar image was seen on coins of Ephesos under Macrinus, showing the annual vows for the emperor’s health, but there Macrinus was costumed as a togate priest, not in military dress; the vows were for him, not to him.11 Elagabalus wears the same priestly dress when he sacrifices before Apollo’s temple on Hierapolis’ coins (above). But that a figure pours a libation does not rule out its being a deity; Zeus, for example, was 8 Johnston 1984, 65 no. 8; Ritti 1985, 79 misdated it to the time of Caracalla. 9 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 6. 10 Ibid., no. 7.

frequently shown on coins of this period holding out a phiale.12 It is possible, then, that the sacrificing emperor in military dress who stands within a temple, as on types 1-3, represents the object of cult. If the three coin types represent the same temple, it appears to have featured some architectural oddities. Type 1 shows it with a solid architrave across the facade as well as an arch, perhaps decorative, within the pediment. Type 2, whose temple has six (Ionic or Corinthian) columns, the maximum number known, also indicates pedimental decoration: a facing bust (of the moon god Men?) with a crescent behind its shoulders. A shieldlike feature is also noted on type 3, but is abbreviated to a simple disc. It is remotely possible that type 2 represents the emperor sacrificing to Men as he did to Apollo on other coins, but those show him before, not in, the temple. It is more likely that the god Men was associated with the temple, perhaps as a deity who shared the emperor’s cult. It is even possible that the cult of Elagabalus was moved into a previously existing temple of a god, as was the case at Nikomedia and Philippopolis, but that possibility is difficult to affirm solely from a pedimental decoration on a coin image. The two temples that flank the imperial temple on type 1 contain no images, but the word Pythia is written (in reverse) over the left-hand one, and from contemporary agonistic types Aktia may be restored over the other.13 Two wreaths, probably symbolizing the festivals, float between the apices of the three temples. It is noteworthy that the numbers of festivals and of temples do not match in this instance; what von Papen saw as a prize crown above the center temple is only the temple’s akroterion.14 Though we have seen several instances of festivals linked to temples that made their city neokoros, it was plainly not a necessity that each such temple have a festival, and in this case both festivals were probably associated with the flanking temples, predating the new imperial temple that conferred neokoria in the center.15 11 S. Price 1984b, 264 no. 86 (though he makes little of this), and 214-215 pl. 3a on the Ephesos coin. 12 Kremydi-Sicilianou 1997, 371 and nos. 445, 458-460, 516-521. 13 Johnston 1984, 70-71 nos. 39-42. 14 Von Papen 1908, 161. 15 Pace Chuvin 1987, 101-102, conflating the Aktia and Pythia into the festival on the Chrysorhoas; the piling up of previously existing festivals to celebrate a new neokoria is not implausible, but not provable either.

chapter

12

– hierapolis in phrygia

There have been several attempts to identify the two side temples of type 1 by their associated festivals.16 Von Papen interpreted the Aktia (illegible on the coin itself, but presumably for the right-hand temple) as a “neokorate” contest, since Aktia were based on the festival for Augustus’ victory at Actium. But the festival may predate the neokoria: an Augustan inscription of Hierapolis perhaps refers to the same Aktia under the term ég«new toË SebastoË.17 Weber more plausibly associated the Aktia and the right-hand temple with another temple labeled ‘to the family of the Augusti’ on coins of the time of Claudius.18 This six-columned Ionic structure was in all probability damaged in the earthquake that devastated Hierapolis and several other Phrygian cities in the year 60.19 Its subsequent history is uncertain. But beside the question of its continued existence, Weber’s further theory that this temple was the source of Hierapolis’ neokoria is ruled out by several considerations. First, it has never been identified as a provincial but only a municipal imperial temple; if every city that possessed such a structure could have claimed to be neokoros, there would be closer to three hundred neokoroi than thirty. Second, Hierapolis would apparently lose its neokoria after Elagabalus’ death, a fact that ties the title explicitly to that emperor’s cult; though the coins do not document them specifically until the reign of Elagabalus, the Aktia continued to be proclaimed on coins of the time of Philip when the neokoria did not.20 Johnston associated the festival Pythia and the lefthand temple on type 1 with the cult of Apollo.21 The Pythia, unlike the Aktia, had appeared on Hierapolis’ coins under Septimius Severus, well before the title ‘neokoros’ appeared.22 Those coins do celebrate Apollo as the chief god of Hierapolis; his head also appears on the obverse of many coins of the city and 16

84.

Bibliography in Johnston 1984, 56, 59; Ritti 1985, 83-

17 Ritti 1979, no. 2; Pleket 1981; Ritti 1983a, 172 no. 1; and on Anathema, 1989-1990, 870-872 no. 2. 18 RPC 1:481 no. 2973, where the obverse head is identified as Apollo. 19 Tacitus, Annals 14.27.1; Magie 1950, 564, 1421; Ritti 1985, 23-28; Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 194195. 20 Karl 1975, 8-12, 120 n. 1 misattributed coins of Elagabalus to Caracalla and misinterpreted the alpha in A PUYIA to refer to Aktia. See n. 22 below. 21 Johnston 1984, 57-60; also see Ritti 1985, 78-84. 22 SNGvA 8381, 8382; the prize crown reads A PUYIA, ‘first’ either in rank or in order of celebration. See n. 20 above.

137

he stands as the city’s patron and symbol on ‘concord’ coinage where that festival, the Pythia, also represents the city. Thus the inclusion of his temple in a multiple-temple coin type stands within the established tradition of cities like Tralles, Nikomedia, and Sardis (qq.v). Less likely is Johnston’s contention that the cult of Elagabalus was installed in Apollo’s temple, since coin type 1 shows the imperial temple as distinct from the other two. The lower part of a colossal cuirassed imperial statue was indeed found in the area of the temple of Apollo, but it has been dated too early, to the second century C.E., and was not in situ anyway, but reused as later building material.23 Johnston went still further in using its cult of Apollo to explain why Hierapolis of all places became neokoros. Robert opined that Elagabalus had awarded neokoriai to Sardis, Ephesos, and Nikomedia because he had wed his Emesene baetyl to Kore, Artemis, and Demeter in those cities.24 Johnston then reasoned that the emperor may have also identified his sun god with the Apollos worshipped not only in Hierapolis, but in Perinthos, Philippopolis, and Miletos. Unfortunately, Johnston did not deal with Elagabalus’ other neokoriai, for Beroia (Macedonia) and perhaps Tripolis (Phoenicia); neither had a notable cult of Apollo. But her presumption that all festivals named Pythia were for the cult of Apollo is not tenable. In fact, Pythia often meant isopythian, a festival of the sort celebrated for Apollo at Delphi, but not necessarily for the cult of Apollo.25 At Perinthos, for example, the Pythia appear to have been also Philadelphia, a contest associated with the second imperial temple, not with Apollo. If the coinage is any guide, Apollo’s cult was not very important at Perinthos; the city’s founder was Herakles, its eponym the hero Perinthos, and its symbol on ‘concord’ coinages a city goddess. At Miletos, whose patron god was indeed Apollo, his festival was the Didymeia, not the Pythia, as Johnston admitted; a Pythian festival at Miletos (q.v.) may have been associated with one of the imperial temples. In all, twenty-three cities recorded Pythia on their coins at some time, but only a few were notable for cults of Apollo, and fewer still became neokoroi for Elagabalus. 23 24 25

Bejor 1991, 53-54 no. 24. L. Robert 1967, 58 n. 8. Karl 1975, 110-121.

138

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Johnston reached this impasse because she found Hierapolis too unimportant a city to become neokoros. Of the cities in Asia that Elagabalus made neokoros for his cult, all are known to have been metropoleis, or at least to have been sites of the Koina festival, except for Hierapolis. What Johnston overlooked, however, was the enumeration of neokoroi: with Elagabalus’ grants, Ephesos was four times neokoros, Sardis three times, Miletos twice, and Hierapolis only once neokoros. There is no implication that Hierapolis needed to be of the same rank as these larger cities to gain its single neokoria. If we compare the standing of all the neokoroi of Asia yet known during the reign of Elagabalus, Ephesos is alone at four, with Pergamon, Smyrna, and Sardis all at three, Miletos at two, and Kyzikos (problematic), Philadelphia, Tralles, Laodikeia, perhaps Antandros, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and Hierapolis all at one. Certainly most of these are known to have had a Koina festival, but there are some (and those the more recent single neokoroi, Antandros and Hierapolis) that are not.26 As will be discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the title ‘neokoros’ was filtering down among the smaller cities. Johnston took this as a sign of the elimination of the koinon’s role in mediating between city and emperor; and there have already been signs of that trend, starting even as early as Hadrian, and seen particularly clearly in, for example, Caracalla’s grant to Philadelphia (q.v.). Johnston’s explanation for Hierapolis’ neokoria, like Robert’s for those of Sardis, Ephesos, and Nikomedia, focused on Elagabalus’ personality, doubtless an effect of the biographical nature of our sources for this period. In the broader context of this study, however, Hierapolis may be less out of place as neokoros than it initially seemed. Certainly we would like to know more about the city’s standing in the koinon, its relationship with its neighbors (especially the recently-confirmed-neokoros Laodikeia, a possible rival), and its other associations with Rome and its rulers. But these, like the arguments made by the Hierapolitans in favor of their becoming neokoroi, are thus far lost. Only one closely dated inscription of Hierapolis as neokoros has yet been found. INSCRIPTION 1. Ritti 1983a, 181 no. 2. Statue base of Julia Mamaea, mother of Severus Alex26

Moretti 1954.

ander (the latter name erased). { nevkÒrow boulØ ka‹ [~ d}]mow... The fact that Hierapolis, or rather its council, could still be called neokoros under Severus Alexander fits in with evidence from the seven other eastern cities that became neokoroi for Elagabalus: there was some delay, likely of years rather than months, before the honor was withdrawn (see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’). The word ‘neokoros,’ however, was allowed to stand on inscription 1, just when the Ephesians were erasing inscriptions boasting their fourth neokoria for Elagabalus and changing the number to three. Ephesos, of course, was the main headquarters of Roman administration of the province, and probably had to be more punctilious in using its proper titulature where it would be often seen. On the other hand, this inscription stood long enough for the name ‘Alexander’ to be erased, due to the condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memory after his death in 235. Did the Hierapolitans take a special pleasure in eliminating the name of the emperor who had eventually removed their neokoria? But one may wonder why, if Hierapolis was only neokoros for a few years under Elagabalus and early in the rule of Severus Alexander, it has produced four inscriptions that cite it with that title. Withdrawn: Severus Alexander? After minting its varied and plentiful series of coins for Elagabalus and its first neokoria, Hierapolis issued no more coins for twenty years. Though earlier authorities would have attributed this gap to the Roman authorities’ withdrawal of minting privileges, it is now recognized that minting could be an intermittent affair for many cities; Laodikeia underwent a similar hiatus.27 Still, following the example of other cities that had become neokoroi for Elagabalus, it is possible that Hierapolis lost the title after that emperor’s death and the condemnation of his memory, and expressed its chagrin by abstaining from one medium on which it had boasted being neokoros.28

27

Johnston 1984, 61-62. Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. It would be instructive to know what titulature the city was given on the Nymphaeum of the Tritons, which bore a dedication, not yet published, to Severus Alexander: D’Andria 2001 111. 28

chapter

12

– hierapolis in phrygia

The city did not forget its claim to neokoria when it again began to mint. It issued a series of coins that illustrated its close ties with the greatest neokoroi of the province Asia. The coins were minted with obverses of Philip, his wife Otacilia, their son Philip, and with personifications of the Senate or of Apollo. The reverse types proclaim ‘concord’ with a neokoros city: the partner can be Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, or Kyzikos.29 The concord is illustrated by types of the cities’ patron divinities, where Hierapolis, represented by Apollo, joins hands with the Pergamene Asklepios, the Ephesian Artemis, or the Sardian ‘Kore’; or by two city goddesses clasping hands; or even by the clasped hands alone. The concord coinage also refers to festivals: Hierapolis’ Pythia is paired with Ephesos’ Ephesia, Sardis’ Chrysanthina, or an unnamed contest at Smyrna.30 The nature of the list is interesting in itself: Hierapolis celebrated its concord only with the most prominent cities of Asia, each one neokoros. But except for Kyzikos (q.v.), which was merely neokoros on contemporary coins, all were multiple neokoroi: Pergamon, Ephesos, and Smyrna each had three, while Sardis had two, though Hierapolis specified no enumeration for the neokoriai on these coins. There were at least five and possibly six other cities in the koinon of Asia with one neokoria apiece under Philip: Miletos, Philadelphia, Laodikeia, perhaps Antandros, Aizanoi (for Zeus), and Magnesia (for Artemis); but so far as is known, Hierapolis did not boast of her concord with this ‘second rank.’ Nor does the choice have much to do with the Koina festival, as many cities outside the ones mentioned celebrated Koina.31 In fact, Hierapolis’ partners in these concord coinages were the ‘five metropoleis,’ the five known cities in which chief priests of Asia are documented as presiding over the temples that made them neokoroi.32 Given this element of social climbing in Hierapolis’ choice of partners, another facet of this coinage becomes clear: the wording of the legends appears deliberately to obscure the possibility that

139

in every case it was the other city, but not necessarily Hierapolis, that was neokoros; thus Johnston hypothesized that Hierapolis was not in fact neokoros at this time. It was this wording that had led Weber into thinking that Hierapolis’ neokoria had been granted by Caracalla, since the title seemed to persist after Elagabalus’ death.33 But as Johnston noted, the title ‘neokoros’ never appears on Hierapolis’ own, non-concord, coins under Philip, so she reasoned that the city was not entitled to it.34 On the other hand, Hierapolis had issued similar concord coins even when it was surely neokoros, under Elagabalus, and on those it had again been the other city (in this case Ephesos, specified as four times neokoros) to which the title was attributed.35 Thus Kampmann denied Johnston’s hypothesis, stating that the neokoria lost after Elagabalus’ death was simply regranted early in Philip’s reign, before his son was made Augustus.36 There is no other case where a lost neokoria for Elagabalus was regranted under Philip, however; there are three where it was regranted in the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus. The only other neokoria that can be plausibly associated with Philip was that of Neapolis, close to his homeland; and he had no discernible reason to honor Hierapolis. It is dangerous to read too much into such abbreviated and disparate documents. From the present evidence it may be that the coins of Hierapolis were designed to make the city appear to be both neokoros and the equal of the metropoleis of its koinon, when in fact it was not. The argument is ultimately based on silence, i.e. the lack of datable contemporary documents that call Hierapolis neokoros with no possibility of misinterpretation; the appearance of even one such document could contradict it. Still, it is possible that rank and titles were important enough that Hierapolis could stretch the truth for their sake. At this time or just after, it is possible that Phrygia was detached from the province Asia, and along with Caria became an independent province; Hierapolis, of course, would have become part of the new province, as did its neighbor Laodikeia (q.v.).37 Hiera-

29

Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 67-91; L. Weber 1912. Weber attributed the concord issues to commercial connections. 30 Pera 1984, 70-77, though she dealt with earlier coins, attributed the concord issues to such festivals, as von Papen had before. 31 Moretti 1954. 32 Mentioned on a later Ephesian inscription of ca. 270 C.E.: FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), ll. 23-27. See ‘The Koina,’ chapter 41 in Part II.

33

L. Weber 1911, 466-468. Johnston 1984, 53. 35 Johnston 1984, 64 no. 3; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70 nos. 656-658. 36 Kampmann 1996, 86-91; 1998, 389-390. 37 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. 34

140

part i – section i. koinon of asia

polis, then, would have been separated from the province for which it had once held its imperial temple and neokoria. Though there are some early references to a koinon of Phrygia, they are limited to the city of Apamea and do not refer to this provincial reorganization.38 Thus it is very surprising that Hierapolis would continue to celebrate its ties to Asia in subsequent reigns, with further concord coinages allying it to the old province’s greatest neokoroi cities. First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus? Possibly Hierapolis, like Nikomedia, Ephesos, and Sardis (qq.v.), regained a neokoria that it had lost after the death of Elagabalus during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus. As under Philip, all of Hierapolis’ coinage citing the title ‘neokoros,’ whether with or without portraits of Valerian or Gallienus, proclaims the alliance between Hierapolis and a great neokoros city of Asia.39 No coins of alliance with Pergamon or Kyzikos are found any more; Hierapolis seems to have given its attention only to its nearer eminent neighbors, Ephesos, Smyrna, and Sardis. None of these was in the province of Phrygia and Caria. Otherwise, Hierapolis’ concord coinage under Valerian and Gallienus is exactly parallel with that under Philip, with one important exception: COIN TYPE 4. Obv: IERAPOLEITVN NEVK(ORVN, efgh; NEOKORVN, d) Victory with wreath and palm. Rev: K EFE%IVN OMONUA Laureate veiled bust of the goddess of Concord r.40 a) London 1921.5-20-67 b) Oxford 6.17g c) Oxford 4.88g d) Paris 1006(5) e) Vienna 19870 f) Berlin g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 26 fig. 107). Here ‘of the neokoroi Hierapolitans’ is isolated on the obverse, while the legend continues ‘and Ephesians, concord’ on the reverse. That this issue dates to the time of Valerian and Gallienus is assured by the consistent misspelling of ‘concord’ on this and others of their coins.41 One coin issue is an uncer38

Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77. A possible exception, SNGBraun 1811, is too obscure even to attribute firmly to Hierapolis. Non-imperial obverses without mention of concord are not incontrovertibly dated. 40 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 77 nos. 755-764, with Concord identified as the Council and placed on the obverse. 41 Johnston 1984, 53-54. 39

tain basis for asserting or for denying the neokoria of Hierapolis. The city may have been only stretching the same point it made under Philip by isolating the title with its own name instead of that of its ally. If the claim were unjust we would expect to find it protested and redressed, but as Hierapolis’ coinage comes to an end after this series we cannot see any outcome. If type 4 makes a legitimate claim, Hierapolis may join Nikomedia, Ephesos, and Sardis in having lost its neokoria for Elagabalus and regained the title under Valerian and Gallienus. It is not impossible, however, that the title had been restored to Hierapolis earlier, under Philip, as Beroia’s was under Gordian III; or even that it had never been lost at all. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Ritti 1983a, 181 no. 2. Statue base of Julia Mamaea; see text above. 2. Ritti 1983b, 221-230, Hierapolis museum inv. no. 664. Statue base; the neokoros council and the most illustrious people and the most revered gerousia honor Melitine Artemas, with terms of her bequest. Very elaborate lettering, with many ligatures, of the first part of the third century. 3. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 34. The neokoros people honor M. Aurelius Apollonides Ammianos Daphnos. Undated. 4. Judeich 1898, (AvH) no. 234. Tomb inscription of a chief priest Ti. Claudius Cleon with a bequest to the neokoros council. Undated. Inscriptions on ivory objects that were supposed to mention neokoros Hierapolis have been found to be forgeries copied from coins: J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique (1969) 556 a, 60. Also note a neokoros official: Ritti 1983a, 180.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Elagabalus: BMC 139, 140, 142-144; SNGCop 461; SNGvA 3658, 8383, 8384; Berlin (16 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Concord with Ephesos, four times neokoros: Paris.42 42

Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70 nos. 656-658.

chapter

12

– hierapolis in phrygia

Aquilia Severa: BMC 145; Berlin, Paris. Annia Faustina: BMC 146-148; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Severus Alexander Caesar: Berlin, Paris, Vienna. Non-imperial obverses, time of Elagabalus:43 BMC 46, 47, 60, 61, 65, 70-75, 84-89, 92; SNGCop 439-446; SNGvA 3627-3629, 3631-3633, 3636, 8379; SNGLewis 1623; Berlin (19 exx.), London, New York (7 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna (10 exx.). Philip: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:44 BMC 170; SNGCop 473; SNGLewis 1625 (identified as Philip II); Berlin (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Pergamon neokoros:45 BMC 171; SNGCop 466; Berlin, Paris. Concord with Sardis neokoros:46 SNGvA 3666; Berlin, Boston. Otacilia: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:47 BMC 172, 173; SNGCop 472; SNGRighetti 1188; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London, New York, Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Sardis neokoros:48 BMC 175, 176; SNGLewis 1626; Berlin, New York, Paris (2 exx.). Concord with Smyrna neokoros:49 BMC 174; SNGCop 475, 476; London, Paris (2 exx.). Philip the Younger: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:50 Berlin. Concord with Sardis neokoros:51 SNGvA 3667; London, Paris. 43 Coins with non-imperial obverses dated on bases other than number of neokoriai by Johnston 1984, 63-80. 44 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 70-71 nos. 659-678. 45 Ibid., 81 nos. 805-807. 46 Ibid., 82 nos. 816-821. 47 Ibid., 72-73 nos. 689-708. 48 Ibid., 83-84 nos. 830-843. 49 Ibid., 87-88 nos. 875-883. 50 Ibid., 71-72 nos. 679-688 (the first with Philip the Younger as Caesar). 51 Ibid., 83 nos. 822-829 (all with Philip the Younger as Caesar).

141

Non-imperial obverses, time of Philip: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:52 BMC 177-180, 186; SNGCop 467, 468; SNGvA 3662; Berlin (4 exx.), New York, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Kyzikos neokoros:53 BMC 185; Boston. Concord with Sardis neokoros:54 BMC 184; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Concord with Smyrna neokoros:55 BMC 181-183; SNGCop 474; Berlin (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Valerian: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:56 BMC 188, 189; SNGRighetti 1189; Boston, New York, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Concord with Sardis neokoros:57 SNGvA 3668; Berlin, New York, Paris, Vienna. Concord with Smyrna neokoros:58 BMC 190-192; Berlin (3 exx.). Gallienus: Concord with Ephesos neokoros:59 Berlin. Concord with Sardis neokoros:60 Berlin. Concord with Smyrna neokoros: 61 SNGvA 3669; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverses, time of Valerian and Gallienus: SNGvA 3637; SNGRighetti 1186; Berlin. Concord with Ephesos neokoros:62 BMC 187; SNGCop 469, 470; SNGvA 3663; Berlin (7 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. Concord with Sardis neokoros:63 Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

73-75 nos. 709-732. 80 nos. 793-798. 84 nos. 844-847. 88 nos. 884-898. 75-76 nos. 733-750. 84-85 nos. 848-859. 89-90 nos. 899-905. 76-77 nos. 751-753. 85 no. 860. 90-91 nos. 906-918. 77-79 nos. 754-792. 85-86 nos. 861-874.

142

part i – section i. koinon of asia

Chapter 13. Magnesia in Ionia: Koinon of Asia Magnesia on the Maeander had been trying to achieve a provincial imperial temple since the time of Tiberius, when it was judged to be not up to the honor (Tacitus Annals 4.55; see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’). The city was not even the center of a judicial district, and its only real claim to prominence was its sanctuary of Artemis Leukophryene. Neokoria of Artemis: Severus Alexander Magnesia finally proclaimed itself neokoros on coins during and after the reign of Severus Alexander, but for its cult of Artemis, not for the imperial cult. This makes it the third and last of the cities known to have become neokoroi of gods, following Aizanoi under Commodus and Ephesos under Caracalla (qq.v.). In fact, Ephesos’ inscription 133, dated 213-217, implies that Ephesos was at that time the only city to be neokoros of Artemis, and so assures that Magnesia’s neokoria was granted sometime after. Miletos, Magnesia’s neighbor and possessor of a rival sanctuary, had gotten its second neokoria for the worship of Elagabalus. It lost that honor, however, after that emperor’s death and the condemnation of his memory, and seems to have issued no coins that named it neokoros during the reign of Elagabalus’ sucessor, Severus Alexander. On the other hand, this was exactly the period when Magnesia first declared itself neokoros of its patron goddess Artemis. One might wonder whether the long-standing rivalry between the two sanctuaries made the honoring of Magnesia part of Miletos’ dishonor.1 To reward one city in order to punish its rival does not seem to have been Severus Alexander’s policy, however: he generally granted his neokoriai in provinces that had no previous neokoriai for Elagabalus, 1 On their rivalrous quest for rights of asylum and quinquennial festivals for their patron gods in the late third century B.C.E., see below. On the border conflict between them, and its resolution, now dated to the late 180s B.C.E., Herrmann 1997, 182-184.

possibly to avoid hostility between former and new neokoroi (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). In any case, their neighbors’ misfortune probably only added spice to the Magnesians’ achievement. An examination of the cult of Artemis that won Magnesia neokoros status may also illuminate that of the other neokoroi, to which it was implicitly compared. The image of Artemis Leukophryene as a goddess of Anatolian type wearing ‘ependytes’ only appeared on coins of Magnesia after ca. 190 B.C.E., but Xenophon (Hellenica 3.2.19) already knew a “very holy” sanctuary of this Artemis.2 The importance of her shrine at Magnesia on the Maeander is shown by the fact that it was one of the places where a copy of the treaty between the Smyrnaeans and the soldiers on Mt. Sipylos (ca. 240s B.C.E.) was to be set up.3 In 221/220 B.C.E., prompted by an epiphany of Artemis, by an oracle, and probably by envy of titles recently obtained by Miletos, the city had sought Panhellenic recognition of its status as sacred and asylos.4 Apparently the attempt was unsuccessful; it was only the later spur of the Milesians obtaining Panhellenic status for their Didymeia festival that prompted Magnesia to try again, this time for both the titles and their own ‘crowned’ contest. At last, in 208 B.C.E., they succeeded. The favorable replies formed part of the largest known archive documenting a city’s quest for asylum status, and took up a great part of the walls of the city agora.5 The temple of Artemis Leukophryene was one of the masterpieces of the Hellenistic architect Hermogenes, who wrote a book on its design.6 A consensus has grown for settling its date, as well as that of its architect, at the end of the third/beginning of the second century B.C.E.7 Though the Magnesian 2 Fleischer 1973, 140-146; updates: idem 1978, 341-342; idem 1984b; Donohue 1988, 63 with bibliography. 3 Petzl 1987 (= IvS), no. 573 ll. 84-85. 4 Rigsby 1996, 179-279, esp. 179-190. 5 Rigsby 1996, 180, 185; Kern 1900, nos. 16-87, pl. 2. 6 Humann 1904; Vitruvius, On Architecture 3.2.6; 7 pref. 12. 7 Kreeb 1990. Some still date the building to the second century solely on stylistic grounds: Akurgal 1990.

chapter

13

archive of inscriptions is not explicit on this point, such a date jibes with the time of the cult’s greatest ambition and growth. The resulting temple, though smaller in size and number of dedications than that at Ephesos, was judged far superior in the harmony and artistry of its building (Strabo 14.1.40). The abundant remains of the temple at Magnesia (illus. pl. 3 fig. 15) show it to have been large (ca. 41 x 67.3 m. at the base of its stepped podium, with a ca. 31.6 x 57.9 m. stylobate), Ionic and pseudodipteral, with eight columns on its facade and fifteen on its flank. Like other temples of Artemis, at Ephesos and Sardis, its entrance faced (basically) west, towards a monumental sculptured altar.8 Both temple and altar were placed on the axis of a 200 m. long temenos lined with colonnades (illus. pl. 5 fig. 22). This axial layout of a temple in the midst of a colonnaded courtyard (though here the courtyard was not itself symmetrical) would become as popular and long-lasting as Hermogenes’ pseudodipteral plan itself.9 All around the temple was a sumptuous but repetitive frieze of Greeks and Amazons in combat, stretching over 180 m.10 In the west pediment were three openings similar to those of the temple of Artemis at Ephesos, and the central intercolumniation was made wider than the others, as if the cult statue on its base could be glimpsed down the expanse of the pronaos and column-lined cella.11 Coin type 1 shows the typical numismatic shorthand for this temple: the eight columns are abbreviated to four, the nine-step platform to four steps. The pedimental design is expressed by a simple disc, but the Ionic order is correct, as are the high vegetal akroteria. The cult statue of Artemis, flanked by eagles and crowned by Victories, is brought out into the widened central intercolumniation: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AUR (%EUHR, bc) ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: EPI GR (GAR, c) %TRATONEIKOU (%TRATONEIIKOU, sic b) TO B; MAGNHTVN NEVKORVN TH% ARTEMID Four-column Ionic temple on high podium of four 8 The actual orientation is west-southwest, and probably reflects that of an earlier temple on the site. For the most recent reconstructions of the altar, with a stoa-like Ionic facade and interior lined with statues, see Hoepfner 1990a, 16-18; Hoepfner 1989. 9 Schmaltz 1995. 10 Devesne 1982; YaylalÌ 1976; Herkenrath 1902. 11 Bingöl 1999, reconstructing a possible epiphany of the statue.

– magnesia in ionia

143

steps, disc in pediment; within, Artemis Leukophryene, eagles at her feet, Victories on either side.12 a) Vienna 34601 (illus. pl. 26 fig. 108) b) SNGMün 631 c) SNGvA 7923. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: IOULIA MAMAIA %EB Draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: MAGNHTVN NEOKORVN TH% ARTEMI Laurel wreath, within it Z TH% A%IA%.13 a) Paris 1529 b) Private collection (Hecht). Magnesia always titled itself neokoros of Artemis, never simply neokoros. The title does not appear often, as space in Magnesian coin legends was generally devoted to the names of the local magistrates. The neokoria appeared on coins of at least five grammateis during the reign of Severus Alexander alone: Stratoneikos, Ael. Demoneikos Severianus (each for the second time), Hermos, Pr. Aulus, and Theseus. As type 2 shows, Magnesia was precise about its titles, claiming only to be seventh, not first, of Asia.14 This and the imperial sanction that was necessary to make Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis official (q.v.) should indicate that Magnesia’s neokoria of the goddess was just as carefully approved by the Roman authorities, and not simply taken on by the city. Magnesia inscribed its neokoria of Artemis intermittently on coins down to the reign of Gordian III. Shortly thereafter, a coin with the portrait of Otacilia wife of Philip appeared with the following legend: COIN TYPE 3. Obv: MAR VTA %EUHRA Diademed draped bust of Otacilia, r. Rev: EPI GR TUXIKOU B NE MAGNHTVN Hephaistos with hammer and tongs seated before anvil. a) SNGvA 7924. The appearance of B or TO B after a magistrate’s name is not unusual at Magnesia, meaning ‘for the second time’ (see type 1). If that is what it means here, the NE that follows may stand for the city’s title ne(okoros), but if so, this is the first time that the title has appeared without its qualifier ‘of Artemis.’ Another possibility is that both B and NE, ‘twice neokoros,’ apply to Magnesia, and that the city had gained another neokoria during the reign of Philip and was combining the count of its god-neokoria and 12 13 14

S. Schultz 1975, nos. 245-246. S. Schultz 1975, 304 (transpose R16 and R17), 305. L. Robert 1967, 53.

144

part i – section i. koinon of asia

imperial neokoria as Ephesos did. This possibility seems unlikely, however, as no coin types appear to celebrate what would have been an important addition of honors to any Asian city; indeed, this is the only coin known to document it. It is more likely that B NE refers to the magistrate, not to the city: Tychikos is not only grammateus for the second time, he is n°(ow), ‘the young(er),’ as distinguished from a predecessor of the same name.15

Munich, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.16 Julia Mamaea: BMC 73; SNGCop 886; SNGMün 638; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Private collection (Hecht).17 Maximinus: Berlin, Vienna.18 Maximus Caesar: Berlin (2 exx.), London.19 Gordian III: Glasgow, Vienna.20 Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 858; Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna.21

There are no inscriptions of Magnesia as neokoros yet known.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros of Artemis: Severus Alexander: SNGvA 7923; Berlin, London, 16 17 15 Accepted as such by Münsterberg 1985, 96, 256; the abbreviation is spelled out in some other cases, e.g. 71 (Pergamon), 75 (Aegai), 78 (Elaia), and 155 (Akmonia). For the usage, see L. Robert 1981b, 353.

18 19 20 21

S. S. S. S. S. S.

Schultz Schultz Schultz Schultz Schultz Schultz

1975, 1975, 1975, 1975, 1975, 1975,

237-239. 288, 290-293, 300, 303, 303A, 305. 312, 313. 343, 348, 349. 408, 409. 512-515.

chapter

14

– synnada in phrygia

145

Chapter 14. Synnada in Phrygia: Koinon of Asia (?) Set in the remote plateau of central Phrygia, Synnada was a city of respectable size and antiquity, a member of the Panhellenion that traced its origins back to both Athenian and Spartan heroes.1 It was also a judicial district center of Asia, and a transshipment point for the famous marble quarries of Dokimeion, thirty miles to its northeast.2 Synnada may have been removed from its former province, however, at the formation of a new province, Phrygia and Caria, ca. 250 C.E.3 First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305 Only one inscription is known that calls the city “illustrious metropolis and twice neokoros of the Augusti”: INSCRIPTION 1. MAMA 4.59 (IGRR 4:700). Statue base of Constantius Chlorus as Caesar, thus dated 293-305. { lamprå t«n Sunnad°vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow t«n Seb(ast«n)... Perrot believed that Synnada was given two neokoriai at once during a reorganization of the provinces by Diocletian (284-305).4 The titles were supposed to suit Synnada’s new position as metropolis of Phrygia Secundus (later Salutaris). But recent studies have allowed more precision on the administrative changes that affected this area. It is likely that only Phrygia and Caria split off from one another ca. 301-305, and the chief city of the province Phrygia is likely to have been Laodikeia, not Synnada.5 Only on the Verona list, which reflects a situation datable to ca. 314/315–324, was Phrygia

itself divided into two provinces, the second of which was headed by Synnada. Moreover, the terms metropolis, first, or neokoros could be used in contemporary documents for cities (e.g. Sagalassos) that did not head provinces.6 There is no evidence for the procedure of wholesale granting of neokoriai to new metropoleis of provinces as envisioned by Perrot, at Synnada or in any other case; in fact, no neokoria thus far can be definitely dated to the Tetrarchic period, though Side (q.v.) remains a possibility. In addition, it is as yet impossible to say what koinon Synnada was affiliated with when its neokoriai were granted. The only known koinon of Phrygia appears to have been exclusively associated with the city of Apamea.7 The two neokoriai of Synnada may well antedate the inscription that records them, and could have been given separately at any time. The city issued agonistic coin types under Gordian III, but its possession of a Hadrianeia festival has now been doubted, and in any case, the names of festivals, even if associated with emperors, are of little use in determining neokoria (see summary chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II).8 It is more important to note that Synnada (with Sagalassos) offers one of the latest documents of neokoria and proves that the title was at least still used during the Tetrarchy. The case of Synnada then shows that a city could still value the title ‘neokoros,’ even at a time when the provincial organization from which it presumably derived the title was in a state of flux.

6 1

Nafissi 1995. 2 Mileta 1990; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:64-65, 121, 159; Sartre 1995, 198-201. 3 Roueché 1989a, 1-4; S. Mitchell 1993, 2:158. 4 Perrot 1876b, 195-197 no. 1. 5 Belke and Mersich 1990, 77-78, 393-395.

254. 7

Bowersock 1985; 1995, 85-98; Haensch 1997, 24-26, 251-

Pace Dräger 1993, 70-77. Wallner 1997, 88-89, though he also drew a fanciful connection between Synnada and the Gordiani based on Historia Augusta, Gordiani 32.1-2: the columns on one side of their villa’s peristyle were of Synnadan marble. 8

146

part i – section i. koinon of asia

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. MAMA 4.59. Statue base of Constantius Chlorus as Caesar, thus dated 293-305. See text above.

No coins of Synnada that cite the title ‘neokoros’ are yet known.

chapter

15

– nikomedia

147

SECTION II. KOINON OF BITHYNIA Chapter 15. Nikomedia: Koinon of Bithynia First Neokoria: Augustus Though the origin of Nikomedia’s neokoria antedates the actual use of the title by more than a century, it can be traced back to 29 B.C.E. At that time the man soon to be named Augustus acceded to petitions from the Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia and allowed the establishment of precincts for the imperial cult in those two provinces.1 According to Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7 (a passage already examined in detail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ q.v.), the honors for Bithynia were assigned as follows. Nikaia, which the patriotic Dio called “foremost in honor at that time,” received a precinct to Rome and the hero Julius Caesar, which was designated for use of the Romans resident in the province.2 It was Nikomedia, however, that received what was probably the greater prize: permission to build a temple to the living Caesar, not the deified one, for the use of the provincial Hellenes. Dio’s account omits one detail, which Suetonius (Augustus 52) fortunately supplies: Augustus only permitted temples to himself if the cult of the goddess Rome accompanied his own. Cassius Dio’s passage ranked Nikaia above Nikomedia, and there was a long-running rivalry between the two cities for titles and honors. Nikomedia, as chief residence of the Bithynian kings and center of pre-Roman administration, logically became metropolis of the koinon of Bithynia and seat of the provincial cult of Augustus and Rome. No document reveals whether it or Nikaia was the primary seat of the governor.3 Nikaia was inland, whereas Nikomedia was a major port of the province; but Augus-

tus gave Nikaia the temple to Rome and the deified Caesar, which implies at least some Roman residents to worship there. In contrast, in Asia, which received the same cults at the same time as Bithynia did, the cult of Caesar was assigned to Ephesos as foremost in the province (and seat of the governor, but also a major port), whereas Pergamon, center of Hellenistic rule, became the center of the koinon and received the temple where the provincials worshipped Augustus. Evidence for the temple at Nikomedia is fairly scanty.4 It first appears as a reverse type on silver cistophori and bronzes minted under Hadrian after 128, as evidenced by the emperor’s title of P(ater) P(atriae) on the cistophori.5 This late date should be considered merely a point by which the temple actually existed, and as such it cannot indicate how long before the coins appeared that the temple was actually built. Bithynia did not issue any silver cistophori before the reign of Hadrian, and the early bronze coinage of the province and of the city of Nikomedia very rarely shows any type of architecture except for altars (generally that of Zeus). Before Hadrian, provincial bronzes had given more space to the Roman governor’s name than the name of the province; indeed, the latter was often omitted entirely. Occasionally a city goddess or patron god stood over the simple legend BIYUNIA .6 Under Hadrian, however, the situation was reversed: the governor’s name dropped off, while the name of the koinon of Bithynia held pride of place on the reverse. It is at just this point that the first provincial silver coinage begins; the 4

1

Ameling 1984, though he assumed undocumented provincial games, 124; S. Price 1984b, 185, 266, and later 67; Ziethen 1994, 92-93, 257 treated this embassy as if it came from the city of Nikomedia alone, ignoring the koinon’s role (and that of the city of Nikaia as well). 2 Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 3 Haensch 1997, 282-290.

Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 164-166 no. A25. Metcalf 1980, 137-143, esp. 139-140, where he dates the silver issue to the time of C. Julius Severus’ special mission to Bithynia, probably in 136. Metcalf’s argument against any preHadrianic koinon is not persuasive; see the evidence for officials under Domitian, below, not to mention Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7. 6 RPC 2:96-99. 5

148

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

temple of Rome and Augustus makes its first appearance on reverses of both metals. The provincial temple, however, was in any case a suitable theme for a new provincial coinage, and need not indicate that the temple was built or even restored at that time.7 Reconstructing the form of the temple of Rome and Augustus presents certain problems, although these are not insurmountable. Misuse or misunderstanding of the numismatic evidence has led to several points of confusion regarding the temple at Nikomedia, and unquestioning acceptance by a chain of scholars has perpetuated them. The initial error was that of Mattingly, who identified the octastyle temple that appears on the cistophori of Bithynia as Ionic.8 Luckily, the illustrations that accompany this description show that the columns are either Corinthian or composite: though abbreviated, the capitals consist of three dots supported by rising volutes, and this is inconsistent with the two dots and plain band of Ionic capitals as they usually appear on coins. The dots indicate the decoration of the capital, and the confusion arises when a die-cutter has chosen to use two dots instead of three or one. If such coins were viewed in isolation, the temple might indeed look Ionic, but when the whole series is consulted, that possibility is ruled out. Dependence on Mattingly’s description, however, led Mellor into writing that the temple in Nikomedia is portrayed as “sometimes Corinthian, sometimes Ionic,” and that the coins should not be trusted in any case, since they sometimes show the temple as distyle and as such the “columns clearly could not support the roof.”9 Mellor’s lack of familiarity with numismatic conventions led to greater errors by Tuchelt. Adopting Mellor as his authority, he was able to dismiss the evidence of the coins entirely, so that it could not obstruct his thesis that the precinct of Augustus at Nikomedia (and that at Pergamon as well) consisted of an altar alone, and not necessarily a temple at all.10 So Mattingly’s initial slip has been magnified until the nature of numismatic evi7

166.

Metcalf 1980, 139; rebutted by Hänlein-Schäfer 1985,

8 BMCRE, Hadrian nos. 1096-1100 pls. 75.8-12; see below, coin types 1 and 3. 9 Mellor 1975, 141-142. For the background of numismatic conventions, see above, ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ section iiib. 10 Tuchelt 1981, 185 n. 105. For a rebuttal, see HänleinSchäfer 1985, 13, 165.

dence itself is in doubt, while a look at the coins themselves, combined with a knowledge of their conventions and their limitations, could have solved the problem. In fact, both the silver and the bronze coinage of Bithynia give a fairly consistent, or at least reconcilable, picture of the temple at Nikomedia. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRIANO AVG PP Laureate (head, b; draped [cuirassed, a]) bust of Hadrian r. Rev: (SPR, a; SPQR, c) COM BIT Eight-column temple, ROM (SP ab) AVG in entablature, disc (dot, b) in pediment. a) BMCRE 1098 b) BMCRE 1099 c) BMCRE 1100. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% %EB(A, fi) Laureate (radiate, nopw; bare, v) head of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Eightcolumn temple; in pediment (male figure sacrificing, abhst; wolf and twins, cdku; star, pq; disc, efglmn); (Victories as akroteria, py). a) BMC 12 b) BMC 13 c) BMC 14 d) BMC 15 e) BMC 16 f) BMC 17 g) BMC 18 h) BMC 19 i) BMC 20 j) BMC 21 k) BMC 22 l) BMC 23 m) BMC 24 n) BMC 25 o) BMC 26 p) BMC 27 q) SNGvA 288 r) SNGvA 289 s) SNGvA 290 t) SNGvA 6916 u) SNGvA 6917 v) SNGCop 324 w) SNGCop 325 x) SNGCop 326 y) London 1928.5-5-1 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 109). It was first reconstructed by Bosch, in his monumental unfinished work on the coinage of Asia Minor, as an eight-column Corinthian structure on a stepped podium.11 The possibility that it had composite capitals, Ionic volutes set in a Corinthian-style capital, cannot be ruled out.12 Though the temple is generally known as that of Rome and Augustus, the coins indicate that there were additional objects of cult within. On the cistophori, the temple is identified by the words on its entablature: ROM S P AVG at its fullest, presumably ROM(ae) S(enatui) P(opulo) AVG(usto).13 On some issues this legend is shortened to ROM(ae) AVG(usto), and these issues have a full S(enatui) P(opulo)q(ue) R(omano) in the fields. There are also coins that mention the Senate and People both on the entablature of the temple and in the fields, as S(enatui) P(opulo)

11

C. Bosch 1935, 190-196. Strong 1960 dated this innovation as early as the 30s B.C.E.; Gros 1996-2001, 2:499-503. 13 C. Bosch 1935, 194. 12

chapter R(omano).14 Thus the cult included Rome, Augustus, the Senate, and the People. The legend serves to identify the temple on the coin, and it need not imply a Latin inscription on the entablature of the actual temple.15 Bronze coins with Greek legends lack this form of identification, probably because the Greek equivalent would have had to be either an awkward transliteration or an unwieldy translation, the two equally incomprehensible unless spelled out more fully. Instead, the bronzes simply refer to the koinon of Bithynia, whose chief temple, and whose coinage, this was. The cistophori generally show the pediment empty, or with a disc, dot, or disc between two dots within. This summary sort of filling ornament is probably only numismatic shorthand for ‘pedimental decoration.’ The bronzes, however, make up in the pediment for what they lack on the entablature. In addition to the shorthand forms found on the cistophori, different bronzes may show a star, the Roman wolf and twins, or a male figure in short costume, a sceptre in his left hand, sacrificing with a phiale at an altar.16 These more unusual figures serve to identify the temple in the lack of a legend on the entablature; they may have actually stood in the pediment. The wolf and twins, sign of the origins of Rome, mark a temple to Roman state divinities, and the sacrificing figure may be a variant of the Roman Genius who appears as a reverse type on other, probably Bithynian, cistophori of the same period, though there he holds a cornucopia in his left hand rather than a sceptre.17 On the other hand, the figure may represent an emperor in military dress (see below). Another unusual feature that appears on certain coins of both the silver and the bronze series is the presence of side akroteria of Victories erecting trophies; these likely refer to Augustus’ victory at Actium.18 Reconciling the various depictions of cult statues

14 Metcalf 1980, 134, types B12, B13; the catalogue wrongly omits the S P from the entablature, as the plates indicate. 15 Metcalf 1980, 137-139. 16 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 69-71. 17 Metcalf 1980, 141-142. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 165 doubted the identification of the pediment figure as a Genius, due to the sceptre; but both sceptre and sacrificial phiale are characteristic of the Genius type, though they are rarely combined. See Kunckel 1974, 14-17, esp. pl. 2.5 (type M III 13, an as of Antoninus Pius, 160-161 C.E.) 18 Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132-133, type B7, pl. 30 no. 25. Bronze: coin type 2p and 2y, above.

15

– nikomedia

149

within the temple at Nikomedia is more difficult.19 There are several different images, only one of which is common to both the silver cistophori and the provincial bronzes. That figure is a male, a mantle or himation draped across him and gathered over the left elbow, leaning on a staff or sceptre with his right hand and with a little Victory, who raises her wreath toward him, in his left.20 COIN TYPE 3. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRIANO AVG PP (Laureate, b) head of Hadrian r. Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM SP AVG in entablature, dot in pediment; within, emperor in mantle (cuirassed? b), with sceptre and Victory. a) BMCRE 1096 b) BMCRE 1097 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 110) c) SNGCop 322. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% %EB Laureate head of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Eight-column temple, disc in pediment; within, emperor in mantle, with sceptre and Victory. a) BMC 9 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 111). The iconography is that of a heroized emperor, based on classical prototypes.21 Yet a figure in the same stance and with the same attributes, but in military dress, appears on some of the cistophori.22 Despite the change in dress, the legend on the temple does not vary; ROM S P AVG on the silver. No bronze coin, however, shows the figure in military dress. The cistophori occasionally show a single companion to the male figure: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IMP CAES TRA HADRIANO AVG PP Laureate bust of Hadrian r. Rev: COM BIT Four-column temple, ROM SP AVG on entablature, disc in pediment; within, helmeted female in long dress at r. crowns cuirassed emperor with Victory and sceptre at l. a) Vienna 39125 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 112).23

19

Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 83-84. Bronze: type 4a, above. Silver: Metcalf 1980, 132, type B5, described as togate; the chest is clearly bare, and the drapery has a diagonal hem, not the curve characteristic of a toga. Compare the togate Hadrian on reverses from Metcalf’s Asian Mint C, 86-87, type 92. 21 Niemeyer 1968, 55-59, “Hüftmantel” type; note the review by Fittschen in Bonner Jahrbuch 170 (1970) 541-552, esp. 545. 22 Metcalf 1980, 132-133, types B6, B7; here coin type 3b. 23 Metcalf 1980, 133-134, types B9-B10. 20

150

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

Whether draped or cuirassed, he is joined by a helmeted female who stands at the right and raises a wreath toward his head; in her lowered left hand is a long curved object, perhaps a cornucopia, though it may be a palm branch or a naval aphlaston. The bronzes, however, are unique in adding a third figure to the group, another female at the left whose only attribute is a sceptre held in the right hand: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% TRAI ADRIANO% %EB (Radiate, b) head of Hadrian r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sacrificing male in pediment; within, armed female in long dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with Victory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre at l. a) BMC 10 b) BMC 11. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: %ABEINA %EBA%TH Diademed draped bust of Sabina r. Rev: KOINON BEIYUNIA% Two-column temple, sacrificing male in pediment; within, helmeted female in long dress at r. crowns emperor in mantle with Victory and sceptre in center, female with sceptre at l. a) BMC 32 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 113) b) SNGCop 329.24 A cistophorus that depicts the helmeted female with two males has been reported, but is unconfirmed.25 And finally, a little-noticed example shows a male figure in a short costume, perhaps a cuirass, but this time standing left, holding a round object, probably a phiale, in his right hand and the spear/sceptre in his left; this sacrificial posture recalls that of the sceptred figure (emperor? Genius?) often shown in the pediment.26 From their depiction within the temple, we can have little doubt that these figures are either its objects of cult or images strongly enough associated with the temple to identify it. Is there any way of reconciling them with each other, or must we conclude that the die-cutters misinterpreted their models, or that the numismatic evidence should be disregarded? Within the limits of their small scale, depictions of cult statues on coins have been found to be basi24

no. 4. 25

Note a retouched coin of this type: Klose 1997, 257, 261

Metcalf 1980, 134, type B11. Metcalf 1980, 133, type B8, where he is identified as the emperor in military dress holding a wreath; but a wreath is usually held high, in the act of crowning. Phialai, however, are generally held in this position. 26

cally reliable, though subject to abbreviation.27 In the case of Nikomedia, a die-cutter’s misinterpretation of a figure copied from earlier coins is unlikely, especially in the silver issue, which was unusual, carefully produced, and may have lasted only a year. So let us assume that all the following features were based on reality: 1) a half-draped male with Victory and spear/sceptre, 2) a male identical with number 1 but in cuirass, 3) a helmeted female with cornucopia crowning 1 or 2, 4) a female with sceptre, and 5) a male in short outfit with phiale and sceptre. Number 3 is not difficult to interpret: the goddess Rome is generally a helmeted female, the cornucopia indicates her role as a city goddess, and we know from the literary evidence that she shared cult with Augustus.28 Rome was also portrayed crowning Augustus in their cult statues at Pergamon (q.v.). Number 5 is only difficult insofar as he appears both in the temple and within its pediment; he has been identified as a Genius, and may in fact be the Genius of the Roman people, whose presence within the cult was hinted by the legends on the entablature and in the fields of the cistophori.29 Numbers 1 and 2 are identical except for their dress, and both are crowned by Rome. They are clearly meant to be an emperor, or emperors. Were there were two (or more) different male statues, or one in different outfits? If it were the latter, and if the coinages of silver and bronze were meant to reach different audiences, one might guess that the military iconography, unique to the silver, was for the wider, or more official, or more Roman audience, while the other, like the temple at Nikomedia itself, was for the Hellenes. This was probably not the case, however. The two coinages both show the half-draped male, though only the silver shows the military figure. Though the silver has Latin legends and the bronze Greek, they were both issued by the same authority and may have even been produced by the same die-cutters, as shown by the fact that the spelling of Latin words on the cistophori tends to become a trifle Hellenized.30 The bronze seems 27 Vermeule 1987, 9-22 on interpretation of numismatic evidence. 28 Suetonius, Augustus 52, cited above. The Nikomedia image is not mentioned by di Filippo Balestrazzi 1997. 29 In the pediment: above, types 2abhst, 6 and 7. In the temple: see above, n. 26. 30 Metcalf 1980, 138, on Greek die-cutters; though stylistically he ruled out any connection, 152.

chapter to have been designed as complementary to the silver, circulating as a fractional currency and reaching the same audience. If one rules out a mere diecutter’s mistake (and with such persistent and contemporaneous types, one probably can), one comes to the conclusion that there were two different male statues: one, an emperor heroized or deified, the other an emperor in the role of imperator. It has been suggested that one figure is Augustus, the other Hadrian, though there has been little agreement on which is which.31 The heroized statue type, however, has been found to be limited to the Julio-Claudian period, and would be more appropriate to the deified Augustus.32 The other emperor, whose statue is also crowned by a reduplicated Rome, is presumably Hadrian, who certainly visited Nikomedia and may have wintered there more than once; on other coins, he is hailed as the restorer of both the city specifically and the province as a whole.33 Thus the temple established for one emperor truly became a temple of the Augusti by the addition of statues of subsequent rulers: a colossal statue of Hadrian, again in military dress, echoed the colossus of his adoptive father in the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, and Antoninus Pius may have been surrounded by his successors at Sardis (qq.v.). The last statue, number 4, holds no attributes beyond her sceptre. Bosch identified her as the Senate.34 Personifications of the Senate, however, are generally (though not exclusively) male.35 Perhaps the sceptred figure represents the Senate, or perhaps the goddess of the province Bithynia, but such goddesses usually hold cornucopiae. There is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion. The ancient city of Nikomedia lies under the modern city of Izmit, and except for limited excavation beneath derelict or destroyed buildings, there is little chance of unearthing the remains of its first provincial imperial shrine. Still, it may be assumed 31 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 84 saw the military type as Augustus, the heroized type as Hadrian, and the mysterious female standing at the left as Sabina, though the long sceptre should indicate a goddess rather than an empress. Mikocki 1995, 197 nos. 327-328, agreed, but misidentified the goddess Rome as Victory. 32 Niemeyer 1968, 55-61, cat. nos. 71-81. 33 Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 190, 191, 199. On Hadrian’s building at Nikomedia, Schorndorfer 1997, 143-145. 34 C. Bosch 1935, 195. 35 Kienast 1985, 253, 266-267; Harl 1987, 74-75, pl. 30.911.

15

– nikomedia

151

to have been impressive. Dio writes of the two grants in Asia and Bithynia as if they occurred simultaneously, and it is likely that the temples that resulted from them also had parallel histories. At the least, the koinon of Bithynia would not want to be outdone by the koinon of Asia in showing its loyalty to the new ruler. Any lack of zeal (or expense) could come to the notice of the emperor, whose resultant displeasure might outweigh his initial gratification at the petition for cult. On the other hand, there were certain differences even from the beginning: Pergamon asked for and received a contest with sacred status in honor of its temple, and Dio’s passage mentions no such request from Bithynia or Nikomedia. As a native of the province, Dio must have known whether or not the Bithynians requested or received a contest; and despite his pride in his home city Nikaia, his attitude was too Roman and senatorial for him to suppress mention of Nikomedia’s festival because of rivalry between the two.36 He certainly mentions the festival the Nikomedians would later be granted for Commodus (below and n. 60). Not just because of Dio’s silence, but based on other evidence that is assembled in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ we cannot assume that a festival with sacred status invariably accompanied the grant of a koinon temple. Another difference is that the Asian koinon seems to have built further temples for subsequent emperors: there was a specific reason for that to Tiberius (see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’), and then Caligula appears to have commandeered a temple at Miletus (q.v.). But there is no record of a second provincial temple for Bithynia until Hadrian (see chapter 16, ‘Nikaia,’ below). There is no evidence for the personnel of Bithynia’s provincial organization or temple until the time of Domitian, after which we hear of both Bithyniarchs and archons of the koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia.37 The title of chief priest of Bithynia is not attested, but as the wife of the Bithyniarch was often called the chief priestess, we can assume that he fulfilled the priestly function as well. Several Bithyniarchs were also named as Helladarchs, but the exact boundaries of these offices are unclear.38 36

Aalders 1986; Ameling 1984, 133-134. Campanile 1993; Deininger 1965, 60-64. For a comparison with the officials in other provinces, see summary chapter 41, ‘The Koina.’ 38 Ameling 1985, 31, 55; nos. 7, 47. There was also a Hellenarch, no. 46. 37

152

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

There is no record of hymnodoi for the temple at Nikomedia like the ones at Pergamon, but there are references to a sebastophant and a hierophant of the mysteries of the koinon temple of Bithynia.39 The hierophant’s title is the same as that of the initiating priest at Eleusis: he demonstrated sacred things in a mystery cult, and a sebastophant did the same with respect to the cult of Augustus or the Augusti. Presumably the function of these officials was to teach the rituals and show images of the emperor(s) during the rites; several Bithyniarchs filled these offices as well.40 Due to the association of the hierophant with the koinon temple of Bithynia, Langer believed that the office of hierophant was identical to that of the chief priesthood in other provinces.41 There is nothing in the documents to indicate this, however; in Asia, for example, officials other than the chief priest were also associated with the koinon temples, so it is more likely that the Bithyniarch acted as chief priest as well. An epitaph of a theologos was found at Nikomedia, but it is uncertain whether that office was attached to the imperial cult or to some other one.42 Dio Chrysostomos took the Nikomedians to task for their rivalry with their neighbor Nikaia over titles and primacy in the koinon.43 Though it is likely that Nikomedia became neokoros (by grace of its provincial temple of Rome and Augustus) as soon as that title was officially sanctioned, it may not have used it until its rival began to flaunt the title as well. In Asia, ‘neokoros’ had appeared on Ephesian coins as early as Nero’s reign, but the title only began to be popular on inscriptions of Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna from the later first century on. In Bithynia, Nikaia called itself neokoros on an inscription from 39

L. Robert 1960c, 321-322 n. 3; Pleket 1965. Campanile 1993, 348-350 (Tiberius Claudius Piso, Titus Ulpius Aelianus Papianus). The former is named êrxonta t[}w] patr¤dow ka‹ t}w §parxe¤[aw] (ll. 5-6) and Beiyun[i]ãrxhn (l. 10) in one inscription, Ameling 1985, 47. This led Campanile 1993, 346 to conclude that the archonship of the koinon and the Bithyniarchate were separate and distinct. But the reference to the archonship of the eparchy is in fact rather vague (as Ameling observed), and does not name the office “archon of the koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia” explicitly, as other inscriptions (Campanile 1993, 350-351) do. 41 Langer 1981, 30, 95-105; at 41 n. 69 she corrected Magie 1950, 451, 1301, who identified the two offices of sebastophant and hierophant as one. 42 Dörner 1941, 93-94 no. 97; L. Robert 1943, 184-185. 43 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones 1978, 83-89. 40

Hadrian’s reign. No such inscriptions are yet known from Nikomedia, but ‘neokoros’ began to appear on its coins under Antoninus Pius. The reverse types of these coins make no overt reference to the title, probably because it had been in existence for some time. The same is true for coins of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, including those of his son Commodus as Caesar and successor. It is only during Commodus’ sole rule that the coins show drastic changes, as well as a reawakening of interest, in Nikomedia’s neokoria. Second Neokoria: Commodus The first coins of Commodus’ reign at Nikomedia show a youthful, beardless portrait, though more mature than his boyish looks as Caesar; they date from his sole rule, specifically after October 180, as his name has already changed from Lucius to Marcus.44 Coins with this early portrait type all proclaim Nikomedia twice neokoros, pushing the title metropolis off the coin and illustrating the honor with a number of new celebratory reverse types. The city’s patron goddess Demeter appears with the two temples, or the city goddess holds them, or they simply appear above a ship representing Nikomedia’s great harbor: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO% ANTVNINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Demeter between two eight-column temples. a) BMC 25 b) Paris 1342 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 114). COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO% ANTVNINO% Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, b) of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess holds two eight-column temples (one of them seven-column, b).45 a) SNGvA 7106 b) London 1920.1-11-2 (illus. pl. 27 fig. 115). COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR KOMMODO% ANTVNINO% Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, af) of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eightcolumn (Corinthian, b) temples, below them a 44 45

Kienast 1996, 147-150. Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.1.

chapter galley. a) BMC 34 b) London 1961.3-1-121 c) Paris 1354 d) Vienna 15790 e) Berlin 8639 f) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer g) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AU K M AUR KOMMODO% ANTVNINO% Laureate (radiate, b) head of Commodus r., beardless. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN (NIKOMHDEIA%, sic b ) DI% NEVKORVN Eightcolumn temple with outsloping entablature. a) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 27 fig. 116) b) Paris 1353. Withdrawn: Commodus Yet within a very short time, as soon as Commodus’ coin portrait changed to a more mature, bearded type, the second neokoria was gone and Nikomedia’s title switched back to a mere neokoros.46 That this is not an accidental omission of the correct number is shown by a coin type in which the city goddess holds only one temple instead of the previous two: COIN TYPE 12. Obv: A K M AU KO ANTVNIN Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., bearded. Rev: MHTRO NEVKOR NIKOMHD Seated city goddess holds six-column temple and sceptre.47 a) Paris 1347 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 117). COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AU KO ANTVNIN Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Commodus r., bearded. Rev: MHT(RO, b) NEV(KOR, c; -KO, b) NIKOMH Eight-column temple with disc (dot, a) in pediment. a) BMC 33 b) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer c) Berlin, Löbbecke. Fortunately a passage of Cassius Dio has been preserved to let us know what happened. While discussing Commodus’ various disreputable favorites, he mentions Saoteros of Nikomedia, who had been the emperor’s chamberlain from 180 to 182, before the advent of Cleander.48 “That one [Saoteros] had 46 The sheer brevity of Nikomedia’s possession of the second neokoria was not understood by Weiser 1989, 72; he believed that coins showing the bearded Commodus with Nikomedia merely neokoros were dated before the grant of the second title, not after its loss. He based his rejection of Nikomedia’s loss of the second neokoria on his exposure of one coin of Pescennius Niger as a recut version of a coin of Commodus (see n. 54 below), but did not take into account the titulature nor the portrait types of Commodus in as much detail as was necessary. 47 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.2. 48 Pflaum 1972, 203, 209, 238, 243.

15

– nikomedia

153

been most powerful as well, and due to this the Nikomedians obtained from the Senate the right to hold a contest and to build a temple of Commodus.”49 The procedure as Dio portrays it (and, as a member of the Senate under Commodus, he was in a position to know) was that the Nikomedians overtly asked the Senate for both temple and festival, but their success could be wholly attributed to the position and behind-the-scenes influence of their native son. This explanation is not only Dio’s opinion, but is confirmed by the coins: if Nikomedia had had more to recommend its case than a chamberlain’s influence, perhaps it could have kept its second neokoria. But the city’s honors were evidently seen simply as due to Saoteros, and so were lost with his eventual fall from favor, and death. This is not the only case of one man being credited with obtaining or perpetuating the neokoria for his city.50 There was Polemon in Smyrna and Diophantos in Ephesos, and perhaps Python in Beroia. Yet all of these presumably triumphed by speaking well, presenting arguments rather than pulling strings. Saoteros, however, is the only man credited with both gaining and losing the neokoria for his city. In fact, Nikomedia’s is the only case where the honor was permanently revoked during the lifetime of the emperor whose cult was to be celebrated. Most withdrawn neokoriai known are due to the death and condemnation of the emperor, not the petitioner. Perhaps a more strong-minded emperor could have dissociated a perfectly plausible temple and festival in his own honor from any machinations of Saoteros. But Commodus was portrayed by historical sources as passive in state affairs, putty in the hands of one chamberlain until he passed to the next.51 If it was not an indignant Senate that cancelled Nikomedia’s honors as usurped (while imputing no blame to the emperor, of course), probably Saoteros’ successor Cleander would have seen to it. The Nikomedians may or may not have had a chance to build their temple of Commodus. The depiction of this structure on most coins is summary at best, where it is shown with, and is an echo of, the other temple that made Nikomedia neokoros, that of Rome and Augustus. Type 11 is the only one 49 Cassius Dio 73.12.2: ka¤toi ka‹ §ke›now m°giston ±dunÆyh, ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ o| Nikomhde›w ka‹ ég«na êgein ka‹ nevÅ n toË KommÒdou poiÆsasyai parå t}w boul}w ¶labon. 50 51

See chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. Cassius Dio 73.1, 73.10.2.

154

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

that may show it alone, though the temple is not explicitly identified; in this type, it has one unusual detail, an outsloping entablature. If it was built (and later events indicate that it probably was), it may have simply been demoted from provincial to municipal status, remaining a temple to the imperial cult.52 As for the festival, there is no sign that it was ever celebrated. Instead Nikomedia’s chief rival Nikaia was awarded a Kommodeia festival, which it celebrated in a burst of coinage designed to rub salt into the Nikomedians’ wounds.53 The Nikomedians’ coinage reverted to the terse expression of its titles, of which ‘metropolis’ slipped back into first place. Nikomedia inscription 1 should date from around this time: INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 1720 (FdD 3.6.143; TAM 4.1.34). Delphi; from a copy by Cyriacus of Ancona. Decree of Nikomedia for a prizewinning flautist and citizen of Nikomedia (among other cities): { mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ pr\th Beiyun¤aw PÒntou ÑAdrianØ neokÒrow NeikomÆdeia |erå ka‹ êsulow f¤lh ka‹ sÊmmaxow [ê]n[v]yen t“ dÆmƒ t“ ÑRvma¤vn. The inscription can be dated by the honoree’s victory in the Kommodeia (in Smyrna), but Nikomedia’s title is merely ‘neokoros.’ Second Neokoria: Septimius Severus A fortunate choice soon returned the second neokoria to Nikomedia. In the confusion following Commodus’ death, the city had at first supported the eastern claimant to the Empire, Pescennius Niger, though a Nikomedian coin that purported to represent him turned out to be a falsified coin of Commodus.54 But Nikomedia turned to Septimius Severus’ side after Niger’s first serious reverses in battle at Kyzikos.55 As will be seen, Nikomedia’s rival Nikaia (q.v.) held its loyalty to Niger, more through hatred for Nikomedia than for any other reason. Once Severus conquered, he meted out matching punishment and rewards to the two rivals. Nikaia

was forced to give up all pretensions to being ‘metropolis’ and ‘first’ of the province as well as losing her neokoria. Nikomedia was rewarded with all that Nikaia had lost, with uncontested right to be ‘first’ and ‘metropolis,’ and as it was already neokoros for the venerable temple of Rome and Augustus, with a second neokoria for Septimius Severus. The honor was granted within the first few years of Severus’ reign, as it appeared on coins of Caracalla as Caesar, a title he held from 195 or 196 to 197.56 Thus the embarrassment that had been caused by Nikomedia’s loss of its second neokoria under Commodus was swept away in the latest triumph over Nikaia, and the joy is evident on a coin whose legend takes up its entire reverse: “with Severus as ruler the world is fortunate, the happy Nikomedians twice neokoroi.”57 Reverse types of a single temple under the Severan family were presumably meant to represent the second provincial imperial temple. Like the title ‘twice neokoros,’ depictions of the second temple appear early, under Caracalla as Caesar, but at this time the temple is only sketchily indicated: COIN TYPE 14. Obv: M AURH ANTVNINO% KAI%AR Head of Caracalla Caesar r., boyish. Rev: NEIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eightcolumn temple, dot in its pediment. a) BMC 51. Later, when Caracalla’s brother Geta had become Augustus (209-211), Nikomedia issued a large bronze that omitted all but the two end columns in order to show the temple’s objects of cult in detail: COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT K P %EP GETA[% AUGOU] Laureate head of Geta Augustus, mature, r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Twocolumn Corinthian temple with outsloping entablature, within it three cuirassed imperial figures, each with sceptre; at apex, double capricorn, Victories in bigae as side akroteria, eagle? between two griffins? in pediment. a) Köln 62.58 The three figures within are undoubtedly Septimius Severus and his sons, all holding sceptres or spears high in their left hands, and all in military dress. The coin provides unparalleled details, such as the double capricorn at the temple’s apex, the Victories driving

52

C. Bosch 1935, 192-193. L. Robert 1977b, 31-32; Miranda 1992-1993, 80. 54 Coin in Paris, Waddington, Babelon, and Reinach 1976 no. 168, reverse showing Nikomedia as neokoros: Weiser 1989, 71-72 no. 37. 55 Herodian 3.2.7-9. 53

56 57 58

Kienast 1996, 162-165; Weiser 1983, 132-133. Paris 1368; J. Nollé 1998, 345-347. Corsten 1996 = Köln, with coin number.

chapter chariots as side akroteria, and further elements of sculpture in the pediment. Several of these elements, such as the capricorns and Victories, may have been intended to echo the earlier temple of Rome and Augustus. Other, less detailed, coins agree that the temple was Corinthian, at least eight-columned, and with an entablature that sloped out as it went up, forming an overhang: COIN TYPE 16. Obv: L %EPTIMI GETA% KAI%(AR, c) Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column (Corinthian, a) temple with outsloping entablature on three-step podium (in pediment, two figures holding a shield, a; star, be). a) London 1961.3-1-123 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 118) b) London 1975.4-11-81 c) SNGCop 573 d) SNGvA 776 e) New York, Newell. COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRON PER %(E, a) Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NEIKOMH DI% NEVK Eight-column temple with outsloping entablature on four-step podium, in the pediment a figure with sceptre. a) Berlin 5206 JF (illus. pl. 28 fig. 119) b) New York 55.59. COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AU(T, ab ) (K, ceghijlmnpqrs) L %EP(TI, abc) %EUHRO% (P, abcfhp; PE gmn) (%, fhp; %E, d) Radiate (laureate, iloqrs) head (cuirassed bust, fhjklns) of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eightcolumn temple with outsloping entablature on three-step podium. a) BMC 40 b) BMC 41 c) Paris 1361 d) Paris 1362 e) Paris 1363 f) Paris 1364 g) Paris 1365 h) SNGvA 767 i) SNGvA 768 j) Vienna 15793 k) Vienna 15794 l) Vienna 15795 m) Berlin, Löbbecke n) Berlin, Löbbecke o) Berlin 8160 JF p) New York, Newell q) New York, Newell r) New York, Newell s) Köln 58. COIN TYPE 19. Obv: IOULIA DOMNA %E(BA, acg) Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column temple with outsloping entablature on three-step podium. a) London 1970.9-9-45 b) London 1910. 6-11-11 c) Paris 1373 d) Paris 1374 e) Vienna 15796 f) Warsaw 58652 g) New York, Holzer.

15

– nikomedia

155

COIN TYPE 20. Obv: (AUTOK, b) M AUR ANTVNEINO% AUGO(U%TO%, bcd) Laureate (radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust (head, c) of Caracalla r. (youthful, b; mature, acd) Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Eight-column temple on podium (cross in pediment, d). a) Paris 1396 b) Paris 1397 c) SNGvA 774 d) Berlin, Fox. These single-temple types are reminiscent of the abortive second temple for Commodus, an octastyle which had a similar overhanging entablature (type 11, above). Probably, then, the temple originally dedicated to Commodus recovered its provincial status and was rededicated to the cult of Septimius Severus (with his sons); Commodus himself, rehabilitated as the ‘brother’ of Severus, may have been moved into a secondary role, though Nikomedia had little reason to be grateful to him. The coins do not agree, however, on the temple’s pedimental sculpture; type 15 may show an eagle between griffins, type 16 two Victories(?) holding either a shield between them or a simple star, while types 17 and perhaps 20 show what is meant to be a figure, perhaps with a sceptre. Of course, there is more room for sculpture on a real pediment than a numismatic one, and some of these depictions may reflect some aspect of reality; but it is possible that some were merely numismatic shorthand for ‘pedimental sculpture.’ The rest of the Severan twice-neokoros coinage also echoes the short-lived issues for the second neokoria under Commodus: the two temples are shown above a galley (type 21), flanking the city’s patron goddess Demeter (type 22), or in the hands of the seated city goddess, the personification of Nikomedia twice neokoros (type 23): COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% [P %] Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-column temples, a galley below. a) Berlin 703/1878 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 120). COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P % Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter between two eight-column temples. a) Paris 1357 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 121). COIN TYPE 23. Obv: IOULIA AUGOU%TA Draped bust of Julia Domna r. Rev: NIKO[MH]D[EVN] DI% NEVKORVN Seated city

156

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

goddess holding two six-column temples.59 a) Paris 1370. The coins also celebrate ‘great Severeia,’ a contest presumably in honor of the emperor and the new temple: COIN TYPE 24. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHRO% P Radiate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; %EUHRIA MEGALA Two prize crowns with palms on agonistic table. a) Berlin, von Rauch (illus. pl. 28 fig. 122). But even the abject Nikaians were eventually allowed to celebrate Severeia of their own.60 Celebration of the now-secure double neokoria never quite abated, and further coin types were soon introduced to express it. The city’s patron Demeter, previously shown standing between the two temples (type 8, now type 22), now also takes the role of the city goddess and holds the two temples, or is shown on a high column between them: COIN TYPE 25. Obv: ANTVNINO% (ANTVNEINO%, b) AUGOU%TO% Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, b) of Caracalla r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated Demeter holding two eight-column temples.61 a) Paris 1381 b) Vienna 15808. COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT K P %EP GETA% AUGOU Laureate head of Geta Augustus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples turned toward each other, between them a figure of Demeter atop a tall column. a) Paris 1401 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 123) b) New York, Newell. This last type was probably inspired by coins of Pergamon under Marcus Aurelius (q.v.) that had shown that city’s two provincial imperial temples on either side of a tall column with a male figure atop it. As at Pergamon, the Nikomedian coin cannot be 59

Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.3. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221, was overconfident in stating that “the reward for the cities of a successful petition [for neokoria] was not simply the right to erect a prestigious temple, but to stage a magnificent imperial agonistic festival.” Again, Cassius Dio 73.12.2 makes it clear that a petition had to be made for both festival and temple; the one did not necessarily follow from the other. See chapter 40, ‘The Cities.’ 61 Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.4. 60

taken to represent exact topographic reality, though a columnar monument to Demeter is by no means impossible at Nikomedia. Third Neokoria: Elagabalus Nikomedia obtained a third neokoria soon afterward by a grant from Elagabalus. Of all the neokoroi made by that emperor, Nikomedia is the only one to have a well-documented relationship with him, as he wintered there in the first months of his reign.62 Cassius Dio’s account is the most circumstantial, as he was in the area at the time, though it is also quite prejudiced against the emperor. There was a revolt in the fleet nearby, at Kyzikos, during that winter. Gannys, who had commanded Elagabalus’ troops and had even been treated as a possible co-ruler, was murdered at Nikomedia, allegedly by the emperor’s own hand, since none of the soldiers had the courage to begin the attack. This is the first and last we hear of Elagabalus’ martial prowess; Herodian states that he spent most of his time in Nikomedia more peacefully, wearing the outrageous eastern vestments of his priesthood and enacting the rituals of his god, while the Historia Augusta only records a winter of debauchery.63 The coins of Nikomedia proclaim that city three times neokoros as early as 220 C.E., the year of Elagabalus’ marriage to the first of his wives, Julia Paula (type 27).64 It is not unexpected that the emperor should promptly reward his host city with honors and titles. The coin reverses make it clear, however, that the temple of the third neokoria, shown between schematic representations of the temple of Rome and Augustus and that of Septimius Severus, was in fact the city’s temple of Demeter, as the goddess herself often stands within it. COIN TYPE 27. Obv: IOULIA KOR PAULA AUG Draped bust of Julia Paula r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, the center one facing, the others four-column and turned toward it. a) BMC 56 b) New York, 1944.100.42315 (illus. pl. 28 fig. 124).

62 Cassius Dio, ep. 80.3.1, 6.1, 7.3-4; Bowersock 1975; Halfmann 1986a, 231; Lehnen 1997, 143. 63 Herodian 5.5.3-4; Historia Augusta, Heliogabalus 5.1. 64 Kienast 1996, 172-174.

chapter COIN TYPE 28. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO% (ANTVNINO%, c) AUG(OU, bc) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN; (DHMHTRIA, ac) Three temples, center one six-column, facing (Demeter within, bc), the others (six-column, ac; four-column, b) turned toward it. a) Paris 1406 b) Vienna 15817 c) Berlin, Bonnet (illus. pl. 29 fig. 125). COIN TYPE 29. Obv: M AURH ANTVNEINO% AUGOU Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN; ANTVNIA; DH[MHTRI]A written across prize crown with palms. a) Vienna 15815 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 126). COIN TYPE 30. Obv: M AURH ANTVNINO% AUGOUTO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN; PU[YI]A Three prize crowns with palms. a) Vienna 15816. Demeter was Nikomedia’s patron and had already appeared in connection with the twice-neokoros city’s two temples. On the coin types discussed above, however, she is more than just the city’s representative and chief goddess: she stands within her temple, which appears and is counted for the first time towards the number of Nikomedia’s neokoriai. Yet Nikomedia never called itself ‘neokoros of Demeter,’ and as we shall see, the third neokoria would lapse after Elagabalus’ death, just as would be expected if it were for the emperor; a neokoria for the goddess would probably not have been affected by the fall of the emperor who had granted it. The most likely explanation is that Elagabalus had become cult partner in an extant temple in the neokoros city. There was good precedent for cult sharing in Nikomedia, where Augustus’ temple also included the goddess Rome and other personification(s) of the Roman state. The cult of Caracalla had recently joined resident divinities in older temples at Pergamon and at Smyrna (qq.v.). There, however, Caracalla had loaded the province with imperial temples; whereas this temple is the only one known for Elagabalus in Bithynia. But we may note that Elagabalus probably also shared an older temple in Philippopolis in Thrace (q.v.), another city at which he stopped on his way to Rome, and which he made neokoros. Again, the temple chosen was that of the city’s patron deity, in that case Apollo’s.

15

– nikomedia

157

One possible reason for the temple sharing is economic. Some years before, Nikomedia had borne Caracalla’s winter visit, and Caracalla was notorious for his high expectations of cities granted the honor of entertaining him; then the city had to entertain Elagabalus at similar length, and no doubt at similar expense.65 There would have been little to spare in the city’s budget for building a new temple. One may also wonder whether the other cities in the koinon, among them a still hostile Nikaia, would have been generous in funding a third provincial temple in Nikomedia when no other city in the Bithynian koinon had one. Parallel to the economic motive is a religious one. Of all that is said about Elagabalus, the sources are unanimous in accenting his religious fervor toward the black stone that represented his god.66 All also refer to his plans to wed the god to prominent goddesses, such as Urania (Dea Caelestis) of Carthage, or even the Palladium, sacred image of Athena, when he finally arrived in Rome. Louis Robert suggested that he had been doing the same all along his route from Antioch.67 This may well have been, and if so would add another reason to honor these particular cities. But again, despite the confusion in modern nomenclature, we must hold to the fact that Nikomedia was neokoros not of the Emesene baetyl but of the emperor. If the emperor did marry his god to Demeter, it was he, not his god, who moved in with her. The Nikomedian coins that proclaim the third neokoria also record contests: one is the Demetria, whose fuller title is the Demetria Antonia or Antonia Demetria (types 28, 29). This was a festival for the ‘new’ temple’s cult partners, and the use of the emperor’s proper name confirms that the cult is the emperor’s, not the Emesene god’s.68 Type 30 commemorates three festivals, only one of which, the Pythia, is mentioned. Though the number of contests and neokoriai is the same, there is not enough information to affirm that these are specifically the three temples’ festivals.

65

Cassius Dio 78.9.5-7; Millar 1977, 31-36; Lehnen 1997, 88, 93-95, 182; Ameling 1984, 137-138. 66 Herodian 5.3.5, confirmed by coins: M. Price and Trell 1977, 167-170. 67 Cassius Dio 80.12; Herodian 5.6.3-5; Historia Augusta, Heliogabalus 6.8-9; L. Robert 1964, 79-82; 1967, 57-58 n. 8. 68 L. Robert 1976, 53-54. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221 is in error in this regard.

158

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Nikomedia continued to issue similar coins under Severus Alexander; perhaps one quarter of his known types still boast the third neokoria, while the rest go down to twice neokoros. This shows that the condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory eventually had its effect, nullifying neokoriai granted for that emperor’s cult.69 All the coins issued for Julia Mamaea that claim neokoria only mention two. COIN TYPE 31. Obv: M AURH %EUH ALEJANDRO% AU Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., boyish. Rev: TRI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Three temples, two below four-column, turned toward one another, the one above six-column, facing, Demeter within. a) London 1970.9-9-46 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 127). COIN TYPE 32. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN City goddess holding two six-column temples.70 a) Paris 1418 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 128) b) SNGCop 574. The number of temples shown in the coin types echoes the enumeration of the title; though single temple types continue to appear, the building on those coins is not specifically identified. It is difficult to date the turning point from three back to two, but only the coins that call Nikomedia twice neokoros include martial types such as the emperor on horseback brandishing a spear, or military standards: COIN TYPE 33. Obv: M AUR %EUH ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Cuirassed emperor rides horse r. a) Paris 1419. COIN TYPE 34. Obv: IOULIA MAMAIA AUG Diademed draped bust of Julia Mamaea r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Cuirassed emperor with spear rides horse r. a) London 1970.99-48 b) SNGvA 786. Severus Alexander is not known to have fought a war until 231, when he traveled from Rome to the

East to face Ardashir, king of the new Sassanid Persian empire.71 Thus so far as is known, the loss of Nikomedia’s third neokoria probably antedates the war, or at least the coinage issued in preparation for that war.72 There appears to have been little shame attached to the loss, if the subsequent coin types are to be trusted as indicators: ‘neokoros’ remained the most popular title on coins, and types of the two temples, in many variations, were common. Even the Severan type 26, showing Demeter on a tall column between the two temples, was brought back (below, type 45), either to recall Demeter’s role in the lost third neokoria, or simply because it was an effective design. COIN TYPE 35. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMEINO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN City goddess holding two temples.73 a) Paris 1429 b) Vienna 33827 c) Köln 74. COIN TYPE 36. Obv: [G IO]U OUH MAJIMEINO% [AUG] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Maximinus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% N[EVKOR]VN Seated city goddess holding two temples, one six-, one seven-column. a) Köln 75. COIN TYPE 37. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Demeter holding two temples, one six-, one seven-column. a) New York 71.279 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 129). COIN TYPE 38. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K(AI%, a) Draped bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN Two six-column temples turned toward each other. a) SNGvA 798 b) SNGvA 799. COIN TYPE 39. Obv: G IOU OUH MAJIMO% K Draped cuirassed bust of Maximus Caesar r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-column temples, below them a galley. a) London 1901.6-1-32 b) Paris 1439. COIN TYPE 40. Obv: AUTOK K M KLVD POUPIHNO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Pupienus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess holding two six-column temples. a) SNGvA 807 b) SNGvA 808. 71

69 70

Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. Pick 1904, 7 no. 3.5.

72 73

Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. Ziegler 1993b, 71-82. Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.6.

chapter COIN TYPE 41. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% (KA, bc; AU, a) (Radiate, a) draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: DI% NEVKORVN NIKOMHDEVN City goddess holding two temples stands opposite seated goddess Rome.74 a) London 1970.9-9-49 b) SNGvA 810 c) Berlin 8404 JF. COIN TYPE 42. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Radiate cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORV City goddess holding two temples, one five-, the other six-column. a) Oxford 1953 b) SNGvA 815 c) Köln 99 d) Köln 100. COIN TYPE 43. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess holding two six-column temples. a) SNGvA 814. COIN TYPE 44. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Laureate (radiate, d) draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORV Two six-column temples. a) Vienna 15846 b) Köln 110 c) Köln 111 d) Köln 112. COIN TYPE 45. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eightcolumn temples, disc in each pediment, a tall column between them (Demeter on it?). a) Köln 121 (worn). COIN TYPE 46. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eightcolumn temples, disc in each pediment. a) SNGvA 834 b) New York 71.279 c) Köln 122. COIN TYPE 47. Obv: M OTAKILAIA %EUHRA AU Draped bust of Otacilia r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN City goddess holding two six-column temples. a) Köln 131 a) Köln 132. COIN TYPE 48. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO% AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; G City goddess holding two six-column temples. a) Köln 155.

15

– nikomedia

COIN TYPE 49. Obv: AU KA TRAIAN DEKIO% AU %E Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN; G City goddess seated on rock holding two six-column temples.75 a) Köln 15476 b) Köln 153. Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Nonetheless the return of the third neokoria must have been welcome. Judging from the following types, it was granted by Valerian and Gallienus when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was associated with them as Caesar, from 255 to the boy’s death in 258.77 In celebration of the third neokoria, coin types veered from glorifying the emperors’ martial prowess (as they did during the second neokoria) to focusing on the city and its renewed honor. COIN TYPE 50. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO% GALLHNO% OUALERIANO% (KAI%A, dnq; KAI%, low; K, cj) (%EBBB, bcdefghijlmoqrsw) Laureate (radiate, dloqrw) draped cuirassed busts of Valerian and Gallienus turned toward one another; below, (laureate, l) draped cuirassed bust of Valerianus, r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN DI% NEVKORVN (NEKORVN, ow) Three temples, lower two six-column (four, enpsv; two, ak) turned toward one another, center one six-column (two, ak), Demeter within; a snake-entwined altar in their midst. a) Boston 62.315 b) London 1961.3-1-128 c) BMC 68 d) BMC 69 e) BMC 70 f) Oxford Christ Church 827 g) Paris 1466 h) Paris 1467 i) Paris 1468 j) SNGCop 582 k) SNGvA 859 l) SNGvA 860 m) Vienna 15851 n) Vienna 34453 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 130) o) Vienna 15852 p) Berlin 316/1922 q) Berlin, Löbbecke r) Berlin, von Rauch s) New York, Newell t) New York 42.148 u) SNGvA 7141 v) SNGTüb 2146 w) SNGTüb 2147. COIN TYPE 51. Obv: PO LIK OUALERIANO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its apex, side two four-column and turned toward

75

Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.8. Weiser 1983, 360 (pl. 31 figs. 1-2, pl. 36 figs. 4-5). 77 Kienast 1996, 220-221. Weiser 1983, 74-76, comparing the coin issues of Nikomedia with those of Nikaia, would date the return of the third neokoria exactly at 256. 76

74

Pick 1904, 8 no. 3.7.

159

160

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

one another, Victories on their apices reach out to crown Demeter. a) Oxford 11-7-1938 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 131) b) New York 71.279 c) SNGvA 7139 d) Köln 180.78 COIN TYPE 52. Obv: PO LI EGN GALLHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three temples, center one six-column, Demeter on its apex, side two turned toward one another, Victories on their apices reaching out to crown Demeter. a) London 1975.4-11-86 b) SNGvA 7148 c) Köln 199 d) Köln 200 e) Köln 201 f) Köln 202. COIN TYPE 53. Obv: PO LIK EGN GALLHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three temples, two below turned toward one another, center one eight-column, Demeter within. a) SNGvA 7147. COIN TYPE 54. Obv: AUT OUALERIANO% GALLHNO% %EBB Radiate draped cuirassed busts of Valerian and Gallienus turned toward one another. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Three temples, center one six-column, a figure within, side two turned toward one another; below, a galley. a) London 1970.9-9-51 b) Paris 1465 c) SNGvA 858 d) Warsaw 58660 e) Berlin, von Rauch f) New York, Newell. The third temple for which Nikomedia was neokoros was again that of the city’s patron Demeter, again probably for reasons of expense as much as for reasons of cult. The three temples are grouped together but hers, the ‘newest,’ is paramount, always above or between the other two. The goddess identifies her temple by standing within (types 50, 53) or on its peak, where she is crowned by Victories that perch on the other two temples (types 51, 52). These recall the fact that Victories did feature as akroteria on coin images of both imperial temples, though in different poses. One novelty on these coin types is a snake-entwined altar that occasionally appears in the temples’ midst (type 50).79 The altar is most likely that of Demeter’s temple, at which sacrifices and

78

Corsten 1996, no. 180, but central figure misidentified as emperor. 79 Weiser 1983, 368 pl. 34 fig. 9-10, a coin from a German private collection, also seems to depict a bow to the right of the altar.

ceremonies for the imperial cult as well as for Demeter herself would now take place. Bosch, however, took the numismatic grouping of all the temples that made the city neokoros to represent topographical reality. He conflated these coins with the earlier type 26, which shows a column bearing a statue of Demeter between the two imperial temples.80 The resulting design, huge temples on three sides facing into a square forum which contains a central column and the round altar, has no precedent in Roman imperial architectural tradition. Coins that group the temples that made a city neokoros are not meant to convey topographical reality but only the city’s pride in its neokoriai. More solid evidence for Nikomedia’s third neokoria and temple to Demeter may be the 1897 description of a large, six-columned building found by the expedition of Pogodin and Wulff; nearby was a dedication to Demeter on a fragment of column.81 But column fragments are movable, and a dedication to Demeter would not be out of place anywhere in Nikomedia. The coin type of a patron goddess holding two temples had been popular at Nikomedia since its (unfortunate) second neokoria from Commodus. The addition of a temple for the third neokoria, however, created a problem for a goddess with only two hands. This was solved by putting the third temple on her head: COIN TYPE 55. Obv: PO LIK OUALERIANO% AU Radiate cuirassed bust of Valerian l. with spear and shield. Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-column temple in each hand and one on her head. a) SNGvA 7138. COIN TYPE 56. Obv: PO LI EGN GALLHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. (youthful, cde) Rev: NIKOMHDEVN TRI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with a six-column temple in each hand and one on her head. a) London 1961.3-1-131 (illus. pl. 29 fig. 132) b) Berlin 90/1933 c) SNGvA 7145 d) SNGvA 7146 e) Köln 196 f) Köln 197 g) Köln 198. Nikomedia’s coinage came to an end soon after its third neokoria had been granted, as did almost all civic coinage. The city was one of the prime targets of the Goths on their march through Bithynia, prob80 81

C. Bosch 1935, 214-218. Ibid., 218 nn. 48, 49.

chapter ably in 258.82 Though the Nikomedians fled before the attack, the Goths found plenty of loot in the city, and on their return journey they burned both it and its old rival Nikaia. The city persevered even after, but we hear no more of its neokoria. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. CIG 1720. Agonistic inscription from Delphi, reign of Commodus. See text above. Twice neokoros: 2. CIG 3771 (IGRR 3:6; TAM 4.1.25). Altar for Julia Domna, erected after 197 under Septimius Severus, as there are plural Augusti and her title is simply ‘mother of the armies.’ That date was accepted for the careers of the officials mentioned, M. Claudius Demetrios (PIR2 C 846; Thomasson 1984, 250 no. 49) and Caesernius Statianus (PIR2 C 179). TAM wrongly dated the altar to the Empress’ stay in the city in 214/215; but that was during Caracalla’s sole rule and the mention of ‘Augusti’ would not have been tolerated.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Antoninus Pius: BMC 15, 17; SNGCop 552, 555; SNGvA 749, 751; SNGRighetti 659; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris, Vienna, Warsaw. Marcus Aurelius: BMC 19, 20; SNGCop 557; SNGvA 754757, 759, 760, 7104; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Faustina the Younger: BMC 22, 26-28, 31, 35, 37; SNGCop 560, 566, 567; SNGvA 762-765, 7105; Berlin (10 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (16 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: SNGCop 561; Berlin, New York, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.). Lucius Verus: BMC 24; Paris (2 exx.); Weiser 1989, 61 no. 22. Commodus Caesar: BMC 26-28, 31, 35, 37; SNGCop 565567; SNGvA 765. Twice neokoros: Commodus: BMC 25, 34; SNGvA 7106; Berlin (4 exx.), London (2 ex.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (1 ex.) Neokoros: 82

Zosimus 1.35; Syncellus 716; Historia Augusta, Gallienus 4 (misplaced). See Salamon 1971, 121-123.

15

– nikomedia

161

Commodus: BMC 29, 30, 33, 36; SNGCop 568; SNGvA 766, 7103, 7107; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston, London (1 ex.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). Twice neokoros: Septimius Severus: BMC 38-43; SNGCop 569; SNGvA 767769; Köln 58; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York (5 exx.), Oxford, Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw. Julia Domna: SNGvA 770, 771; Köln 59; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla Caesar: BMC 51, 53. Caracalla Augustus: BMC 44-50, 52; SNGCop 571; SNGvA 772-775, 7108-7110; Köln 60, 61; Berlin (11 exx.), Boston, London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw. Plautilla: SNGCop 572; Berlin, London, New York, Paris, Vienna. Geta Caesar: BMC 54; SNGCop 573; SNGvA 776; Berlin (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, Paris, Vienna. Geta Augustus: Köln 62; Berlin, New York, Paris. Macrinus: BMC 55; SNGvA 777, 7111; Berlin, London (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris, Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. Diadumenian: Vienna (2 exx.). Three times neokoros: Elagabalus: SNGvA 778; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.). Julia Paula: BMC 56; New York. Severus Alexander: SNGCop 578; SNGvA 779, 780; Köln 64, 65; Ireland 2000, no. 1639; Berlin (4 exx.), London (3 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.). Twice neokoros: Severus Alexander: BMC 57-59; SNGCop 574-577; SNGvA 781-785, 7113, 7114; Köln 66-68; Berlin (14 exx.), London (6 exx.), New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna (15 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Julia Mamaea: SNGvA 786, 787; Berlin, Boston, London, Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. Maximinus: BMC 60; SNGvA 788-796; SNGRighetti 661; Köln 69-78; Berlin (4 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Maximus Caesar: BMC 61, 62; SNGvA 797-805, 7115, 7116; SNGRighetti 662, 663; Köln 79-87; Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Balbinus: SNGvA 7117; London. Pupienus: SNGvA 806-809; Berlin, Paris. Gordian III: BMC 63; SNGvA 810-826, 7118-7121; SNGRighetti 664; Köln 88-113; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Tranquillina: BMC 64; SNGvA 827, 828, 7122; Köln 114, 115; Berlin, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Philip: SNGvA 829-834, 7123; Köln 116-123; Berlin, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Otacilia: SNGCop 580; SNGvA 846, 847, 7124; Köln 127135; New York, Oxford, Paris. Philip II Caesar: SNGCop 579; SNGvA 835-845, 7125;

162

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

SNGRighetti 665; Köln 136-146; Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Philip II Augustus?: Köln 124, 125.83 Trajan Decius: BMC 65; SNGvA 848-852, 7126-7130; SNGRighetti 666; Köln 147-159; Berlin (3 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna. Etruscilla: SNGvA 853, 854; Köln 160, 161; Berlin. Herennius Etruscus: Köln 162; Berlin. Hostilian: SNGvA 7131; Köln 163. Trebonianus Gallus: SNGvA 855, 856, 7132-7134; SNGRighetti 667-669; Köln 164-172;84 Berlin (3 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.). 83 Weiser 1983, 335 pl. 25 figs. 3-4. Despite Weiser’s identification based on the portrait’s laurel wreath, it resembles the elder Philip. See Riccardi 1996, 124 n. 131. 84 Weiser 1983, 361 pl. 32 figs. 7-8, pl. 36 figs. 6-7.

Volusian: BMC 66; Berlin. Valerian: BMC 67; SNGvA 7135-7137; Köln 173-179; Boston, New York. Gallienus: SNGvA 7142-7144; Köln 185-193; Berlin (3 exx.), London, New York, Paris (2 exx.). Three times neokoros:

Valerian: SNGvA 7138-7140; Köln 180-183; Berlin, New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris. Valerian, Gallienus, Valerianus Caesar: BMC 68-72; SNGCop 582; SNGvA 859, 860, 7141; SNGLewis 1233; SNGRighetti 670; Köln 184; Berlin (5 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Valerian and Gallienus: SNGvA 858; Berlin, London, New York, Paris, Warsaw. Gallienus: SNGvA 7145-7149; Köln 194-209;85 Berlin (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Salonina: BMC 73; SNGvA 861-866, 7150; Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris (4 exx), Vienna, Warsaw.

85

Weiser 1983, 358 pl. 31 figs. 9-10, 361 pl. 32 figs. 7-8.

chapter

16

– nikaia

163

Chapter 16. Nikaia: Koinon of Bithynia Nikaia is perhaps best known as Nikomedia’s rival for primacy of Bithynia. Nikaia’s star rose for a while when Nikomedia’s sank after the Mithridatic wars, but though Nikaia had older and more mythic origins, Nikomedia had more vital advantages, most important of which was its harbor.1 Nikomedia, as center of pre-Roman administration, became the koinon center, but there is no document that assures which city was the primary seat of the governor.2 Although Nikaia had the disadvantage of being inland and lacking a port, Cassius Dio, a native of the city, ranked it above Nikomedia, at least in writing of events in 29 B.C.E. At that time, Augustus gave Nikaia the privilege of building a temple to Rome and the hero Julius (Caesar), which was to be for the use of Romans resident in the province, indicating that there were some.3 In Asia, which received the same cults at the same time that Bithynia did, Ephesos received the cult of Rome and Caesar, whereas Pergamon became the center of the koinon’s cult and received the temple where the provincials were to worship the living emperor Augustus. Ephesos, like Nikaia, was classed by Dio as foremost in its province, but was also the assured seat of the governor and a major port; Pergamon, like Nikomedia, had been the center of Hellenistic rule. First Neokoria: Hadrian In the early second century Dio Chrysostomos berated the Nikomedians for quarreling with the Nikaians over empty honors, such as who would walk first in provincial processions, and whether one or the other should have exclusive title to be ‘metro-

1

Guinea Díaz 1997, 323-335. Haensch 1997, 282-290. 3 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-7, a passage examined in fuller detail in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ and chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia.’ For cults of Rome and Caesar, see Whittaker 1996, 93-99. 2

polis’ or ‘first’ of the province.4 Around 120 C.E. both cities suffered a devastating earthquake, after which many of their civic structures had to be rebuilt.5 Hadrian appears to have visited the area on his tour of 123-124, perhaps soon after passing through Armenia Minor (see Nikopolis); he assisted both Nikaia and Nikomedia.6 Nikomedia added the epithet ‘Hadrianic’ to its titulature to express its gratitude (see Nikomedia inscription 1); it probably had already received the title ‘neokoros’ from its long-standing temple of Rome and Augustus, though the title itself is not documented there until the time of Antoninus Pius. But until recently it was not known whether Nikaia was able to do anything similar. Then when late walling around the city’s eastern gate (the Lefke Kapi) was cleared away, a longknown dedication to Hadrian on both sides of its architrave was revealed to have once proclaimed Nikaia as neokoros of the Augusti: INSCRIPTION 1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also restored on no. 30, other side of gate, and no. 30a, on northern gate, Istanbul Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978, 1.5). AÈtokrãtori Ka¤sari yeoË TraianoË ParyikoË u|“ yeoË NeroÊa u|vn“ Traian“ ÑAd[ria]n“ Sebast“ dhmarxik}w §jous¤aw { eÈsebestãth _nev[kÒ]row [t«]n Sebast«n´ épÚ DionÊsou [ka‹ ÑHrakl°]ouw _[pr]\[t]h [Bi]yun[¤a]w ka‹ PÒntou { mh[tr]Ò[p]oliw d¢ ka[tå tå kr¤mata] t«[n aÈ]to[kr]a[t]Òr[vn ka‹] t}w |erçw s[u]nklÆtou´ ”ahin attributed the newly discovered neokoria to Nikaia’s temple to Rome and the deified Julius Caesar, established, like Nikomedia’s temple to (Rome and) Augustus, in 29 B.C.E.7 But the parallel evi4 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38, ‘To the Nikomedians, on Concord with the Nikaians.’ See Swain 1996, 219-225; C. Jones 1978, 83-89. 5 Guidoboni with Comastri and Traina 1994, 233-234 no. 112, though this conflates several earthquakes in the area in the 120s C.E. 6 Halfmann 1986a, 190-191, 198-199; Birley 1997, 157. 7 ”ahin 1978, 22-25, followed by Merkelbach 1987.

164

part i – section ii. koinon of bithynia

dence of Ephesos (q.v.), which got a temple to the same cults at the same time as Nikaia, but only finally became neokoros for a later (Flavian) temple of the Augusti, rules it out. As noted above, the temples for Rome and the hero Julius were designated by Augustus as being for resident Romans, and so had no status within the koina of the provinces which housed them. True provincial imperial temples were maintained by the koina, like those for Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and Nikomedia administered by the koina of Asia and Bithynia respectively, and it was only these that later gained Pergamon and Nikomedia the title ‘neokoroi.’ Nikaia at that time had no such koinon temple.8 We have no record of Bithynia requesting or receiving permission for further koinon temples or cult from 29 B.C.E. up to the reign of Hadrian. Where Asia had had at least five imperial temples in various cities, Bithynia seems to have had only the one at Nikomedia. Nikaia had given pentaeteric Koina from the reign of Nero on, but this does not necessarily imply the presence of a provincial temple.9 The absence of the word ‘neokoros’ on Nikaia’s earlier, Flavian gate inscriptions only hints that the title had not been awarded by the time of its engraving; but any mention of the title as early as the Flavian period was rare.10 Hadrian came to earthquake-stricken Nikaia and gave it new civic structures: colonnaded streets, an agora, and city walls.11 In honor of his assistance and his visit, the Flavian gates of the city were rededicated to him. In view of these other benefactions, it is possible that he made Nikaia neokoros as well. This would have brought Nikaia onto a par with neokoros Nikomedia, an action that would have been most welcome to the Nikaians and not inconsistent with what had been done in Asia. It would also have been consistent with what Hadrian was about to do: grant the neokoria to Kyzikos (also a victim of earthquake), Smyrna, and Ephesos, all in the same province of Asia. Still, no corroborative evidence for Hadrian doing anything similar in Bithynia has been found on inscriptions or on coins

8

Guinea Díaz 1997, 225-228. Deininger 1965, 61. Note Karl 1975, 24-26, with several errors (e.g. Nikomedia, not Nikaia, received the first temple of Rome and Augustus). 10 ”ahin 1979, nos. 25-28; J. and L. Robert in Revue des études grecques 92 (1979) 511 n. 541; S. Price 1984b, 76-77, also 266. 11 Schorndorfer 1997, 141-143; Winter 1996, 90-91, 101. 9

(indeed no Nikaian issues are known from this period).12 Inscription 1 specifies that Nikaia held such titles as ‘neokoros of the Augusti,’ ‘first of Bithynia and Pontus,’ and ‘metropolis, according to judgments of the emperors and of the Roman Senate.’13 The use of the term ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ confirms earlier evidence from Ephesos, Beroia, and elsewhere that provincial temples were built to honor the cult of plural emperors, not just that of their grantor specifically (see the summary chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in Part II). The mention of the Senate’s part in judgments regarding the status of the city confirms the earlier account in Tacitus’ Annals 4.55-56, where Tiberius sat in the Senate and let it debate which city in Asia (eventually Smyrna, q.v.) should house his temple. By the reign of Hadrian, imperial legates rather than senatorial proconsuls sometimes had primary control of Bithynia, but this seems to have made no difference to the Senate’s role in confirming Nikaia’s titles.14 The ‘judgments’ cited may imply that Nikaia had to put up several fights for some or all of these titles, with its most likely opponent being Nikomedia. But the state of the inscriptions today also shows that Nikomedia eventually did triumph: many of Nikaia’s titles have been erased, and it is possible to figure out when. Withdrawn: Septimius Severus In the contest for the Empire between Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger in 193-194, Nikomedia soon turned toward the former, while Nikaia held onto its loyalty to Niger partially out of pure hatred for Nikomedia.15 When Niger finally lost, Nikaia suffered the consequences: it was stripped of all its official titulature, and the erasure of those formerly proud titles stood on the city gate as a 12

Weiser 1983, 200. Langer 1981, 140-147 gave an unsatisfactory account of Nikaia and its titles, mainly based on out-of-date and misunderstood numismatic evidence from Waddington, Babelon, and Reinach 1976. For a corrective, Weiser 1989, 55-58. For the multiplication of metropoleis (among them both Nikaia and Nikomedia) in the eastern provinces under Hadrian, Bowersock 1985. 14 Remy 1986, 64-65, 76-77. 15 Herodian 3.2.7-9, overdramatic as usual; basic to study of this and all such rivalries is L. Robert 1977b, esp. 22-25; also see Birley 1988, 110. 13

chapter painful reminder. Only those names that referred to the city’s religious status or patron deities were allowed to stand. Severus also matched Nikaia’s punishment with rewards to its rival: Nikomedia was given all that Nikaia had lost, the uncontested right to be ‘first’ and ‘metropolis,’ and, as it was already neokoros for the venerable temple of Rome and Augustus, a second neokoria for a temple of Septimius Severus. Nikaia was not allowed to languish in complete disfavor for long, however. Cassius Dio 76.15.3 records that Severus himself, along with his praetorian prefect Plautianus, spent time in the city, probably in 202 on the way back from their eastern campaign.16 There, an inscription honoring Plautianus’ daughter (and Severus’ daughter-in-law) Plautilla during her brief and ill-fated marriage to Caracalla in 202-205 calls Nikaia “most illustrious and greatest, friend and ally, faithful to the Roman people and ancestral relative to the house of the emperors, Aurelian Antoninian, most pious city of the Nikaians.”17 Of course, there is no sign of the previous and most desired titles ‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’ or ‘neokoros’; Nikomedia still maintained its primacy there. But the rest sounds magniloquent enough. That Nikaia became ‘Aurelian Antoninian’ hints that the city was restored to favor on Caracalla’s petition; in several cases Severus allowed his former anger to abate at such pleas of his successordesignate, who thus won the gratitude of the city in question.18 Nikaia also celebrated Severeia Philadelphia in honor of Severus and both his sons, probably around 204.19 The city may have continued to recall its earlier and ill-fated political decision, however: Nikaia later issued coins celebrating its concord with Byzantion, another city that had been stalwart for Niger and suffered for it.20 Though there is no further evidence for Nikaia as neokoros, it is doubtful that the Nikaians forgot their lost neokoria: as late as the reign of Philip (244-

16

– nikaia

249) they issued coins that showed the reverse type most frequently used by neokoroi cities, that of two or more temples: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: MARKIA OTAK(I, bc) %EOUHRA AUG Diademed draped bust of Otacilia Severa r. Rev: NIKAI[E]VN Two four-column temples turned toward one another. a) New York 73.191 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 133) b) Cologne21 c) Cologne. The objects of cult of the temples are unspecified, but this was true of many of the types issued by neokoroi as well. With so many coins of the Greek provinces still scattered or unpublished, it is difficult to be sure, but this type seems to be one of the only multiple-temple coin types issued by a non-neokoros city.22 On the other hand, the two temples were also sometimes depicted on coins celebrating the concord between two cities, each of which had a famous shrine.23 Still, it is possible that the Nikaians were imitating contemporary coin types of their rival Nikomedia which celebrated its two provincial temples.24 Nonetheless, the legend carefully limits itself to the words ‘of the Nikaians,’ with no trace of a claim to the title ‘neokoros.’ INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. ”ahin 1979, no. 29 (also restored on no. 30, other side of gate, and no. 30a, on northern gate, Istanbul Kapi) (= ”ahin 1978, 1.5). Under Hadrian, erased under Septimius Severus. Also note correction by Bowersock 1985, 86 nn. 38-39. No coins of Nikaia as neokoros are yet known.25

21

Exx. b and c: Weiser 1983, nos. 108-109. M. Price and Trell 1977, 257 no. 291 and indices; see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ above. 23 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 57 no. 549 (Ephesos and Alexandria), 128 no. 1270 (Magnesia and Ephesos), 210 nos. 2133-2144 (Smyrna and Pergamon). Incidentally, the only nonneokoros city involved was Alexandria in Egypt, though Magnesia issued its double-temple concord coin under Caracalla but only became neokoros later, under Severus Alexander. 24 See chapter 15, ‘Nikomedia,’ coin type 37; Weiser 1983, 245, and 75 for another occasion on which Nikaian types imitated those of Nikomedia. 25 For recut/falsified coins with the title, see ”ahin 1978, 22 n. 52, 23 n. 53. 22

16 17

142.

18

134.

19

Halfmann 1986a, 218. ”ahin 1979, no. 59; L. Robert 1977b, 25-26; Birley 1988, Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1; L. Robert 1977b, 27-28 n.

Weiser 1983, 122, 223. Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 20-22 nos. 125-139, 140-148 nos. 1352-1451; Sheppard 1984-1986, 234, 237; the concord had nothing to do with fishing rights: Weiser 1983, 47-48. Weiss 1998, 64-65, noted the alliance, but missed the connection with Niger. 20

165

166

part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

SECTION III. KOINON OF GALATIA Chapter 17. Ankyra: Koinon of Galatia First Neokoria: Augustus The earliest and most famous surviving provincial temple to the imperial cult is the temple at Ankyra (modern Ankara) in the province of Galatia.1 It is best known for the monumentum Ancyranum, the great inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments, engraved in Latin on the interior walls of the pronaos and translated into Greek on the exterior wall of the cella of the temple. But despite the years of study devoted to this inscription there are questions about the temple itself that have not been resolved, questions that have some bearing on the neokoria. The first problem is that though we know that Ankyra was neokoros, all of the evidence for it is late; it held the title twice by the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus (253-260). Moreover there is no statement of the cults to which the city owed those honors. One must then look back over the history of Ankyra to discover what event(s) could have obtained neokoria for this chief city of Galatia, and it is almost unimaginable that the establishment of the first and greatest imperial temple of the province, that of Augustus and Rome, should not be one. This is not to say that every provincial imperial temple in every province resulted in the neokoria for its home city, but that since Ankyra is known to have been neokoros, it was most likely given that title for the temple of Augustus and Rome. Galatia had became a Roman province after the death of its king, Amyntas, in 25 B.C.E. Ankyra was a natural choice as seat of the governor: already the fortress of the Tectosage Galatians, its strategic position controlled the most important part of the somewhat heterogeneous province.2 It is likely (but not certain) that Galatia received all the appurte-

nances of an Eastern province soon after its incorporation. These would have included a koinon and a cult of Augustus and Rome, and both were centered in Ankyra, which thus became metropolis as well.3 Despite Greek, Roman, Phrygian, and other populations that made up the province, the elite class was Celtic, and in its earliest documents the koinon was ‘of the Galatians,’ not of the Hellenes of the province, as in, for example, Asia and Bithynia.4 The suggestion that Galatia looked to the West rather than the East for the basis of its imperial cult, and was inspired in this by the fact that the Gauls had set up an altar of Rome and Augustus in Lugdunum in 12 B.C.E. is, however, unconvincing.5 The institutions of the koinon of the Galatians were basically like, and probably inspired by, those of neighbors in Asia Minor, where Asia and Bithynia had had their provincial temples to Rome and Augustus since 29 B.C.E. The temple at Ankyra is of thoroughly eastern and Hellenizing form. A Celtic emphasis on feasting, as well as Roman blood games, were no doubt added onto these traditions. The temple at Ankyra is one of the few and likely the earliest of the temples built for the provincial imperial cult that can be archaeologically examined (illus. pl. 1 fig. 1). A thorough architectural analysis of the remains of the temple was published by Krencker and Schede in 1936.6 Through excavation they were able to prove that the relatively wellpreserved cella, opening to the southwest, had been surrounded by a pseudodipteral peristasis of eight columns on the short sides and fifteen on the long sides. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured along the centers of the columns, and probably stood on an eight-stepped base measuring 36 x 54.82 m. 3

1

S. Price 1984b, 109, 152 n. 47, 167-168, 177 n. 31, 208 n. 7, 229 n. 105, 267-268. 2 Haensch 1997, 277-281; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:54-55, 6169, 86-89; Remy 1986, 21-27; Magie 1950, 455, 459.

Cross and Leiser 2000, 70-79; Deininger 1965, 20-21. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:109-111; idem 1980. 5 Fayer 1976, 131-132. 6 Krencker and Schede 1936; see also Gros 1996-2001, 1:161, 163. 4

chapter The pronaos had four columns prostyle, the opisthodomos two columns in antis. The only architectural features that hinted at the order of the temple were the anta capitals. Though badly preserved, the remains of a figure of Victory hovering over acanthus leaves were recognizable, and seem more suitable to the Corinthian than the Ionic order. This order was apparently confirmed when later excavations turned up four battered Corinthian capitals which matched the height of the anta capitals.7 The architectural ornament in general is particularly fine and elaborate, and follows Hellenistic models so closely that Schede dated it in the second century B.C.E. despite the chronological disparity between this and the Roman imperial inscriptions on the walls. A continuous frieze of flowering acanthus shoots, interspersed with an occasional Victory, scrolls along the outer cella walls. The Victories are of classicizing style, but their position among the foliage recalls the archaized Victories whose legs turn into acanthus scrolls on the temple of the Deified Julius Caesar in the Forum at Rome.8 More flowered scrolls adorn the great door into the cella, and the sacred nature of its interior is emphasized by a frieze of hanging garlands. The sculptural theme of the whole might be characterized as ‘victory and fruitfulness.’ The inscription most useful for establishing the chronology of the temple is that on the left (west) anta of the pronaos.9 The inscription preserves a list of priests of the Galatians for ‘the god Augustus and the goddess Rome.’ They are listed in the order in which they held office, and the name of the proconsular legate of the province heads a group that held the priesthood during his tenure. A summary of each priest’s benefactions, such as public banquets, gladiatorial games, and provision of oil for the baths, generally follows his name, but the list is not a catalogue of gifts; one priest (line 39) apparently gave nothing at all. The engraving was the work of several different hands, and it is likely that each priest’s name was inscribed as he left office.

7 Bittel and A. Schneider 1941. For a reminiscence at some distance, see Güterbock 1989; his observation that at one point a foundation course for the peristasis did not bond with that for the pronaos columns is only a constructional detail, and cannot be taken as proof that the peristasis long postdates the pronaos. 8 Vollkommer 1997, no. 269. 9 E. Bosch 1967, 35-49 no. 51.

17

– ankyra

167

Both Halfmann and Mitchell have dated the first priesthood originally listed on the temple’s anta to 19/20 C.E.10 Halfmann, however, pointed out that the name of the imperial legate to Galatia, a constant element in the rest of the inscription, is lacking over the entry for the first priest. It is therefore possible that the anta inscription is simply a continuation of a priest list begun elsewhere, and that the Augustan refinements of the temple’s decoration confirm its pre-Tiberian date. Krencker and Schede had noted that the antae upon which the monumentum Ancyranum was engraved were originally not intended for that purpose, but had had to be smoothed down to receive the inscription: one block in the topmost course of the area to be inscribed was left with drafted edges instead of being smoothed flat.11 It is likely, then, that 19/20 C.E. is only a point after which the provincial priesthood of Augustus and Rome must have existed. The anta inscription also records a seeming paradox. A very important man, Pylaimenes, son of Amyntas the last king of Galatia, served as priest in 19 or 20 C.E., and among his donations are recorded “the places where the Sebasteion is, and where the festival takes place, and the racecourse” (lines 27-29). Hänlein supposed that the temple of Augustus and Rome itself was the Sebasteion, and that Pylaimenes had given its site before he had served as priest, leaving time for the building to be built.12 Tuchelt threw doubt on the identification: Sebasteia, in his view, were simpler structures built on a similar pattern throughout the provinces, and this peripteral temple did not suit that pattern, so it must have been dedicated to Kybele.13 Mitchell, Halfmann, and Hänlein(-Schäfer) have all pointed out the errors in this thesis.14 On the other hand, Hänlein’s reconstruction was based on several assumptions, all of which should be made explicit, as any of them may be questioned: that the priesthood was founded at the point at which the extant list of priests begins; that the list begins when the temple was founded; and that the word Sebasteion refers to the temple upon which the list is inscribed. Halfmann doubted all these assumptions.

10

112.

11 12 13 14

Halfmann 1986b; S. Mitchell 1986; 1993, 1:103-105, 107Krencker and Schede 1936, 22, 51; also Fittschen 1985. Hänlein 1981. Tuchelt 1981; Tuchelt and Preisshofen 1985. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-15, 185-190, 289-290.

168

part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

Perhaps it is best not to be too exact in dating the completion of the temple at Ankyra. Mitchell dated the organization of Galatia as a province, from which its era began, to 22-20 B.C.E.; Halfmann to 23-22; Leschhorn to 25/24.15 Whichever is correct, between that point and 19-20 C.E. the temple of Augustus and Rome was proposed, agreed upon, planned, built, and dedicated. Though authorities have made various assumptions about what equipment must have existed for the cult to have taken place, even such an essential as an altar was not donated until 37 or 38 C.E.; as the list records the sacrifice of a hekatomb well before this (by Albiorix son of Ateporix, who also donated statues of ‘Caesar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca. 23 C.E.), a temporary or simple altar must have been used until a donor gave a more grandiose permanent one. As for the statues of Tiberius and his mother, Bosch had assumed that they were cult statues and that as such they should have been set up in the temple as soon as possible after Tiberius’ accession; but the Greek word used for them (andriantes) only means ordinary statues, which could have stood anywhere in the sanctuary or even in the city itself.16 On the other hand, if Albiorix’ term has been correctly dated, it fell in the same year that the koinon of Asia was granted permission to build a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate; the influence of this action may have traveled east to Galatia as it did west to Spain.17 To return to Pylaimenes’ gifts: Hänlein believed that “the places where the Sebasteion is, and where the festival takes place, and the racecourse” were all interconnected, and found precedent for this arrangement in another provincial temple to Augustus at Tarraco.18 Thus she thought that the temple at Ankyra (which she identified with the Sebasteion) was the high point of a grandiose complex, with the racecourse at its foot. Given that the identification of temple and Sebasteion is not certain, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed, though it is certainly not impossible; the existence of modern Ankara makes it difficult to test by excavation. 15 Leschhorn 1993, 398-414; 1992. Stumpf 1991, 125-131 inclined towards Halfmann’s estimate. 16 E. Bosch 1967, 43. 17 Tacitus, Annals 3.66-69; 4.37 on Hispania Ulterior’s request (denied by the emperor) to build a temple to Tiberius and his mother. See chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 18 Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 39-40, 185-190, 289-290; accepted by Gros 1996-2001, 1:229-231.

Yet another inscription decorates and documents the temple at Ankyra. Now largely eroded, it was chiseled onto the right (south) anta of the pronaos, and so corresponds with the list of priests of the Galatians discussed above. Here, however, the list begins “Those who in their terms of chief priesthood promised works for the contributions,” and the first and only name preserved is that of Cocceius Seleukos, chief priest of Augustus.19 As the Roman name Cocceius was probably obtained with Roman citizenship during the reign of M. Cocceius Nerva, this list should not date before 96; one Cocceius Alexandros, perhaps a relative of Seleukos, was active in Ankyra at the time of Antoninus Pius.20 In any case, it is noteworthy that the former ‘priests of the Galatians’ have apparently become chief priests, and that, unless her name stood in a rather small area of damaged letters, the cult of the goddess Rome has fallen away, leaving only Augustus. The ‘works’ that were promised appear to have involved construction, so it seems that some building was still going on in the precinct into the second century. Schede believed that he knew exactly what those works were and that he could date them precisely. This was due to his interpretation of coins issued by the koinon of the Galatians and by Ankyra.21 Early imperial coins that showed a facade of four (Ionic) columns were taken to be the tetrastyle pronaos of the temple of Augustus, but its peristasis was not supposed to have been built until the time of Marcus Aurelius, when an eight-column facade first appeared on the coins. Schede had to admit that the foundations for these columns were contemporary with those of the pronaos, but believed that nothing had been put on them for the three centuries of building history that he postulated. On the other hand, coins of Vespasian, Nerva, and Trajan that showed a six-column temple were considered to represent another building entirely. That numismatic convention frequently abbreviates the number of columns on a peripteral structure is now well known, and has already been discussed in the introduction (‘Methodology’). So it will be worthwhile to reevaluate the relevant coins with temple reverses here. This has become simpler 19

116.

20

E. Bosch 1967, 118-120 no. 102; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:112,

Krencker and Schede 1936, 57-59. Krencker and Schede 1936, 40-42 (coins henceforward ‘Schede’ with his type letters). 21

chapter since Arslan’s studies of Ankyra’s Roman-period coinage have appeared.22 First, it should be pointed out that the temples shown on coins of one city may be associated with various cults, not necessarily with a single cult. For example, prominent on the coins of the koinon of the Galatians was the moon god Men, whose cult had been important in the area since the time of the Phrygians.23 Sometimes the god’s head is on the obverse, more frequently his figure is on the reverse.24 In one case, the emperor may have been assimilated to the god: coins of Galba with his name on both obverse and reverse show a reverse figure of Men, and though portrait features are not discernible, it is possible that Galba was honored as the new Men.25 Also, certain koinon coins issued early in the reign of Trajan under T. Pomponius Bassus, the legatus of Galatia and Cappadocia (98-100 C.E.), show reverses of a temple of Men either with the god himself within or with his symbol, the crescent, in the pediment; on some examples the temple’s central facade is shown as arched.26 But there is no reason to identify this temple, or the cult of Men, with the temple and cult of Augustus and Rome in Ankyra.27 After all, Lycia’s provincial festival honored Rome and Leto, and there was a provincial priest for the ancestral Apollo, but we need not assume that either of those cults shared a temple with the emperor(s).28 Furthermore, the portrait of Macedonia’s hero Alexander the Great was the most frequent obverse of the koinon coinage issued by Beroia (q.v.), but this did not mean that the hero’s cult shared a temple with the long-standing provincial imperial cult. On the other hand, an imperial temple may be explicitly identified on other koinon coins of type 1, below. Minted without imperial portrait but datable by comparison with type 2, of Galba, its obverse

22 Arslan 1997 (coins henceforward ‘Arslan’ with coin number). The major part of the corpus is from the Anatolian Civilizations Museum in Ankara. This latest publication incorporates several earlier studies of the same material, including Arslan 1991. 23 S. Mitchell 1993, 2:24-25, 186, with a list of shrines. 24 Obverse: Arslan nos. 12-14. Reverse: Arslan nos. 19, 20, 27-29, 44-46, add. 1. 25 Arslan nos. 10-11. 26 Schede types F, G, H; Arslan nos. 30, 31; SNGvA 6123, 6124; SNGParis 2424-2426; BMC 8. For T. Pomponius Bassus, see Stumpf 1991, 239-258. 27 As does Arslan 1991, following Anabolu 1970, 33-35. 28 See ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below; Deininger 1965, 77.

17

– ankyra

169

again shows the moon god Men, but its reverse explicitly identifies a temple of the emperors: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: KOINON GALATVN Phrygian-capped bust of Men, crescent at shoulders, l.29 Rev: %EBA%TVN Six-column temple, disc in pediment (no pediment, b).30 a) SNGvA 6113 b) SNGParis 2388 d) SNGParis 2389 e) Ankara (Arslan 12) f) Ankara (Arslan 13) g) Ankara (Arslan 14). COIN TYPE 2. Obv: GALBA% %EBA%TO% Bust of Galba, l. Rev: [%E]BA%TVN Six-column temple, disc in pediment.31 a) SNGParis 2407 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 134) b) New York. The reverse of these types likely represents the temple in Ankyra, the most prominent imperial temple and center for the koinon. If so, it should be noted that the temple is labeled not ‘of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome,’ as the priests of the temple were, nor ‘of Augustus,’ as the chief priests were, but ‘of the Augusti,’ with emperors after Augustus included in the cult. Other depictions of a temple are less identifiable, only showing a circle or dot in the pediment. The koinon continued to mint until the reign of Trajan, and among its reverse types were a four-column, perhaps Ionic, temple (under Nero)32 and a six-column temple (under Trajan).33 Ankyra began to mint its own coins from the reign of Vespasian, and they showed a similar six-column temple.34 Under Nerva, however, a variant appeared on the city’s coinage: sometimes an eagle spreads its wings below the shield in the pediment of the six-column (Corinthian) temple.35 The eagle, which Schede held to symbol29

Occasionally misidentified as Attis, but the crescent is decisive. 30 RPC 1:543-549, esp. no. 3567. Note that the redating of the left anta inscription of the temple at Ankyra (in order to solve an iconographic problem in the coins of the proconsul Basila) has not been thought through sufficiently. 31 RPC 1, no. 3566. 32 SNGParis 2398, 2399; Arslan nos. 2-4; Schede type A; RPC 1 no. 3563. 33 SNGParis 2427-2432 (the last five-column); Arslan nos. 32-37; Schede type I/J. For similar coins issued with only the name of the governor, not that of the koinon, Grant 1950, 44 nos. 4-6, issued under (T. Helvius) Basila, after 35 C.E., all with reverse of a six-column temple. For Basila, see n. 30 above; Stumpf 1991, 128-131; and Weiser 1998, 275-277. 34 Arslan nos. 15-18, Schede type B, SNGvA 6130, SNGParis 2436. 35 No eagle: Arslan nos. 25, 26, Schede type C. With eagle: Arslan nos. 24, 26a, Schede types D and E, SNGParis 24412443.

170

part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

ize Zeus, would be just as appropriate for a temple to the Roman imperial cult, and especially to Augustus, who was often assimilated to Jupiter.36 An eagle also appears in the pediments of likely imperial-cult temples in Tarsos and in Kaisareia in Cappadocia (qq.v.).37 A disc in the pediment can sometimes be an abbreviation for some sort of pedimental sculpture, but as it continued to appear even when that sculpture (the eagle) was present, it too may represent reality, perhaps a shield or portrait shield. And that reality may well be the original form of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra. In the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, Ankyra’s coins still showed the familiar facade with disc in pediment, but occasionally with eight columns instead of six.38 The eight columns became standard on coins of Caracalla and of Geta.39 Schede used his type N, an issue of Caracalla, to prove that the peristasis of the temple of Augustus was Ionic, as each column capital on this coin consists of two dots; he did not observe, however, that the bases also consist of two dots, and that all the decoration of gables, friezes, and podium is indicated by lines of dots. The dots are shorthand for ‘decoration’ and cannot be taken to define the order of the temple. None of these coin types is inconsistent with any other, and all may represent an eight column Corinthian temple, a shield and an eagle depicted in its pediment, with elaborate decoration on gables, friezes, and perhaps even on the steps of the podium. And again, these features do not conflict with the possible reconstructed form of the temple in Ankyra. It appears that the priests of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome of the Galatians later became 36 Kuttner 1995, 65-68, even in his lifetime; though Rose 1997a, 75 observed that the extant statues were Tiberian or later. Note the domestic eagle under Augustus’ chair on the Gemma Augustea in Vienna (Kuttner 1995, pl. 16). 37 M. Price and Trell 1977, figs. 378 and 379 explicitly compared the temples in Ankyra and Kaisareia, though the Ankyra reverse is incorrectly identified as a coin of Nero rather than Nerva. 38 Six columns: Arslan no. 62 (Lucius Verus); eight columns: SNGvA 6142 and SNGParis 2460 (Verus) and Schede type K (Marcus Aurelius). 39 Geta: Arslan no. 112; BMC 38; SNGvA 6181, 6186; SNGParis 2527. Caracalla: Arslan nos. 93-95, 96 (worn, misdescribed); BMC 32; SNGvA 6158, 6163 (octastyle in threequarter view), 6173; SNGRighetti 1744; SNGParis 2484, 2487-2489; Schede L, M, N; Hexastyle? but in three-quarter view: SNGParis 2481, Arslan no. 97. Also their mother Julia Domna: SNGParis 2474, 2478 (the latter octastyle in threequarter view).

chief priests of Augustus, as has been seen. Later inscriptions also document Galatarchs; in fact, apparently some officials were chief priests, some were Galatarchs, and some were both.40 There were also sebastophantai, as was the case in Bithynia. In Ankyra their office was limited to the cult of Augustus, as it was specifically distinguished from the position of ‘hierophant of the theoi sebastoi’ for the other Augusti. A woman could be sebastophantes, and the job included certain revenues which were customarily used to underwrite a gift of oil to the city baths and gymnasia. One sebastophantes, however, boasted of spending these funds on a municipal building project and supplying money for the oil out of his own pocket.41 Mitchell claimed that there were other provincial temples of the Galatians beside that at Ankara, namely at Pessinus and perhaps at Pisidian Antioch.42 The latter, at least, is highly unlikely. First of all, Antioch was not one of the centers of the three Galatian tribes, and thus of their koinon: these were Ankyra for the Tectosages, Pessinus for the Tolistobogii, and Tavium for the Trocmi. Secondly, Antioch was a Roman colony founded from an actual settlement of legionary veterans, and there is no document of a colony having a temple to the living emperor, or being part of the provincial cult structure, as early as Augustus’ lifetime. In fact, if Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 is correct, a gulf was intended between the imperial cult to be practiced by Romans and by provincials: the one group was to worship the deified Julius Caesar and the goddess Rome, the other Augustus himself. The design and inspiration for the Antioch sanctuary is all western, the inscriptions all Latin; it was completed during Augustus’ lifetime, by 2/1 B.C.E., and though the excavators preferred to assign it to the cult of Augustus himself, it is more likely to have been for the cult of deified Caesar and Rome.43 It was only by the end of the second century that the line between Roman colony and provincial city began to be blurred, and in the third century that perhaps first Nikopolis, later Thessalonike and Neapolis, were both colonies and neokoroi.44

40

S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7. E. Bosch 1967, nos. 98, 105-106, 139. 42 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:103-107. The doubts expressed by S. Price 1984b, 268-270 still seem justified. 43 S. Mitchell and Waelkens 1998, 113-173. 44 J. Nollé 1995. 41

chapter Pessinus, as tribal center of the Tolistobogii Galatians, is a thornier problem. Mitchell took as his proof of the presence of a koinon temple IGRR 3:230, which honors one (Tiberius Claudius) Heras. He was a priest for life of the great Mother of the gods at Pessinus and Meidaeion and (priest) of the emperors six times, chief priest of the koinon of Augustan Galatians and agonothetes, and also sebastophantes of the temple in Pessinus. The problem is that the clearly provincial offices, the chief priesthood and headship of the festival, are not explicitly connected to a temple in Pessinus. That an imperial cult was practiced in Pessinus is ensured by the post of sebastophantes (which may have been for Augustus, as at Ankyra, or for the Augusti in general), as well as implied by a priesthood of the emperors held six times, but neither is explicitly ‘of the Galatians’ in this inscription, where local and provincial offices appear in no clear order.45 Another difficulty with Mitchell’s interpretation is that he identified all coins with a hexastyle temple on the reverse as the hexastyle temple found at Pessinus, despite the fact that some of these coins were not issued in the name of the city but with that of the governor or of the koinon. Thus the building portrayed on them could be the provincial imperial temple at Ankyra, even if some of the coins were minted at Pessinus. Mitchell did not take numismatic abbreviation into his consideration, though neither did Grant, whom he took as his authority.46 As has been seen, it is perfectly possible for the octastyle temple at Ankyra to have been represented as hexastyle, though again, care should be taken where a temple type is not explicit: there were certainly at least two temples represented on the Galatians’ koinon coinage, that of Men and that of the Augusti, and there may have been others less clearly identified; a six column temple appears on civic coins of Pessinus from the time of Claudius down to the Severans.47 45 The inscription was misinterpreted by Devreker in Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 20; 221 no. 10.3.17 also gives conflicting dates, late first century and late second century. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:116 corrected the error: Heras could not have been six times chief priest of the koinon, but only of a civic cult, though he himself misrepeated the office as “six times high priest of the emperors”—the unmentioned office should refer to the last office mentioned, i.e., priest. 46 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:104 n. 30; Grant 1950, 46 n. 27. 47 Devreker and Waelkens 1984, 175 and nos. 13 (Claudius), 61-62 (Marcus Aurelius), 107 (Septimius Severus), 110-111 (Julia Domna), 176 (Geta Caesar), 205 (Geta Augustus), and 161-162 (Caracalla).

17

– ankyra

171

Certainly citizens of Pessinus became high officials of the koinon. Two of the priests whose names appeared on the left anta of the temple at Ankyra, Lollius and Q. Gallius Pulcher, were likely from Pessinus; one gave a feast, festival, and a cult statue (agalma), the other a hekatomb sacrifice, at their home city. M. Cocceius Seleukos, the chief priest whose name is on the right anta, was also from Pessinus, where an inscription honoring him and his parents, who were themselves chief priest and (twice) chief priestess of the koinon, has been found.48 But these names of provincial officials were not carved on the temple at Pessinus, but on the antae of the Ankyra temple; nor is any priest or chief priest of the Galatians ever specified as being ‘of the temple at Ankyra’ or ‘of the temple at Pessinus,’ as they often were in Asia. Koina contests were probably held at Pessinus, as at Tavium, but again, such festivals could be celebrated in towns where there was no provincial temple.49 In addition, the temple that has been excavated at Pessinus has only been identified with the imperial cult by indirect means: no dedicatory inscriptions or imperial statues were found there, and a Sebasteion (itself not a term exclusively denoting a provincial temple, as seen above) is mentioned in the city only in the second century.50 Though the excavators have interpreted a western-style theatral area built into the temple’s steps as a viewing area for gladiatorial shows, this feature has not been documented at other imperial temples, and was not an ideal venue for gladiators anyway, as it backed onto one side of a colonnaded plaza.51 Firmer proof is 48

Devreker and Strubbe 1996, 53-55 no. 1. Deininger 1965, 68; for Asia, Moretti 1954. 50 Waelkens 1986, 67-73; Devreker, Thoen, and Vermeulen 1995. 51 For the subterranean structures and built seating necessary for gladiatorial shows in the Roman Forum, see Gros 19962001, 1.318-320. Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 51-63 found that early provincial temples in the East were all of Greek type; municipal temples could imitate Roman buildings, but their form was most often rostral, like the temple of Julius Caesar in the Roman forum, which is rather the reverse of a cavea temple. Hanson 1959, 54-55, 93-96 found some (municipal) imperial cult temples associated with theaters, but the temples themselves were in open fora, not above the cavea, as the one at Pessinus is. Hanson’s citation (66) of Syrian shrines with caveae overlooking courtyards, however, does resemble the situation at Pessinus. The Pessinus cavea would have suited ludi scaenici, but these were fitting either for the cult of Magna Mater (as transplanted to Rome) or for the imperial cult: the provincial priests of the Ankyra temple list often gave plays, though not specifically at Pessinus. 49

172

part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

needed before the temple in Pessinus can be called either provincial or for the imperial cult. It is more likely that Ankyra’s status as metropolis and sole site of a provincial temple of the Galatians was unrivaled, at least for a time. Perhaps that is why it did not even bother to use the title ‘neokoros’ until its second neokoria, under Valerian and Gallienus. Yet as we have seen, coin types that probably represent its first provincial temple, that of Augustus and Rome, had appeared intermittently since the time of Galba; it was most likely this temple that eventually gave Ankyra the title ‘neokoros.’ Under Caracalla Ankyra issued a series of coins that showed the prototypical symbol of the city as neokoros, the patron god holding a temple. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ANTVNINO% AUGOU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: A%KLHPEIA %VTHREIA I%OPUYIA ANKURA% City goddess seated on a rock labeled MHTRO, she holds an eight-column temple and a prize crown.52 a) London 1975.4-11-188 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 135) b) SNGParis 2507 (worn, raised edges). COIN TYPE 4. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUGOU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% City goddess holding four-column temple and sceptre, an anchor in the field.53 a) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUGOU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r., bearded. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated city goddess holding four-column temple leans against anchor. a) SNGvA 6169. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUGOU%TO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% ANKURA% Seated Athena in aegis holding four-column temple and sceptre. a) Berlin 279/1911. The anchor in types 4 and 5 is the punning symbol for Ankyra, while the prize crown of type 3 is for the ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an isopythian festival founded during Caracalla’s reign, and celebrated in a more abbreviated fashion on contemporary coins, with types of up to two prize crowns.54

52

Pick 1904, 10 no. 5.2. Ibid., 9 no. 5.1. 54 L. Robert 1960a. The coins generally abbreviate to Asklepeia Sotereia Isopythia: e.g. Arslan no. 98; BMC 22-24, 28; 53

The assumed equivalency between number of prize crowns and number of neokoriai has led some to declare (without proof) that Ankyra was twice neokoros since the reign of Caracalla.55 It is certainly possible that Caracalla granted a second provincial temple and neokoria to Ankyra, but the actual title only appears on coins issued about forty years later. One inscription of the first celebration of the Asklepieia Sotereia festival gives it the name of Caracalla himself, as if celebrating the imperial cult; but on other inscriptions (even as early as the festival’s second celebration) and on all the coins Antoneineia drops out; Robert called the addition of the imperial name “banale et de pur forme.”56 The coin types above simply hint at Ankyra’s neokoria, but one obverse type implies a more direct connection between Caracalla and a temple, which appears on his shield as well as on the coin’s reverse. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ANTVNEINO% AUGOU%TO% Laureate draped bust of Caracalla l, holding spear and shield, on which an eight-column temple is depicted, a Victory before its altar. Rev: (MHTROPOLEV%, a) ANKURA% Eightcolumn temple (anchor in exergue, b). a) SNGParis 2484 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 136) b) SNGvA 6174. It should be noted, however, that the eight-column temple reverse had been used on Ankyran coins since the second century, and was very popular before Caracalla’s sole rule. Another coin, unfortunately very worn, shows two temples, and has been attributed to Caracalla’s successor Macrinus: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: . . .OPA . . K . . O . . Radiate head of Macrinus? r., obscure. Rev: MHTROP B . . . RA . . . Two two-column Ionic? temples on the same podium, thymiaterion in each, at least one in three-quarter view; obscure. a) SNGParis 2530 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 137). This would seem to indicate that Ankyra was twice neokoros in the reign after Caracalla’s. It is more likely, however, that this is a worn example similar SNGvA 6164-6166; SNGParis 2492, 2496, 2500, 2501, 2504, 2513, 2514. 55 Karl 1975, 11; also 86, misattributing to Ankyra a third neokoria under Valerian when the coins themselves specify only two (below). 56 L. Robert 1960a, 362; S. Mitchell 1977, 75-77 no. 8.

chapter to coin type 10, below, and should be reattributed to the reign of Gallienus. It is nonetheless possible that Caracalla made Ankyra twice neokoros during his sole rule, perhaps in connection with his eastern campaign. If so, the name of the sacred festival he gave the city may indicate that the honor was associated with Asklepios; perhaps the imperial cult shared a previously existing temple, as it did at such cities as Pergamon (also with Asklepios) and Smyrna (with the goddess Rome). Certainly an important Galatian official made three embassies to the emperor: Titus Flavius Gaianus, chief priest of the koinon, Galatarch and sebastophantes, was not only twice agonothetes of the koinon festival of the Galatians but twice of the great Asklepeia Isopythia, and some of his embassies may have had to do with that festival.57 But no explicit evidence for temple or neokoria is yet known, and if Caracalla did make Ankyra twice neokoros, it could be the only city outside Asia that he honored in that fashion. Second Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Troops for the emperor Valerian’s campaign against the Sassanian Persians likely passed through Ankyra, as milestones record the roadwork carried out in Galatia for the occasion.58 Though the emperor’s personal contact with Ankyra is not documented, the importance of the East as a theater of war (in Valerian’s case, a disastrous one) led to increased attention to the great cities of those provinces. Certainly a great many neokoriai were granted under Valerian and Gallienus, and presumably by the former, since he was in the area. It is possible that Ankyra only became twice neokoros at this time. Contemporary agonistic types show either one or three prize crowns, and mention Aktia, Pythia, and Mystikos festivals.59 The Pythia is almost certainly the Asklepieia Sotereia, while inscriptions record an Augousteia Aktia; though it would be tempting to ascribe this festival to the temple of Augustus and 57 L. Robert 1960a, 360-361. Gaianus was honored by each of Ankyra’s twelve tribes, so there are many copies of his honorifics: S. Mitchell 1977, 73-75 no. 7. 58 Foss 1977b, 31-33, reprinted as Ch. 6 in Foss 1990, took the roadwork as evidence for Valerian’s presence in Ankyra, but it more likely indicates movements of troops than those of emperors. See Halfmann 1986a, 236-237. 59 SNGvA 6299, obverse of Salonina.

17

– ankyra

173

Rome, most citations of Augousteia contests in fact date to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus.60 The number of neokoriai and of prize crowns (= festivals) do not correspond, so Ankyra may serve as a warning against those who would assume equivalency between them. Though Ankyra was likely neokoros for the temple of Augustus and Rome, the cult for which it got the second honor must remain uncertain. The Asklepieia Sotereia, though founded under Caracalla, may have honored the god rather than the emperor; Augousteia Aktia could have been granted as late as the time of Valerian; and the Mystikos is documented as early as Hadrian.61 None of the three prize crowns assuredly represents a festival for a temple that made Ankyra neokoros.62 Ankyra’s coins abbreviated its title from ‘twice neokoros’ to a bare BN, but its two inscriptions, the first firmly dated by its reference to the empress Salonina, wife of Gallienus, confirm the interpretation: INSCRIPTION 1. S. Mitchell with French and Greenhaigh 1982 (RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR 3:237). From Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra. Statue base of Salonina (her name and Gallienus’ erased), reused as a milestone under Constantine and Licinius. { mhtr(Òpoliw) t}w Galat¤aw b' nevk(Òrow) ÖAnkura. . . On coins issued by Ankyra under Gallienus, the diecutting of the reverses becomes clumsy, but the type of a single (still unidentified) temple reappears. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: (G, b) POUB LIK GALLIHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: MHTROP B N ANKURA% Fourcolumn temple. a) Ankara (Arslan 137) b) Ankara (Arslan 138). The temple has only four columns now, and those so ineptly conveyed that their bulbous tops appear Ionic. In addition, there is a coin type that shows two identical temple-like structures confronting one another: COIN TYPE 10. Obv: POUB LIK GALLIHNO% AUG Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: MHTROP B N ANKURA% Two two-column temples without rooflines indicated, on one po60 61 62

L. Robert 1960a, 367; Karl 1975, 25-26. E. Bosch 1967, no. 128. Karl 1975, 86.

174

part i – section iii. koinon of galatia

dium, a thymiaterion in each. a) BMC 45 b) SNGFitzw 5395 c) New York 58.44.14 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 138) d) Ankara (Arslan 139) (worn). This is the usual composition for conveying temples for which the city is twice neokoros, but there are unusual features on coin type 10 (shared by type 8, above). The buildings in question show no roof-line, their side walls are of masonry rather than columnar, and they contain incense altars instead of cult statues. These facts led Price and Trell to call them “gates to altar courts” as well as temples.63 It would be foolhardy to put too much emphasis on the exactitude of the type, as the design is very sketchy, the die-cutting inept, and the details left out may have merely been suppressed or abbreviated. Moreover, altars had appeared within temples before, at Neokaisareia (q.v.). But this coin type may also be a hint that the second shrine for which Ankyra was neokoros was not as magnificent as the first had been. If so, it is intriguing that the great eight-column temple of Augustus and Rome should be assimilated to its humbler new counterpart. Though not directly attacked by the Persians, Ankyra and its province experienced Gothic incursions, fell into the hands of Zenobia of Palmyra, and then were retaken by the emperor Aurelian in 271.64

63

M. Price and Trell 1977, 213 fig. 449, 270 no. 525. Foss 1977b and 1990 ch. 6; the sources are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 85-95. 64

The city suffered much, and nothing further is heard of Ankyra as twice neokoros. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. S. Mitchell, with D. French and J. Greenhaigh 1982 (= RECAM 2) no. 403 (IGRR 3:237). From Aspona, 65 miles from Ankyra. Statue base of Salonina, reused as a milestone under Constantine and Licinius. See text above. 2. Ramsay 1883a, 16-17 no. 3 (IGRR 3:179). Both Ramsay and E. Bosch 1967, 348-350 nos. 287, 288 dated this to the period of Valerian by the reference to the second neokoria.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: Valerian: BMC 39-41; SNGCop 120; SNGvA 6188-6191; SNGRighetti 1747, 1748; SNGParis 2535-2544; Ankara/Arslan 117, 118, 122, 123; Private Collection/ Arslan 115, 121; Berlin (7 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Oxford (6 exx.), Vienna. Gallienus: BMC 42-45; SNGCop 121; SNGvA 6192-6194, 6196-6198; SNGRighetti 1749; SNGParis 2545-2554; Ankara/Arslan 126, 128-131, 133, 135-141, 143; Berlin (8 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Salonina: BMC 46, 47; SNGvA 6199-6201; SNGParis 2555, 2556; Ankara/Arslan 144, 146, 147, 152, 153; Private Collection/Arslan 145, 150, 151; Berlin, New York (3 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw.

chapter

18

– perge

175

SECTION IV. CITIES OF PAMPHYLIA Chapter 18. Perge: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia First Neokoria: Vespasian

The reason for Vespasian’s granting neokoria to Perge is uncertain. An eminent Pergaian, the Roman senator M. Plancius Varus, has been restored as active in Vespasian’s support in 69-70, and a likely ambassador to the new emperor on his city’s behalf.1 Beyond this hypothetical personal connection, the closest known association that Vespasian had with Perge was his reorganization of its province Pamphylia, which he detached from Galatia and annexed to Lycia.2 Lycia, however, had a long-standing koinon of its own. Pamphylia formed an independent provincial organization, known from a few inscriptions as ‘the cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed by Pamphyliarchs.3 Cooperation does not seem to have been natural to the Pamphylian cities, and in no document yet found do they call their organization a koinon.4 Pamphylia had first been annexed by Rome in the late Republic.5 Since then it had been shuffled

from one larger province to another. Apparently in the reorganization by Vespasian an attempt was made to give Pamphylia some features of neighboring provinces. A vital part of this could have been the establishment of a temple of the imperial cult, and the title ‘neokoros’ to accompany it.6 Though Perge became neokoros ‘from Vespasian,’ he is not specified as the object of cult, but it is the most likely scenario. It is more remotely possible that the Pamphylian provincial temple was to Augustus and Rome; there were pentaeteric Kaisareia, but these were likely also founded under the Flavians (see below).7 Perge’s probable position as chief city of its provincial organization is indicated by silver cistophori minted under Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian; they show Perge’s famous shrine of Diana/Artemis Pergaia.8 Though no document makes it incontrovertible, Perge has been judged to have the best claim to having been the seat of the governor of Lycia/ Pamphylia.9 How much trust can be placed in inscription 2? It is two centuries later than the grant of neokoria to which it refers; but most of its claims that can be checked show a kernel (or more) of truth. Other inscriptions refer to Perge’s festival the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia; indeed, three inscriptions not yet published mention the (probably provincial) ‘chief priest of the Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia.’10 Though inscription 2 records a jubilant acclamation of Perge, surely by its citizens, it nonetheless seems to expect and take measures against dissent by referring to the decree of the Senate that made its honors official. The dissent

1 Houston 1972, 177-178 n. 45; Levick 1999, 144 elevated the possible Pergaian embassy to a seeming certainty. 2 ”ahin 1995, 1. 3 Magie 1950, 576, 1440 n. 28; Deininger 1965, 27, 8182. 4 J. Nollé 1993. 5 Remy 1986, 21, 35, 40-46, 50, 62-63, to be modified by J. Nollé 1993, 308-310; ”ahin 1994.

6 J. Nollé 1993–2001 (= SiA) 1:303 n. 14; Magie 1950, 285, 301, 418, 530, 576. 7 Kaygusuz 1984. 8 Magie 1950, 623, 1485-1486 n. 50. 9 Haensch 1997, 290-297; though the honor has been assigned to many different places, 290 n. 162. 10 ”ahin 1995, 18 and n. 35; Kaygusuz 1984.

One of the latest inscriptions to mention the title ‘neokoros’ nonetheless gives valuable information on the early relationship between the organization of the province Pamphylia and imperial cult. Inscription 2 of Perge, which dates to the reign of Tacitus, states that the city was neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’ INSCRIPTION 2. Kaygusuz 1984 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 115-116 no. 22). Acclamation of the city. Lines 5-6: [aÔje P°rgh {] épÚ OÈes[pasianoË n]evkÒrow... Line 14: aÔje P°rgh d' nevkÒrow... Lines 25-26: pãnt[a] tå d¤kaia [d]Ògmati sunklÆtou...

176

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

probably came from its neighbor and rival Side, which has also been proposed as the provincial center of Pamphylia by its patriotic excavators.11 The inscription may imply that the Pergaians had the advantage of the only neokoria from Vespasian, as there is no evidence to indicate the creation of two neokoroi in the same province for the same emperor before the time of Hadrian. An arch erected in Perge by two brothers, Demetrios and Apollonios, honored all three Flavian emperors, but especially the current ruler Domitian.12 The central inscription for him on the arch’s east side was carefully erased after his death in 96 C.E., and a part of the city’s titulature, restored as ‘sacred, neokoros,’ also disappeared from the west side. Dräger postulated that this meant that Perge was originally neokoros for Domitian, and lost that honor with the condemnation of his memory.13 ”ahin, however, observed that the erasure on the west side is lighter than that on the east, and may have been done subsequently, much as the name of Artemis was occasionally erased by Pergaian Christians; and that Ephesos didn’t lose its neokoria after Domitian’s death, so why should Perge?14 Here we may point out that the case of Ephesos (q.v.) is not comparable: that city did not become neokoros for Domitian, but for a temple of the Augusti, and the honor, probably granted earlier by Vespasian, was thus not endangered by the condemnation of Domitian’s memory. The erasure on the west side of the Pergaian arch was plainly not done by Christians, as they allowed the name of Artemis to stand right next to it. But the entire argument is moot, as it is unsure whether the word ‘neokoros’ was what was erased: the block on which it stood is completely missing; only possible remains of a final omega and iota (for the dative) stand on the next block; the space left seems rather small for the restoration; and so far as is known, neokoros is not used on other Pergaian inscriptions of this early a date. That Perge was called neokoros by the mid-second century may be shown by inscription 1, if Magie’s date of 141/142 for the provincial gover-

11

Mansel 1963, 10. ”ahin 1999 (= IvPerge) no. 56; ”ahin 1995, 4-10 no. 3, with bibliography. 13 Dräger 1993, 251-255. 14 ”ahin 1995, 10 and n. 11, which mentions two unpublished inscriptions of neokoros Perge; and IvPerge 79-80 esp. n. 25. 12

norship of P. Julius Aemilius Aquila is correct.15 INSCRIPTION 1. Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 1.167 no. 34 (IGRR 3:793; Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 126 no. 46). [{ ] boulØ ka‹ ~ d}mow t}w |erçw ka‹ lamprçw ka‹ §ndÒjou ka‹ nevkÒrou Perga¤vn pÒlevw. . . The coins of Perge and Side show no overt signs of a quarrel over titles in the early part of the third century; their reverse legends read simply ‘of the Pergaians’ or ‘of the Sidetans,’ though Perge sometimes refers to its asylia of Artemis, and Side to its festivals.16 During the reign of Gordian III they even issued coins celebrating their concord, perhaps due to their participation in joint sacrifices at festivals.17 Perge apparently left neokoros off its coins until the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, including the period when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was Caesar (255-258). At that time both Perge and Side began to boast of being neokoros on their coins.18 Both also used the letter alpha, probably a claim to the status of ‘first.’ Though it is uncertain who started the rivalry, it is possible that Perge, which had long been neokoros, had no reason to vaunt its title on coins until Side, perhaps a recent neokoros, began to. Perge did not use multiple-temple or templebearing deity reverses, as Side did. A two-column Ionic temple of the city goddess does appear, with an alpha, probably the mark of Perge’s claim to first rank, in the pediment.19 The city goddess also personifies the city as neokoros, as is shown by the reverse legend of coin type 1: 15 Magie 1950, 1599. The argument of PIR2I 118 that his consulship must be near Valerian’s reign because the neokoria only appears on coins that late should not be considered binding, though followed by Thomasson 1984, 1:285.69; inscription 2 shows that the title was granted early, and its appearance on coins very much later is not unusual in the context of other neokoroi elsewhere. 16 J. Nollé 1993, 310-313 extends the enmity back as far as the organization of the province, though virtually all the evidence yet known for it dates after the middle of the third century. 17 Weiss 1998, 60-63; Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:167170, 191-193 (though not documented for the reign of Philip, as the chart on 167 implies). 18 Kienast 1996, 214-221; S. Price 1984b, 271. 19 The temple of the city goddess with alpha is on coins of Valerian (BMC 70, SNGParis 547, Aykay 74), Gallienus (Aykay 174; New York, Newell), Salonina (SNGvA 4750, SNGParis 608), Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA 4751, SNGParis 609), and Saloninus (SNGParis 615). The alpha also appears in the pediment of the temple of Artemis Pergaia on contemporary coins, but their legends do not refer to neokoria, which is why I do not interpret alpha to mean ‘first to be neokoros.’

chapter COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K P L GALLIHNON % KOR %ALVNEINAN Radiate draped bust of Gallienus l. and diademed draped bust of Salonina r., I between them. Rev: PERGH NEVKORO% Seated city goddess holds branch (prize crown? b) a) SNGParis 602 b) Berlin 974/1901 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 139).20 The two cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of (un)complementary reverse types on coins with obverses of Gallienus featuring an iota (a mark of value which Nollé dates after 260, meaning that the issues were about contemporaneous).21 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI GALLIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN Artemis with bow and quiver crowned by Athena with wreath and spear. a) Boston 66.819 b) Boston 63.843 c) BMC 80 d) SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis 554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140) f) Vienna 18815 g) Vienna 34039 h) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof i) New York 68.244. SIDE COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI POU LI EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale (or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA 4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855. Perge issued type 2, representing its own Artemis (in Hellenic style as huntress, rather than in the moundlike shape shown in her temple on other coins) being crowned by the Athena of Side; many of its other contemporary coins also include the title or symbol for ‘first.’ At the same time, Side issued its type 13, which shows the reverse situation, a regal Athena crowned by Artemis. So each city issued coins that showed its own goddess as victor and the other city’s goddess in a subordinate position acknowledging that victory. Few cities of the East issued their own coinage or even erected honorific inscriptions after Gallienus’ reign; Perge and Side did.22 In fact, Pamphylia may 20 A similar reverse but with ‘Perge’ in the dative (?), obverse of Valerianus the younger: Aykay 312. 21 J. Nollé 1987, 261. 22 Naster 1987; Lauritsen 1979, though needing update with regard to denominations: e.g. Kromann 1989; J. Nollé 1990, 245-249.

18

– perge

177

have flourished in the latter years of the third century, though perhaps only in contrast to its less fortunate neighbors.23 From the few documents of the Pamphylian cities, we can trace their continuing competition for neokoria, a competition that may have also gone on in the areas for which we have less evidence. Fourth Neokoria: Aurelian In 269 Side defended itself against a Gothic raid, and it is likely that other Pamphylian cities, perhaps including Perge, had been threatened as well.24 Aurelian may have honored the cities who had managed to fight off the raiders; on coins with his portrait Side boasted that it was three times neokoros, while Perge’s coins also add an element, though its meaning is not as clearcut. It is the letter delta, and though it may mean ‘four,’ it does not appear directly before the word neokoros but somewhere else on the coins’ reverses; yet it never appears where neokoros is not. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L(OU, abdhj) DOM(I, abdh; DO, c) AURHLIANO% (%EB, efgijklmnpqrstuvwx) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN Two-column temple, D in pediment, Artemis Pergaia within. a) BMC 100 b) BMC 101 c) London 1938.12-4-3 d) Oxford 8.77 e) SNGParis 616 f) SNGParis 619 g) SNGParis 620 h) SNGParis 621 i) SNGCop 366 j) SNGCop 367 k) Vienna 28792 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 141) l) Vienna 1298a m) Vienna 1298b n) Vienna 1299 o) Warsaw 102350 p) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer q) Berlin, Löbbecke r) SNGvA 4758 s) SNGPfPS 4.451 t) SNGPfPS 4.452 u) SNGPfPS 4.453 v) SNGPfPS 4.454 w) SNGPfPS 4.455 x) SNGPfPS 4.456 y) Brussels.25 COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT LOU DOMI AURHLIANO %EB Radiate draped bust of Aurelian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN; D Radiate Artemis with torch and bow. a) London 1920.5-16-86. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Au23

S. Mitchell 1993, 1:216, 238. Alaric Watson 1999, 46. 25 Naster 1987, 137 no. 7, though he takes the delta as the stylization of an eagle. 24

178

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

relian r., I in field. Rev: PERGAIVN NEVKORVN Seated Zeus holding sceptre and D. a) SNGParis 617 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 142) b) SNGParis 618 c) Brussels.26 The delta stands independently, much as the letter alpha standing for ‘first’ had, and often in the same position on the coins. Was Perge four times neokoros or had the city become ‘fourth’ rather than ‘first’? The former is more likely: within a few years of the coins’ issue Perge would call itself four times neokoros more openly. The evidence is again Perge’s inscription 2 (above), which has already documented Perge’s first neokoria. It records an acclamation made under (less likely, after) the emperor Tacitus, who in 275/276 fought off one of a series of Gothic invasions of Asia Minor.27 The acclamation praises Perge for a number of reasons, including its status as asylos28 and first of the judicial centers, its sacred vexillum, its silver coinage, and its treasury of the emperor. Perge is “where consulars seek honors and serve as agonothetai . . . summit of Pamphylia . . . not false with respect to anything at all; all the rights are by decree of the Senate.” Listed among these rights are ‘neokoros from Vespasian’ (already discussed), and eight lines further down, ‘four times neokoros’; the delta of enumeration is written larger than the other letters. Nonetheless, if Perge had already become four times neokoros in the time of Aurelian, Tacitus did not augment the city’s neokoriai at all. This is probably why coins of Tacitus pass by neokoria and concentrate on other honors he gave to the city: he made it ‘metropolis of Pamphylia’ and granted it a festival.29 These honors may also have stood on inscription 2, which has a gap after the emperor’s name is mentioned in the second line. Also of interest is that the inscription specified that all the city’s rights (including the neokoria) were ‘by decree of the Senate,’ a late example of this proviso which had been used by several Asian cities earlier in the third century (see chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ in the summary chapters in Part II). The phrase was prob26 Naster 1987, 138 no. 8; here he takes the delta as either a mark of value or as enumeration of the neokoriai. 27 Kaygusuz 1984. See also Roueché 1989b; Weiss 1991; and Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997. The translation in Abbasoglu 2001 is a trifle awkward. 28 Rigsby 1996, 449-452; C. Jones 1999b, 13-17. 29 Documented, e.g. by BMC 103, SNGvA 4759, SNGParis 622-623, SNGPfPS 4:457-458.

ably meant either to avert any challenge to some of the more far-fetched of Perge’s titles, or to contrast the solid basis of Perge’s claims against the (implied) shoddiness of a rival’s, probably Side’s.30 The pillar on which inscription 2 stood has now been joined by a similar one; its inscription uses poetic meter and speaks in the voice of the city itself, but its date is the same and the theme is again Perge’s titulature and status.31 Like the acclamation, it cites former honors: earlier emperors called Perge ‘head of Pamphylia,’ ‘summit of cities,’ ‘praecipua’ (Latin transliterated into Greek), and Caracalla is specifically named as granting it the titles ‘friend and ally’ (of Rome). But it is ‘Zeus Tacitus’ who made the city metropolis, ‘like Ephesos of Asia’; and in the last lines, “all the Pamphylians sacrifice with vota at my side; and now also the chief priests are of the god Tacitus.” The latter line may sound odd in English, but other documents show that there were already chief priests of the emperors, likely provincial ones, in Perge before Tacitus’ reign.32 It is unlikely that the epigram refers to municipal chief priests, since they are spoken of in the plural, and having more than one chief priest makes no sense for a single municipal temple; the mention of all the Pamphylians in the previous line also indicates a provincial imperial cult. Tacitus gave Perge no additional temple or neokoria for his own cult, but the standing chief priests now added the cult of Tacitus to their worship, and Perge stood unchallenged (at least for a while) as the center of that provincial cult. Did Tacitus visit Perge, or was he stationed there? He was certainly in Cilicia for his campaign against the invading Goths.33 Coins that show the emperor greeting the city goddess of Perge or handing her 30 Not due to Tacitus’ being chosen by the Senate, as Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73 would have it; this is another figment of the Historia Augusta. See Alaric Watson 1999, 106-107, 109-112; Kienast 1996, 250-251. 31 Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 73-74. 32 ”ahin 1995, 17-18 noted the similarity between offices held by an Attaleian (“chief priest of the three pentaeteric games and agonothetes of the pentaeteric games”) and a Pergaian (“chief priest three times and agonothetes of three Augustan games”) in the early second century C.E. Though he calls these men municipal officials, he allies them with “Neokoriekult,” and though Pamphylia must be considered an unusual case, these chief priesthoods are possibly provincial. He also cites three unpublished inscriptions that mention “chief priest of the Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia games and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia games”. 33 Alaric Watson 1999, 107; Halfmann 1986a, 240.

chapter the prize crown symbolizing the new festival have tempted scholars into positing that he was.34 In fact, one trend of scholarship is to posit an imperial presence as the reason for almost every honor granted to a city in this area.35 But the coins may only be referring to a grant allegorically, and do not necessarily depict an actual event. Moreover, if the emperor had actually visited the city, that fact would have been hailed in the acclamations of his benefits. Perhaps it was, in the lacuna after Tacitus’ name in the crown of inscription 2; or other inscriptions may yet be found. Until then, Tacitus’ visit to Perge must remain a hypothesis. It seems most likely that the delta on Perge’s coins under Aurelian refers to the neokoria, so probably Perge was four times neokoros at the same time that Side declared itself three times neokoros, and certainly so within five years. This escalation hints at the same sort of one-upmanship between these two cities that has already been noted for the time of Valerian and Gallienus. Nowhere are the specific objects of cult that accounted for the rapidly accumulating neokoriai in either city mentioned.36 It may even be possible that the cities played off one emperor against another, though both Perge and Side apparently had extraordinary favors under Aurelian. As has been seen, Tacitus made Perge metropolis, but a later emperor would probably do the same for Side soon after.37 Sixth? Neokoria: after 276 Until recently, it was thought that Side, with its unprecedented six neokoriai, had outstripped all other cities in that honor, including Perge. This still may be true, but one inscription offers a slight chance that Perge too became six times neokoros after the time of inscription 2. INSCRIPTION 3. Ramsay 1883b, 265-266 no. 7 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 125 no. 43; 34 Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 116; Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 69-70. 35 SiA 1:88-94, 287-288; Ziegler 1993b, 152-153 on the late bloom of Pamphylia, with 153 n. 146 on Perge’s fourth neokoria under Aurelian. 36 Merkelbach, ”ahin, and Stauber 1997, 72 guessed the four temples to be relatively small buildings from which processions could come out at certain times; but the lack of evidence is complete. 37 J. Nollé 1993, 313.

18

– perge

179

Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 1.158 no. 10). Bottom of honorific base from Attaleia. ÑH |e[r]å [êsulow or ka‹ lam(prå)] ka[‹] ¶ndoj[ow] w nevkÒrow Perga¤vn pÒl[iw]... Lanckoronski reported that the stone had been seen by von Schneider and Studniczka as well as by Petersen. Basing its reading on that, the 1988 publication pointed out the problem: there seems to be an extra sigma before ‘neokoros,’ and the editors wondered whether this meant [d‹]w. But in Ramsay’s publication, from a copy by Sir C. Wilson, a stigma (), not a sigma (w), immediately preceded ‘neokoros,’ and that siglum could mean that the enumeration ‘six’ was intended. Of course, it is very difficult to argue from old transcriptions, lacking any illustration of the letters or the base itself. It is to be hoped that a careful revision, with photographs, will follow soon in the course of the Perge publications. But until that occurs, it falls within the realm of possibility that at some point Perge, like Side, became six times neokoros. It is as yet impossible to tell how, and when, the race for titles between Perge and Side ended. Perge certainly seems to have kept ahead up to the time of Aurelian, and perhaps beyond. It is even uncertain which of the two was to become metropolis of the new independent province of Pamphylia; later the Christian church made each city the seat of a metropolitan bishop.38 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 1.167 no. 34 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 126 no. 46). Statue base of provincial governor P. Julius Aemilius Aquila, ca. 141/142 C.E.? See text above. Four times neokoros: 2. Kaygusuz 1984 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 115-116 no. 22). Acclamation of the city under Tacitus, also documenting the city as neokoros from Vespasian. See text above. Six? times neokoros: 3. Ramsay 1883b, 265-266 no. 7 (Merkelbach and ”ahin 1988, 125 no. 43: based on Lanckoronski 38 Foss 1996, Ch. 4, p. 3; J. Nollé 1993, 313-316; idem 1986b, 202 n. 2: Pamphylia and Lycia became separate provinces between 311-313 and 333-337.

180

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

1890-1892, 1.158 no. 10). Bottom of honorific base from Attaleia. ÑH |e[r]å [êsulow or ka‹ lam(prå)] ka[‹] ¶ndoj[ow] w (or ?) nevkÒrow Perga¤vn pÒl[iw] See text above. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Valerian: BMC 70; Istanbul Aykay 7439; SNGPfPS 4.415; Berlin, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. Gallienus: BMC 73, 75, 79-81; SNGCop 358; SNGvA 4723, 4724, 4727, 4729, 4734, 4735, 8522-8524; Istanbul Aykay 83, 152, 155, 174, 225; SNGParis 553-555, 567, 578, 580, 581; SNGRighetti 1289; SNGPfPS 4.421, 422, 431, 432, 436, 437; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford, Vienna (6 exx.).40 39

Aykay 1967 (= Aykay); only illustrated coins cited here. Tekin 1994, no. 18, a coin citing neokoria with reverse of Serapis, but not illustrated. 40

Gallienus and Salonina: Berlin. Salonina: BMC 86, 90, 95; SNGCop 362; SNGvA 4740, 4745, 4746, 4750, 8529; Istanbul Aykay 286; SNGParis 586, 588, 594, 595, 599, 602, 605, 608; Berlin (4 exx.), Boston (6 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.). Valerianus Caesar: BMC 98; SNGvA 4751; Istanbul Aykay 312; SNGParis 609, 610; SNGRighetti 1293; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Vienna. Saloninus: BMC 99, 99A; SNGvA 4753, 4755-4757; Istanbul Aykay 327; SNGParis 612-615; SNGPfPS 4.442; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London (3 exx.), New York, Vienna. Four (times?) neokoros: Aurelian: BMC 100, 101; SNGCop 366, 367; SNGvA 4758; SNGParis 616-621; SNGPfPS 4.450-456; Berlin (2 exx.), London (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw.

chapter

19

– side

181

Chapter 19. Side: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia Side’s relationship to its Pamphylian neighbors was often troubled.1 Though in the Hellenistic period its chief enemy was Aspendos (q.v.), with which it shared a border, by later Roman times the rivalry was between Side and Perge (q.v.) for primacy in the province. No document states explicitly which one was seat of the governor of Lycia and Pamphylia; current scholarly opinion has tilted toward Perge, while Side was probably a judicial district center.2 The two seem to have had an amicable interval during the reign of Gordian III, when each issued coins celebrating its concord with the other.3 First Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Perge, neokoros since Vespasian, was probably the only Pamphylian city to hold that title until the midthird century, but did not refer to that fact on its earlier coinage. Then during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, as early as the period when Gallienus’ son Valerianus was named as Caesar (255-258), both Perge and Side began to proclaim themselves neokoros on coins, and to use the letter alpha to proclaim themselves ‘first.’ Side apparently also called itself neokoros on a fragmentary but datable inscription: INSCRIPTION 1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no. 183). Statue base of Gallienus as twice consul, thus 255-256. [{ f¤lh] sÊmm[axow pi]stØ ÑRvma¤vn` [S¤dh m]ust‹[w] ka‹ n`[evkoroËsa t“ patr]–ƒ y[e“] kt[¤s]t_ ÉApÒll[vni ka]‹ nevkoroË[s]a [ye“ ÉAyhnò . . .] In his SiA publication, Nollé restored the inscription to claim that in 255, Side was not once, but twice 1

J. Nollé 1993; J. Nollé 1993-2001 (= SiA) 1:88-94. 2 Haensch 1997, 290-297. 3 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 167-170, 191-193 (though not documented for the reign of Philip, as the chart on 167 implies). For the possibility that the cities participated in joint sacrifices at sacred festival(s), Weiss 1998, 60-63.

neokoros, once for Apollo and once for Athena (see below). The syntax, however, is very unusual, featuring two participles with dative formed on comparison with inscription 4 (below), which is itself incomplete and restored at this point. In addition, the sole basis for the restoration of n[eokoria] to Apollo is a doubtful letter, lambda- or alpha-shaped rather than like a nu. Nollé has replaced Bean’s restoration ‘asylos for the ancestral god (and) founder Apollo’ with the neokoria, based on a suggestion of the Roberts.4 One reason is that Perge’s inscription 3 (q.v.), an ‘acclamation’ from the time of Tacitus, calls Perge { mÒnh êsulow. Nollé concluded from this that Side could not have used the title asylos until after the time of Tacitus.5 His conclusion disregards the fact that both Side and Sillyon in Pamphylia had actually used the title ‘asylos’ on coins under Aurelian (270-275), and that Rigsby found no difficulty in seeing Perge’s boast as magniloquent rather than legalistic and dating the asylia of both Perge and Side to the Hellenistic era.6 In any case, the coins mentioned above call Athena, not Apollo, asylos. But no matter if we cannot accurately restore inscription 1; a questionable restoration that contradicts other evidence is worse than no restoration at all, and the contemporary coins only state that Side was neokoros at this time. If the city could have claimed the honor twice to its rival Perge’s once, why did it never declare it explicitly? The reason for Side’s new prominence and titulature, as for that of other cities of this province, is not far to seek. Rome’s ongoing defense against the Sassanian Persian empire required the presence of armies, and sometimes of the emperor himself, in the East.7 Syria had been the usual base for 4 J. and L. Robert, in Revue des études grecques (1982) 417422 no. 450. 5 SiA 1:316; but cf. 1:90. The argument in vol. 1 was made difficult to follow by manifold references to parts of SiA that had not yet appeared. 6 Rigsby 1996, 449-455; Nollé replied in SiA 2:650-651. 7 J. Nollé 1987, 254-264.

182

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

Roman armies fighting eastern wars, but that province was vulnerable to land attack; it and its chief city Antioch were overrun by the Persians under Shapur in 252-253.8 The neighboring province of Cilicia was similarly vulnerable, and was also invaded in Shapur’s subsequent campaign of 260.9 Pamphylia, on the other hand, was guarded by an arc of mountains which made access difficult from anywhere but the sea. Of the cities that occupied that narrow crescent of land, Side had two strategic advantages. Whereas Perge and Aspendos were sited farther inland, Side was on the coast, more directly accessible to the Roman fleet; and though Attaleia too controlled a harbor, Side’s was the easternmost on the Pamphylian coast, closer to the theater of war. Certainly Side received honors beside the title ‘neokoros’: at least one festival’s status was an imperial gift (dorea), though it is unlikely that the festival was connected with the grant of neokoria.10 Side’s ‘sacred’ and ‘worldwide’ festivals were the Mystikos—whose origins are uncertain but likely preHadrianic—and the Pythia, short for Apolloneios Gordianeios Antoneinios isopythios ekecheirios iselastikos, founded well before any known claim of neokoria, in the reign of Gordian III.11 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Apollo and emperor clasp right hands. a) BMC 111 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 143). Side’s coin type 1 implies some contact between the city and its ruler. On it an emperor in military dress, probably Gallienus’ father Valerian, joins hands with one of Side’s patron gods, Apollo. This gesture may refer to anything from an imperial visit to concord in its vaguest sense, or even to a grant of some privilege, which may include the neokoria. Side had a tendency to use its patron gods on coins as standins for the city itself. This numismatic practice was usual in other cities as well, especially on alliance coinage, but Side extended the metaphor visually and verbally. It may even be that the many gods Side 8 The sources are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 50-56. 9 J. Nollé 1986a. 10 SNGvA 4856; Karl 1975, 41-42. On whether such games were actually financed by the emperor, see Wörrle 1988, 177 n. 134. 11 Weiss 1981; SiA 2:438-439, 442-451.

called neokoroi gave the city its pretext for its later multiple neokoriai (below). In addition to the standard form of coinage minted in the name of the citizens as neokoroi, Side issued types of the city goddess (often with pomegranates, the punning symbol for Side) as neokoros.12 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI(K, ab) GALLIHNO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., IA to r. Rev: %IDH NEVKORO% Seated city goddess with pomegranates. a) London 1925.1-5-85 b) SNGParis 676 c) Paris 695 d) SNGCop 428 e) Warsaw 57951 f) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer g) SNGPfPS 4.830 h) SNGPfPS 4.831. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA %EB(A, dgj) Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. (IA to r., g; IB, efi) Rev: %IDH MU%TI% NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust of city goddess r.13 a) BMC 126 b) SNGParis 930 c) SNGParis 931 d) SNGCop 431 e) SNGRighetti 1312 f) Vienna 34870 g) Berlin, Löbbecke h) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer i) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer j) SNGPfPS 4.869. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: POU LIK KOR OUALERIANON KAI %EB Draped cuirassed bust of Valerianus the Younger r. (IA to r., b) Rev: %IDH NEVKORO% Veiled, mural-crowned, draped bust of city goddess r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke b) Side Coins 143.14 The same concept was expressed when the city goddess was shown holding a temple, a standard pictorialization of the concept of a city as neokoros: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., IB to r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN City goddess holding small temple and prow?, behind her an army standard.15 a) London 1970.99-167 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 144) b) SNGParis 912 c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer d) SNGvA 4845. Side even used its Olympian gods to represent the city as neokoros. Athena, the city’s chief patron, also occasionally held a temple among her other attributes:16 12 13 14 15 16

SiA 1:121, 123 n. 425. On the goddess as mystis, J. Nollé 1986b, 204-206. Atlan 1976 (= Side Coins). Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.1. SiA 1:106-112.

chapter COIN TYPE 6. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA %E(BA, acg) Diademed draped bust of Salonina r., IA to r. (eagle below, bdef) Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Athena holding small temple and spear.17 a) BMC 120 b) BMC 121 c) SNGParis 940 d) SNGParis 937 e) Vienna 18858 f) SNGvA 4852 g) SNGPfPS 4.867. COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KAI %EB POU LIK KOR OUALE[RIANON] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerianus the Younger r., eagle below. Rev: [%I]DHTVN NEVKORVN Athena holding small temple and spear. a) Boston 63.857. The Sidetan Apollo not only joined hands with the emperor (type 1) but was named neokoros just as the city goddess had been:18 COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r. (IA to r., c) (eagle below, a) Rev: APOLLVNO% %IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel wreath and staff. a) London 1969.10-21-7 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 145) b) Warsaw 89218/166807 c) Berlin, ImhoofBlumer. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: POU LIK KOR OUALERIANON KAI %EB Draped cuirassed bust of Valerianus the Younger r., IA to r. Rev: APOLLVNO% %IDHTOU NEVKOROU Apollo with laurel wreath and staff. a) Oxford 15.21 b) SNGParis 948 c) Berlin 12/1882. The types that show Apollo as neokoros have provoked more than their share of controversy.19 Babelon and Six believed that the emperor was to be identified with Apollo, though that identification would make the emperor/Apollo neokoros of himself. Nock believed that Apollo was being portrayed as a neokoros official because the funds of his temple helped defray the cost of the imperial cult; Nollé further explained that the god’s name was in the genitive because his temple treasury also paid for that issue of coins.20 None of these theories takes full account of Side’s habit of using its chief gods to represent the city; here, it may have only stretched its metaphor further than other cities did. Like 17

Pick 1904, 12 no. 10.2. SiA 1:112-115. 19 Nock 1930b, 36-37. Robert was atypically pessimistic about finding any explanation: J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques (1982) 417-422 no. 450. 20 J. Nollé 1990, 249 no. 36. 18

19

– side

183

Athena and like the city goddess, Sidetan Apollo could represent the city, and if the city had the title, then Apollo could also be called neokoros. Pick thought that the imperial cult was housed in Apollo’s temple, making the emperor(s) cult partner(s) of the god, and this hypothesis may turn out to be correct, despite the fact that contemporary coins show the Sidetan Apollo standing alone in his temple, not with a companion.21 On another type issued before 260, Apollo actually sacrifices before a temple with an arched lintel; unfortunately its portal is empty.22 This representation reminds us, however, of several cases where emperors were shown on coins sacrificing before the temples that they shared with other gods: Caracalla to Asklepios at Pergamon, Elagabalus to Apollo at Philippopolis, Severus Alexander to Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.). It is just possible that Apollo of Side was shown sacrificing to the emperor(s) in the temple he shared with them, the temple that made Side (and, metaphorically, Apollo) neokoros. Later, under Aurelian, Asklepios too may have served as neokoros, though the only known example is unclear at a crucial point:23 COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLIANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian, IA to r. Rev: A%KLHPIV NEVKOR[V](?) %IDHTVN Asklepios with snake-entwined staff. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 31 fig. 146). On type 10 it is possible that the adjective ‘neokoros’ does not modify Asklepios, but the Sidetans; one would then wonder why the enumeration is lacking, as Side is three times neokoros on other coins issued under Aurelian (below). Side was not strict in its use of multiple-temple reverse types either; under Gallienus it minted types that had generally been used by cities that were three times or twice neokoros. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI PO LI GALLIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., IA to r. Rev: NEVKORVN %IDHTVN Three temples; lower two four-column, turned to-

21 SNGPfPS 4:808 (Gallienus), SNGParis 934, SNGPfPS 4:873 (Salonina); though the god can look much like an emperor in military costume, his short cloak is distinctive. 22 With obverse of Valerian: SNGParis 874; Leypold 1983, 40 no. 25. 23 SiA 1:115-116.

184

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

ward one another; center one four-column (twocolumn, a), A in pediment, horseman raises right hand within.24 a) SNGParis 915 b) New York 1944.100.50964 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 147) c) SNGvA 4840 d) SNGvA 4841. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA %EB Diademed draped bust of Salonina r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated city goddess holding two six-column temples. a) Boston 66.30925 b) Private collection.26 Type 11 looks like a claim of three neokoriai, as the title is carefully included in the midst of the temples and accentuated by a ground line. But it is more likely that the type was adopted wholesale from Smyrna, which was still issuing triple-temple coins, or from one of the other three-times neokoroi, as a symbol of the status neokoros. If so, probably the center temple, with the letter alpha standing for ‘first’ in its pediment, would be the temple for which Side was neokoros. Within is an equestrian figure, a statue type well suited to an emperor though less suitable as a cult statue; perhaps the monument stood elsewhere within the temple precinct but the die-cutter transposed it to make the temple more recognizable.27 On some examples a male figure can be seen standing to the right of the horseman, so there may have been other figures in the group. As for the other two temples, no cult statues identify them, but they may represent the shrines of Side’s chief gods Apollo and Athena. These have been identified as two late second-century C.E. Corinthian temples lying side by side next to the harbor.28 Only an odd semicircular temple of the moon god Men, not usually equestrian, was found near these two; but then multiple-temple coin types cannot be taken to represent topographical reality. Side’s coin type 11 may fit the precedent set at other cities, such as Tralles and Sardis, of allying temple(s) for which the city was neokoros with temple(s) of patron god(s), resulting in a more impressive coin type.

24

M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 453 identified it as the temple of Apollo and two imperial temples, minted under Trebonianus Gallus (sic). See also J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 59. 25 Hecht 1964, 163 no. 13 pl. 11. 26 J. Nollé 1990, 252 no. 58. 27 Bergemann 1990, 14-19 on status and placement; 113 notes an equestrian statue found at Side, though there is no necessary association with this coin type. 28 Mansel 1965; Gros 1996-2001, 1:189-190.

It is less easy to explain the pretensions of coin type 12. Instead of holding the single (imperial?) temple as she does on type 5, here the city goddess of Side holds two miniature temples. Since Side seems to have imitated multiple-temple types of other cities, it may have picked this one up from elsewhere as well—again, Smyrna was still issuing types of goddesses holding temples. The mark of value on type 11 and the epsilon countermark on both examples of type 12 probably date their original issue before 260.29 Thus the many coins issued after them continued to proclaim the city simply neokoros. J. Nollé (see below) held that Side was in fact twice neokoros when coin type 12 was issued, and three times neokoros for coin type 11, but the city did not choose to express that enumeration on the coins. Yet the two types were close to contemporaneous; and Side’s rivalry with Perge was then hot enough that it would likely claim all the neokoriai it could. So the balance of the evidence tilts toward Side’s being once neokoros, but having its coin types pretend at more. Side’s declaration of neokoria appears to have provoked a reaction from its neighbor and rival Perge. Though Perge had been neokoros since the time of Vespasian, it had never used the title on its coins so far as we know. As soon as it had a rival in for the title, however, Perge also began to give neokoros pride of place on its coinage for Valerian, Gallienus, Salonina, Valerianus Caesar and Saloninus. As noted above in chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ the two cities’ rivalry is made explicit by a pair of complementary reverse types on coins with obverses of Gallienus, both probably dated after 260:30 COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT(O, abd) KAI POU LI EGN GALLIHNO% %E(BA, bcf) Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: %IDHTVN NEVKORVN Seated Athena with phiale (or an A, b) and palm crowned by Artemis with wreath and bow. a) BMC 101 b) SNGParis 882 (illus. pl. 31 fig. 148) c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) SNGvA 4850 e) Boston 62.1259 f) SNGPfPS 4.855. PERGE COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI PO AI GALLIHNO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: PERGAIVN

29 30

J. Nollé 1990, 245-249. J. Nollé 1987, 261.

chapter NEVKORVN Artemis with bow and quiver crowned by Athena with wreath and spear. a) Boston 66.819 b) Boston 63.843 c) BMC 80 d) SNGParis 553 e) SNGParis 554 (illus. pl. 30 fig. 140) f) Vienna 18815 g) Vienna 34039 h) Berlin, Bernhard-Imhoof i) New York 68.244.

Side issued type 13, which shows its patron Athena enthroned in a magisterial chair, holding the palm of victory and, on one example, an alpha signifying ‘first’; behind her stands Artemis, chief goddess of Perge, holding out a wreath with which to crown her. But Perge counterclaimed with its type 2, representing the reverse situation; many of its other contemporary coins also include the title or symbol for ‘first.’ Each city thereby stated its possession of the same titles of ‘first’ and ‘neokoros,’ while also portraying its rival’s goddess as subordinate to its own.

19

– side

185

Aurelian r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKORVN Hekate or Demeter with torch and snake. a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer b) Berlin, BernhardImhoof. On coins with portraits of the same emperor, Perge added the letter delta, whose significance has been discussed in that chapter (18). Perge was certainly four times neokoros within five years of when Side declared itself three times neokoros. Again it seems that the two cities were in competition, this time in sheer numbers of neokoriai. In neither city are the objects of these cults mentioned. It may even be possible that the cities played off one emperor against another in requesting these honors. But the fact that Perge seems to have jumped to four times neokoros while Side became three times neokoros under the same emperor may show that Aurelian granted the favors but tried to balance honors between the two cities, with Perge allowed to hold a slim advantage.

Third Neokoria: Aurelian As has been mentioned in the discussion of Perge, the Pamphylian cities were exceptional in continuing to issue civic coins after Gallienus’ reign. From their evidence and that of the cities’ inscriptions, the continuing competition for neokoria between Perge and Side can be followed to a period later than at other cities. A little over a decade after Side had first claimed its neokoria, the city’s coin legends began to boast that it was ‘three times neokoros.’ The emperor at the time was Aurelian (270-275), who spent a large proportion of his reign fighting the Palmyrenes and recovering Rome’s eastern provinces. Once again it may have been Side’s strategic position at this time of emergency that made it worthy of such abundant honors, or it may have been its brave resistance to a Gothic siege ca. 269.31

Sixth Neokoria: after 275 The latest evidence yet known, however, may have given the advantage to Side. It eventually attained the unprecedented title of six times neokoros, placing it well beyond the last-known status of even such cities as Ephesos and Thessalonike. Some time after Aurelian, when the last coins of Side listed three neokoriai, Side’s inscription 4 clearly proclaimed the city as six times neokoros, while inscription 3, though damaged, could indicate either the same or another number, perhaps four or five as Welles suggested,32 or ‘many times’ as in Sardis inscription 7 (q.v.); there is plenty of room on the stone. It is even (remotely) possible that inscription 3 postdates inscription 4, and that it once referred to the city as seven or more times neokoros.

COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLIANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Aurelian r., IA to r. Rev: %IDHTVN G NEVKORVN Apollo with laurel wreath and staff. a) SNGParis 950 (incorrect) b) Berlin 393/1887 c) Berlin, BernhardImhoof d) SNGvA 4864 e) Side Coins 146.

INSCRIPTION 3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 2). Inscribed sculptured column set up by the gerousia of the Tetrapolitai. t}[w mhtro]pÒlevw S¤d[hw ßja]kiw nevk[Òrou]

COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT K L DOM AURHLIANO% %EB Radiate draped cuirassed bust of

The date of inscription 3 has been debated. Foss favored a date after 286 in the Tetrarchic period for

31

Salamon 1971, 137; SiA 1:95, 167-168; Foss 1996, Ch. 4, 25-28; Alaric Watson 1999, 46.

32 C. Welles, review of Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951 in American Journal of Archaeology 57 (1953) 300-302; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin Épigraphique 1951, 194 no. 219.

186

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

both inscriptions 3 and 4 (below), though this was primarily based on the number of neokoriai; also, he excluded the “troubled years which preceded” the Tetrarchy, though those are the very years in which Side and Perge had climbed from simple neokoroi to three and four times neokoroi.33 Nollé favored a date after Probus, who, he held, made Side metropolis, which is also why SiA restored the enumeration as precisely six times neokoros (granted, according to Nollé, by Tacitus; see discussion below). Without further information, however, we can be no more precise about the date of inscription 3 than ‘from ca. 275 to the early fourth century.’34 INSCRIPTION 4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 67; SEG 6:731). { lampr[otãth] boulØ ka‹ ~ eÈstayØ`[w d}]mow ka‹ { semnotãt[h ka‹ f]ilos°bastow ka‹ kr[at¤sth t]}w lamprotãthw k[a‹ §ndÒj]ou •jãkiw nevkÒ[rou Sidht]«n pÒlevw |erå ka[‹ megãlh ge]rous¤a nevkoroË[sa ÉAyhnò tª ye]“ ésÊlƒ ka‹ nev[koroËsa ye]“ DionÊsƒ t“ §n t“ |e`[r“] aÈt}w deipnisthr¤ƒ. The syntax of Side’s inscription no. 4 is distinctly odd in every published restoration, especially in this last part, when the number of letters to be crammed in makes each line longer than it should be, though little sense is thereby obtained. Restoring participles based on the verb nevkor°v allowed the various editors to deal with the fact that a genitive (of the city) is followed by nominatives (modifying ‘gerousia’) and then what appears to be another genitive of nevkÒrow. None have explained why the longer participle, unprecedented in any unrestored inscription discussed in this book, should have been chosen by those who set up this particular base, when the simple adjectival noun nevkÒrow is what the editors perceive them to have meant, and what they have translated. In order to have a basis for any solid reasoning, we should strip this inscription of all but the most obvious restorations. The result is a base for a statue of the personified Roman Senate. The monument

probably had little to do with the supposed senatorial basis of the emperor Tacitus’ rule, but with a function more crucial to the eastern cities: the Senate confirmed titulature, and such a confirmation was either now achieved or fervently hoped for by Side.35 The statue was set up beside other ‘divine’ monuments of an individual emperor; note that a single Augustus is mentioned, not Augusti or Caesares, which would make a date after 286, when Diocletian began to take colleagues, appear less likely. The dedicators of the statue are “the most illustrious council and the steadfast people and the most powerful and emperor-loving and strong, sacred. . . council of elders of the most illustrious and famed six-times neokoros city of the Sidetans.” From that point, all that can be recognized is intermittent words: “of neokoros (genitive). . . to the asylos (dative, perhaps a reference to Athena), new (dative, or neokoros again). . . to (the god?) Dionysos (dative), the one in its (sacred?) dining-room.” None of this disconnected terminology fits the usual formula elsewhere, of a city being neokoros either of emperors or of deities, where the object of cult is genitive. Side had previously used odd terminology on its coins, such as type 10 (“to Asklepios neokoros?, of the Sidetans”), but the use of the dative for the object of cult of the neokoria, as inscription 3 is currently interpreted, appears clearly on none of these coins or inscriptions (inscription 1 cannot serve as a precedent, since it has itself been restored based on inscription 4). Dionysos, whose name appears toward the end of inscription 4, was worshipped in Side, though if his only shrine was in the gerousia’s dining room, we must wonder how such a minor cult could have won a separate neokoria (if so restored) for Side.36 And since Side was six times neokoros at the time of inscription 4, we may also wonder why only two objects of cult, (perhaps) Athena and Dionysos, are mentioned here. It seems more likely that the last line refers to the location where the statue of the Senate was to be set up. As for repeated use of the title neokoros in oblique cases which do not modify the city’s name, it is possible that, as on the coins mentioned above, inscription 4 referred to the city’s patron gods as neokoroi.

33

Foss 1977a, 168-169. Reprinted as Ch. 7 in Foss 1990. This opinion, along with the provision below, that a preTetrarchic date was more likely than not for inscription 4, was also stated in my unpublished dissertation, Neokoroi: Greek Cities of the Roman East (Harvard University 1980) 467; the date attributed to me by S. Price 1984b, 272 was the result of a miscommunication. 34

35 Pace SiA 1:289; see Kienast 1996, 250-251; Alaric Watson 1999, 106-107, 109-112. 36 SiA 1:116-117. SiA 2 nos. 153 and 154 are inscriptions of a sacred dining room of the gerousia, dated to before 212 C.E.

chapter Having laid out the evidence, we must now turn to the interpretations of J. Nollé. Based on the presumption that Side’s rank and titulature went handin-hand with Perge’s, and with some disregard for the actual words of the ancient coins and inscriptions, he has constructed out of possibilities and surmises what can only be called a historical fiction.37 He would have Side, like Perge, first made neokoros under Vespasian (for which no document exists) and given a pentaeteric festival as a matter of course. His restoration of inscription 1, judged above to be highly uncertain, was coupled with coin type 12 to propose that Valerian and Gallienus made Side twice neokoros before 256. The three temples of coin type 11 were then taken to prove that Side was three times neokoros before the defeat of Valerian in 260. All the while the coin legends of this very rivalrous city give no hint of enumeration before the title ‘neokoros.’ Then, in the reign of Aurelian, when the Sidetans finally put the enumeration for three times neokoros on their coin legends, Nollé believed that Aurelian actually granted them a fourth neokoria, again based on no document but because Perge’s coins claimed four neokoriai at that time. According to him, Tacitus was the specific emperor who granted Side an additional two neokoriai, again due to rivalry: Tacitus had to make up for Perge’s becoming metropolis. But though the total of six Sidetan neokoriai is assured by inscription 4 and perhaps others, none of these honors can be specifically dated to Tacitus’ reign. Again, Nollé chose Probus as the emperor who granted metropolis status to Side soon after Perge received it, though no document points at him specifically. Some of these hypotheses are contradicted by the data, and none are proved by them. This drive towards overexactitude based on supposition is not the wisest approach to ancient evidence, which is always lacunose and open to surprising new finds. Let us sum up rather more soberly. Side declared itself to be neokoros under Valerian and Gallienus, sometime before the end of Gallienus’ second consulship in December 256. Then on coins of Aurelian it claimed to be three times neokoros. After that, but likely before 286, it was six times neokoros. It is certainly possible that a single emperor granted Side more than one neokoria at a time, as Trajan Decius had to Thessalonike (q.v.).

19

– side

Side never clearly claimed to be neokoros of any god, yet the city’s gods played a larger than usual role in the neokoria. Among them was the city goddess, who as at other cities personified the neokoros city and carried the temple(s) on coinage. Athena, the city’s chief patron, was not called neokoros but like the city goddess carried a temple, and her name has been restored near the title in inscriptions 1 and 4. Apollo Sidetes took the name ‘neokoros’ on coins and may have shared his temple with the imperial cult for which the city first became neokoros, though a restoration of neokoria near his name in inscription 1 is very uncertain. Asklepios was possibly named as neokoros on one coin issue, and Dionysos’ name has been tenuously associated with the title in inscription 4. We should note, however, that at the time that the city goddess, Athena, and Apollo were portrayed as neokoroi on coins under Valerian and Gallienus, Side only claimed to be neokoros, not twice or three times neokoros. These coin types, then, cannot indicate that Side was neokoros for any of these gods at that time, but only that the gods personified the city. If, as is just possible, coin types 8 and 9 indicate that Apollo was neokoros because the imperial cult was moved into his temple, the corollary is that the cult could not have moved into the temple of Athena or the temple of the city goddess as well. By the time of Aurelian, Asklepios may have provided another temple for the three neokoriai of Side (coin type 10); and by the time of inscription 4, ca. 275-286 C.E., Athena’s and (less likely) Dionysos’ shrines may have been added, making up four at most of the six temples for which Side claimed neokoros status. Certainly allotting the title for previously existing temples would have saved the cost of building new ones, especially when manpower and material were scarce, and what there was was devoted to the armies and self-defense.38 We may also wonder whether the city was simply making up its own titles, but firm evidence for or against any of these hypotheses has yet to be found. Side, at six, may still have the highest number of neokoriai we know; but for most other cities, the documents end with Gallienus, when Side was still only an unremarkable neokoros. The few cities that provide later evidence of the title’s continuing status include Perinthos, still twice neokoros under Aurelian; Synnada, twice neokoros around 293-305, in the Tetrarchic period; Sagalassos, still twice

37

SiA 1:85, 88-94, 122-125. He also defended the historical stylings of the Historia Augusta: SiA 1:288 n. 28.

187

38

J. Nollé 1990, 255; SiA 1:130.

188

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

neokoros under Constantine and his sons (333-337); and Sardis, twice neokoros as an anachronism in 459 C.E. And then there is Side’s rival Perge. In the reign of Aurelian, Perge had still been one neokoria ahead of Side, at four to Side’s three. Perge was last seen as four times neokoros in the reign of Tacitus, and the fervor with which Perge hailed that emperor, who had made it metropolis, may indicate that he didn’t allow any advantage over Perge to Side. And now a revision of Perge’s inscription 4 may tell us whether Perge too became six times neokoros, sometime after Tacitus’ reign. If so, it is possible that Perge held its advantage over Side until both Christian cities dropped all mention of neokoria and its implication of imperial cult from their titulature. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. SiA 1 no. 44 (Bean 1965, no. 183). See text above. 2. SiA 2 no. 158 (Bean 1965, no. 97). Fragmentary inscription referring to the gerousia as neokoros of a god, gods, or of something divine? Letter forms of later third century. At least four times neokoros: 3. SiA 2 no. 112 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 2). Likely dated after 275 C.E.; see text above.

Six times neokoros: 4. SiA 1 no. 26 (Mansel, E. Bosch, and Inan 1951, no. 18). Likely dated 275-286 C.E.; see text above.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Valerian: Side Coins 115; SNGvA 4835, 4836; SNGParis 874; SNGPfPS 4.791-793, 795-796, 798; Berlin (4 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.). Gallienus: Side Coins 118, 120, 123-125, 127, 129-131, 133; BMC 108-116, 117a, 118-119a; SNGCop 425428; SNGvA 4840-4845, 4847-4850, 8545-8548; SNGParis 881-913, 915-925; SNGRighetti 1309, 1310; SNGPfPS 4.804-836, 838-847, 849-858; Ireland 2000, no. 1725; Berlin (29 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (11 exx.), New York (12 exx.), Oxford (11 exx.), Vienna (14 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Salonina: Side Coins 135-139, 141; BMC 120-123a, 124126; SNGCop 429-433; SNGvA 4852, 4854, 48564863, 8550, 8551; SNGParis 930, 931, 933-942; SNGRighetti 1311, 1312; SNGPfPS 4.860-880; Berlin (13 exx.), Boston (4 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (9 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Valerianus the Younger: Side Coins 143, 144; BMC 127, 128; SNGCop 434, 435; SNGParis 943-948; SNGRighetti 1313; SNGPfPS 4.881-888; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna (2 exx.). Three times neokoros: Aurelian: Side Coins 146; SNGvA 4864; SNGParis 950 (incorrect); SNGPfPS 4.891; Berlin (5 exx.).

chapter

20

– aspendos

189

Chapter 20. Aspendos: (Association of) Cities of Pamphylia First Neokoria: Gallienus Three cities in Pamphylia are known to have been neokoroi: Perge, Side (qq.v.), and about equidistant between them, Aspendos. Aspendos had from early on shared a border with, and been hostile to, Side.1 But at the time in question, the mid-third century C.E., the chief rivalry was between Perge and Side, and Aspendos took sides with its old enemy, even issuing coins of concord with Side.2 Aspendos, judged as third among the cities of Pamphylia, may have been only a judicial district center.3 Its great pentaeteric Kaisareoi contest probably antedated the neokoria, and the only other known festival it celebrated was of the lower-ranked type with monetary prizes.4 Only a single reverse coin type, issued with obverses of Gallienus and his wife Salonina, indicates that Aspendos was also neokoros.5 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI PO L GALLIHNO[% %E] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus r., I to r. Rev: A%PENDIVN NEVKORVN Temple-shaped plaque on which the title is engraved. a) London 1921.4-12-117 (Weber 7326)6 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 149). COIN TYPE 2. Obv: KORNHLIA %ALVNINA Diademed draped bust of Salonina r., I to r. Rev: A%PENDIVN NEVKORVN Temple-shaped plaque on which the title is engraved. a) SNGParis 218. Types 1 and 2 date the honor to the reign of Gallienus (253-268), likely after 260, as no coins of Valerian, his father and co-ruler to that time, have yet been found to cite the title ‘neokoros.’ The mark of value on the obverse is also suitable to that time, 1 2 3 4 5 6

J. Nollé 1993. Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 15; J. Nollé 1990, 261-262. Philostratos, Life of Apollonios 1.15; Haensch 1997, 294. IGRR 3:804; Karl 1975, 57-58; Wallner 1997, 154-155. S. Price 1984b, 271. Forrer 1922-1929, 3.2 pl. 262.

and the same mark appears on coins of Side and other Pamphylian cities.7 From such slim evidence, however, it cannot be assured that Aspendos actually became neokoros later than Side, which does announce the title on coins with the portrait of Valerian; a single such coin from Aspendos could prove the titles contemporaneous. Aspendos’ reverse type is a temple-shaped plaque, suitable to, but not informative about, an announcement of neokoria. That it represents a plaque and not a temple is shown by the thin outline that surrounds it, outside the columns. Contemporary coins that announce ‘Marcus (Antoninus) founded the temple’ portray a four-column temple with an eagle in the pediment and Victories as side akroteria, but the half-draped male figure enthroned within is as likely to be Zeus as it is to be an emperor in Zeus’ guise.8 On the other hand, the document that established Philadelphia in Asia as neokoros, its inscription 1, was inscribed on a temple-shaped plaque and began with “Antoninus founds you,” likely referring to Caracalla making Philadelphia neokoros. If the plaque and the temple on coins of Aspendos refer to the same building, it could mean that an emperor was enthroned like Zeus in the temple for which the city was neokoros; and that the temple had been founded, like Perge’s, well before the city claimed neokoria on coins. If this is so, the founder could have been Marcus Aurelius, as the SNGParis suggested, or perhaps Caracalla. The latter granted many neokoriai, but primarily in Asia; the former is not known to have granted any. It is possible that the concord coinage between Aspendos and Side shows a voting bloc in the provincial organization at this time: Side and its smaller neighbors allied against Perge to get neokoria and 7

J. Nollé 1990, 245-249. SNGParis 221, Valerianus the Younger; a similar seated Zeus (with eagle and seated or standing Hera) appears on coins of, e.g., Maximinus, Maximus (SNGPfPS 4.99, BMC 91), Trajan Decius (SNGParis 198), and Valerianus the Younger (SNGvA 4607). See L. Robert 1960b. 8

190

part i – section iv. cities of pamphylia

other benefits for themselves. But as well as issuing concord coinage with Aspendos and Attaleia, Side issued it with cities outside Pamphylia, such as Myra, Sagalassos, Alexandria in Egypt, and Delphi.9 In fact, so little is known about the association of Pamphylian cities that it may be better not to hypothesize. Though Aspendos offers a plethora of remains in excellent condition, it has not been excavated in any organized manner.10 It may be that future finds will offer more evidence for the city as neokoros. But some confusion has already arisen over whether Aspendos was given that title well earlier than the coins mentioned above. The confusion arose when Brandt dredged up one of several restorations from an old copy of one of the inscriptions from Aspendos’ theater.11 The theater probably dates to the second century C.E., and its builder, Zenon son of Theodoros, was honored prominently on the building for his works and benefactions.12 The variant Brandt approved was edited by Franz as CIG 4342 d3 (vol. 3 p. 1162); its line 7 is given as ~]te nevkÒrow [{ pÒliw §g°neto { Sidht«]n . . . from which the city of the Sidetans became neokoros . . .

Brandt, though not citing the original source, went back to Kennedy-Bailie’s old restoration at least for the name of the city:13 { te nevkÒrow pÒliw t«n ÉAspend°vn §t¤mhsen. . .

To give Brandt his due, there is better reason to restore the name of the Aspendians than that of the Sidetans, as the theater is in the city, and the city

9 10 11 12 13

Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 190-196. Jameson 1970; Bean 1976b; Özgür 1993. Brandt 1988, 248-250. CIG 4342d, with addenda. Kennedy-Bailie 1846, 208-209 no. 210b l. 6.

was, after all, neokoros on coins. That the coins date perhaps a century later did not concern him, nor should it concern us too much, as Perge also didn’t name itself neokoros on coins until long after it received the title. What is of paramount concern, however, is that the inscription as restored above makes no sense, since it lists Zenon’s benefactions (money, gardens, or some other work), in Franz’s edition attributes the grant of neokoria to them, and then jumps back to Zenon’s good qualities. But Zenon was no Hadrian, nor a Polemon of Smyrna (on whose inscription 4 Franz modeled his restoration; and Smyrna inscription 4, it should be noted, attributes the grant of the neokoria not to private gifts, but to a decree of the Senate). In fact, the errors in these imaginative restorations were long since pointed out by Waddington, who printed the original copy of Ross de Bladensburg from which both Kennedy-Bailie and Franz produced their versions. It reads IITEIIENVKOGRO........NI

Waddington’s comments are valuable: “J’ai reproduit la copie de Ross, la seule qui Bailie ait connue, pour montrer ce qu’il en a fait, et comment il a induit Franz et LeBas en erreur. Sauf les trois premières lignes, on ne peut restituer l’inscription...”14 Until further evidence is found, we should follow his advice. No inscription of Aspendos as neokoros has yet been found.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Gallienus: London. Salonina: SNGParis 218. 14

Le Bas–Waddington, pt. 5 no. 1383 l. 6.

chapter

21

– beroia

191

SECTION V. KOINON OF MACEDONIA Chapter 21. Beroia: Koinon of Macedonia Beroia was the seat and center of the koinon of Macedonia. When it gained that position, and even when the koinon was organized, is not entirely clear.1 Beroia may have had a moral advantage among cities of the province in having been the first city to give itself up to the Romans in 168 B.C.E., but Thessalonike was the second, and both acted within the space of two days.2 In any case, by the time of Nerva, Beroia had achieved exclusive rights as metropolis of the koinon and neokoros of the provincial cult of the Augusti. In fact, Beroia and the koinon were so strongly identified with one another that they could share both the title ‘neokoros’ and the coinage on which it appears. Generally, all the cities discussed in this work issued coins whose obverses showed the reigning emperor, while the reverses trumpeted themes of civic pride in the name of the citizens (genitive case). Beroia, however, minted coins in the name of the koinon of Macedonia. In fact, there are only six (late) types on which the name of the city is mentioned along with that of the koinon; the former is in the genitive, the latter nominative/accusative where completely expressed. On all other issues the name of the koinon appears alone. Yet it is certain that Beroia was the mint for these coins, not only because it was the seat of the koinon, but because reverse types of the city show a close, almost an exact, correspondence in style and subject with those of the koinon. Indeed, certain reverse dies of the city coinage were altered to serve for the provincial coinage.3 But most remarkable is the fact that the title 1

Nigdelis 1995, with comments by M. Hatzopoulos in ‘Bulletin Epigraphique—Macedoine’ in Revue des études grecques 109 (1996) no. 247; Deininger 1965, 91-96; Kanatsoulis 1956. 2 Livy 44.45.1-5. 3 Gaebler 1904, 292; pace Riccardi 1996, 21-24, 27-28. Though extensive sharing of obverse dies was documented by Kraft 1972, the sharing of reverses is far less common. The forthcoming work of K. Liampi on Beroia and the koinon mint will likely clarify the situation: Liampi 1997, 81.

‘neokoros,’ which properly described the city of Beroia, was extended, at least on the coins, to include all the Macedonians of the koinon. First Neokoria: Nerva The reign of Nerva offers the first evidence for neokoria in the province of Macedonia.4 Inscription 1 of Beroia is a decree in honor of Quintus Popillius Python, chief priest of the Augusti for the koinon of Macedonia, agonothetes of the provincial festival, and citizen of Beroia, for his many services.5 One of these was an embassy to Nerva on behalf of Beroia, requesting that the city be “the only one to have the neokoria of the Augusti and the rank of metropolis”: INSCRIPTION 1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 117. tÚn diå b¤ou érxier} t«n Sebast«n ka‹ égvnoy°thn toË koinoË M[a]kedÒnvn K. Pop¤llion PÊyvna, p[r]esbeÊsanta Íp¢r t}w patr¤dow Bero¤aw §p‹ yeÚn N°rouan Íp¢r toË mÒnhn aÈtØn ¶xein tØn nevkor¤an t«n Sebast«n ka‹ tÚ t}w mhtropÒlevw éj¤vma ka‹ §pitÊxonta. . . Python probably undertook his mission in connection with his office as chief priest of the provincial imperial cult at Beroia, and was successful.6 The point of the mission was not to petition for new honors, however, but to request that titles which Beroia already possessed be kept exclusive to it; on 4

A dedication perhaps to Vespasian, Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 61, cannot be considered as evidence; the title ‘neokoros’ is completely restored, and is unprecedented that early. 5 Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114. 6 Ziethen 1994, 33-34, 253-254, useful on Python’s social position but too definite in attributing the neokoria to Titus and Domitian and in claiming that theos=divus; see Tataki 1988, 447-448.

192

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

another inscription, perhaps commemorating the same mission, Nerva is honored for preserving the rights of the metropolis, not for granting them: sunthrÆsanta aÈtª tå t}w mhtropÒlevw d¤kaia.7 The date of inscription 1 is not precisely set: Nerva is called ‘god,’ but in the Greek provinces this term was applied to emperors both in their lifetimes and after death.8 Nerva became emperor on September 18, 96 C.E. and died on January 27, 98.9 Sometime within that short reign he confirmed Beroia in an honor that already stood. Whether or not he himself had granted that honor, this is intriguingly close to the time when ‘neokoros’ became an official title, as first documented in the reigns of Nero and Domitian in Ephesos (q.v.). Perhaps the earliest document of (most likely) the Macedonian koinon in the imperial period can be dated to the proconsulship of Lucius Baebius Honoratus, around 79-84 C.E.;10 this document, together with the start of the koinon coinage under Domitian, and the confirmation of Beroia’s rights by Nerva, may show that the organization or official recognition of the imperial cult in the Macedonian koinon took place during the Flavian era. Python’s embassy implies that Beroia had a rival (or rivals) for its position in the province. One likely contender was Thessalonike, which was the seat of the governors and administrative center of the province; Strabo called it the metropolis of Macedonia.11 Though metropolis is less likely to be an official title than a reflection of the city’s size and status, it may have been in common enough use for Thessalonike to challenge Beroia for the right to be called metropolis. The earliest coins datable by imperial obverse that cite the ‘koinon of the Macedonians neokoroi’ are of Diadumenian, who was made Caesar and successor by his father Macrinus in April 217 C.E.; a few call him Augustus, a title he received at the end of May 218.12

COIN TYPE 1. Obv: (AU KE, cd) MA(R, ab) OP AN(T, ab) DIADOUMENIANOS (KE, ab). (laureate, cd) draped cuirassed bust of Diadumenian r. Rev: KOI MAKEDONVN NEVKORV(N, ab) Emperor rides r., raises r. hand. a) London1940 10-1-25 b) Berlin, Fox (illus. pl. 32 fig. 150) c) Berlin 1491/ 1905 d) Paris 158. The city of Beroia, so far as is known, did not mint any independent issues during this time. The reverse type of the emperor on horseback raising his hand in greeting bears the youthful features of Diadumenian, and similar types without mention of neokoria were minted for Macrinus. Gaebler took these coins with equestrian emperors to refer to an imperial progress through Macedonia after the Parthian war, but historians do not mention any such visit, and considering the turbulent situation in the East it seems unlikely.13 The types may refer to the emperors’ presence in the East generally, or may have anticipated a visit that never happened.14 In any case, the title ‘neokoros’ was engraved onto older coin dies that had been prepared without it. This novel appearance of a title that had been held by Beroia since the time of Nerva may have been a previously unanticipated privilege or the result of some new balance of power within the koinon itself. Python presumably defended the rights of Beroia in his role of chief priest of the provincial temple of the Augusti (at Beroia) and head of the koinon, as well as a loyal Beroian. Later documents add the title Macedoniarch for the head of the provincial koinon; Beroia’s inscription 4 indicates that the same man could hold the offices of Macedoniarch, chief priest (of the Augusti?), and agonothetes of the provincial festival, and that his wife could be the provincial chief priestess, in the third century C.E.15 Once, however, a lady’s office was given as Macedoniarchissa.16 Second Neokoria: Elagabalus

7

Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 63; Cormack 1940 . This monument mentioned another provincial chief priest, Tiberius Julius ...krates; see Tataki 1988, 179 no. 626. 8 S. Price 1984a. 9 Kienast 1996, 120-121; the death date may have been Jan. 25. 10 Tataki 1988, 132 no. 318, 447-448; Papazoglou 1988, 65-66. Nigdelis 1995 would date the chief priest T. Flavius Paramonos to Flavian times. 11 Strabo 7.7.4 and fr. 21; Papazoglou 1979, 361; 1988, 141-148, esp. 144; Haensch 1997, 104-112. 12 Kienast 1996, 170-171.

There is no direct connection yet known between Beroia and the emperor Elagabalus except for his 13

Gaebler 1904, 294-295; Halfmann 1986a, 230. Ziegler 1993b, 74-75. 15 Nigdelis 1995, 176-177, and see discussion of Valerius Philoxenos, below. Nigdelis 1996, 137-141 documented some Macedoniarchs after 231 C.E. who also were hierophantai, though these did not include the honoree of inscription 4. 16 Kanatsoulis 1956, 64-65; Deininger 1965, 93 n. 6. 14

chapter grant of the second neokoria. Assuming that Elagabalus took the direct route across Thrace toward Moesia on his triumphal way to Rome, passing near Beroia would have meant a considerable detour south, all the way into the center of the province.17 None of the coinage minted for Beroia or the koinon of the Macedonians shows a portrait of any of Elagabalus’ wives, so the grant cannot be dated to any particular point in his reign. It is possible that the koinon and/or the Beroians sent a deputation north to greet the emperor on his route, and that it was at that time that he made them twice neokoros. As has already been mentioned, Beroia was unique in minting its coinage in the name of the koinon of which it was the metropolis. Only a few coins mention the city’s name at all. The coins that cite the title ‘twice neokoros’ are also difficult to date: most of them have obverses of Alexander the Great, while only a few have more datable portraits of the emperor. These issues were analyzed by Gaebler in his volumes on the coins of Macedonia, but certain considerations must be taken into account if his chronology is to be accepted.18 The first and most obvious is that this chronology was partly based on changes in number of neokoriai, and therefore it would be circular reasoning to use it as evidence for the changes themselves. Still, Gaebler’s conclusions are substantiated by the study of over 550 die combinations for the coinage citing neokoria alone. In addition, the Alexander-obverse coins can be dated from the correspondence of their reverses to coins of the imperial series. The Beroians, again in the name of the koinon, celebrated their second neokoria by issuing coins with obverses both of Alexander the Great and of Elagabalus. Two new reverse types also began, and were subsequently associated with the title ‘twice neokoros’: one shows two temples, the prototypical reverse type illustrating what made a city neokoros; the other, two prize crowns representing festivals which were perhaps associated with the temples. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NEV(K ab) Two five-column (seven-column, cde) temples facing. a) Paris 187 b) Berlin, Dannenberg c) Paris 269 d) Vienna 16117 e) Berlin 698/ 1929 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 151). 17 18

Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. Gaebler 1906, 3.1 (=AMNG with coin number).

21

– beroia

193

The renderings are schematic, the two temples assimilated to and indistinguishable from one another. One variant shows a tall column between the temples: COIN TYPE 3. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MKEDONVN (sic) B NEV Two four-column temples, between them a column on which a cuirassed statue stands r. with spear and parazonium. a) Athens (AMNG 466). A recent study attempted to use this type to illustrate a ‘sanctuary of the Augusti’ where both imperial temples and monuments were grouped.19 But coin type 3 is similar to types that had appeared at Pergamon and Nikomedia (qq.v.), and is not any more likely than they to represent topographical reality. In the case of Nikomedia, the patron goddess Demeter is shown on or off a column among the temples for which the city was neokoros. In Macedonia the figure atop the column also appears as an independent coin type: an armored male with spear and parazonium standing in contrapposto, his head twisted to one side. This idiosyncratic position of the head led Gaebler to identify the figure as Alexander the Great, though Brocas-Deflassieux saw the tiny figure on the column as “certainly an emperor.” Even if Gaebler was correct, the image need not mean that Alexander was specifically associated with the imperial cult; as Demeter represented the Nikomedians, so Alexander represented the Macedonians of Beroia and their pride in their ethnic heritage. In the third century his name was indeed associated with the provincial festival (below). In any case, Brocas-Deflassieux used finds of various dedications to emperors, plus parts of Doric columns of unspecified magnitude, to locate an imperial sanctuary in the south of the city, at a position along one of Beroia’s main streets. Though one of Beroia’s two imperial temples may indeed have stood in that area, the hypothesis still needs more solid facts to prove it. An agonistic table with two prize crowns served as the reverse for coins with and without portraits of Elagabalus during his reign. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KE MAR AUR ANTVNO% (sic) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B 19 Brocas-Deflassieux 1999, 78-82. The sanctuary is located at ‘3’ on fig. 45, though this, like most plans in the book, lacks both scale and orientation.

194

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

NEVKO Two prize crowns with palms on agonistic table. a) Munich (AMNG 303).

COIN TYPE 5. Obv: ALEJANDRO(U bcd, % a) Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NEV(KOR, ad; NEVKO, c ) Two prize crowns with palms on agonistic table. a) London 1940-10-1-24 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer d) Berlin 696/1929. Unlike later coins, however, none of these types specifically names the festivals they were meant to celebrate, and it cannot be absolutely confirmed that the festivals were instituted in honor of the temples that made the city twice neokoros.20 Withdrawn: Severus Alexander Beroia’s neokoria for Elagabalus did not far outlast his death and the condemnation of his memory.21 Of the city’s sparse koinon issues with imperial portraits, one type of Severus Alexander still includes the second neokoria: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M A %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., youthful. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NE Athena seated l. a) Paris 160 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 152). The rest go back to the simple title ‘neokoros,’ including: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: M AURHL %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN NEV(KO, b) Emperor on horseback led r. by Victory. a) London 1892.6-11-16 b) Paris 161 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 153). This reverse refers to Severus Alexander’s military operations, which began ca. 231.22 It is noteworthy that an inscription dated to 229 does not mention Beroia as neokoros.23 The inscription records Valerius Philoxenos, Macedoniarch, chief priest of the Augustus (i.e. Severus Alexander, whose name was later erased), and agonothetes of the koinon 20 Leschhorn 1998, 400-405, overconfident about identifications. 21 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417. 22 Halfmann 1986a, 231-232. 23 Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 68; Touratsoglou 1970, inscription A.

festival of the Macedonians, the agon Alexandreios; his wife, Valeriane Ammia, was chief priestess of the Augusta (Julia Mamaea, whose name was also erased), and together they put on three days of hunts and gladiatorial combats in Beroia. One may wonder, though one must not argue from this silence, whether Beroia’s second neokoria was in doubt or lost by 229; certainly, like other cities that were neokoroi for Elagabalus, it seems to have lost that status by the outbreak of the Persian war in 231.24 Gaebler’s die study may indeed show an example of deliberate silence: the coins minted under Severus Alexander with ‘twice neokoros’ and those with a simple ‘neokoros’ were apparently separated by a small series that suppressed the title ‘neokoros’ altogether.25 He dated this series to exactly 231 on the basis of coins without neokoria that nonetheless shared this type: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU K MAR %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., light-bearded. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN NEV Emperor on horseback rides r. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 32 fig. 154). From the reverse of the emperor on horseback, Gaebler assumed that Severus Alexander paid a personal visit to Beroia on his way to the Persian war. This cannot be confirmed; as has been noted, Beroia had issued similar types for Diadumenian, who is unlikely to have visited the city; and the scene is little different from that of type 7, where the personification of Victory makes it more clearly metaphorical. But one fact does emerge: since some of the ‘twice neokoros’ and ‘neokoros’ coins were struck from the same obverse die, any interval of coinage without the title must have been brief.26 We might say that the lapse reflects either a period of doubt as to the proper title, or of embarrassment on the city’s part that the glory of being twice neokoros had just been halved. Soon after the simple ‘neokoros’ was restored to the koinon’s coins, a few types celebrated a pact of concord with Thessalonike. The rival city is not explicitly named; indeed, the legends simply read ‘koinon of the Macedonians; concord.’ But the reverse type clearly shows a city or provincial goddess confronting the eponymous Victory of Thessa24 25 26

See chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis’, below. AMNG 11-18, nos. 322-340; this no. 313. AMNG nos. 306, 307 (twice) with 308 (single).

chapter lonike.27 These coins imply that some understanding was reached either between Thessalonike and Beroia or between Thessalonike and the rest of the koinon (which may have come to much the same thing). But the understanding was not over the right to neokoria, as Gaebler thought. Beroia had only reverted to the simple title to which it had had exclusivity since the reign of Nerva, while Thessalonike still did not call itself neokoros. Of course, concord coins were issued between notorious rivals, and orators like Dio Chrysostomos and Aelius Aristides addressed speeches on concord to those who most lacked it.28 And Thessalonike was soon to have what Beroia had previously kept to itself alone. Second Neokoria: Gordian III Since the reign of Nerva, when Python had won the primacy of Macedonia for Beroia, that city had remained the only neokoros of the province. It could proclaim its neokoria on coins of the koinon without even including the city’s own name in the legend. But during the reign of Gordian III, Beroia finally had to admit its rival to the status whose exclusivity it had defended: Thessalonike issued coins with the title ‘neokoros.’ Beroia, however, managed to retain primacy by regaining the second neokoria from the same emperor. Beroia then added a new element to some of its legends: the name of the city itself, on coins with both imperial and Alexander obverses. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: ALEJANDROU Head of Alexander r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN DI% NEVKO BEROIEV Two four-column temples turned towards one another. a) London 1913.621-12 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten.29 This and other types with the city’s name served to emphasize the distinction between Thessalonike, 27

Gaebler 1904, 334-338 reverse types IIIc, IVc, Vc, pl. 7.18-20; followed, with some errors, by Sheppard 1984-1986, 235-236, and by Nigdelis 1996, 139-140. Franke 1987, 100101 identified the goddess making the pact with Victory as ‘Boule.’ The goddesses of the three reverse types are in fact not closely identifiable, except for the polos hat; they are shown standing or seated, with sceptre or with cornucopia, and carrying a statuette of a god too small to be identified. 28 See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ in the summary chapters in Part II. 29 Gaebler 1935, 48 no.4, pl. 11 no. 27.

21

– beroia

195

newly neokoros, and Beroia, still head of the koinon and now (for the second time) twice neokoros. The coins that name Beroia are in all other ways similar to those that name the koinon alone; they share some obverse dies, and one reverse was reworked to add the city’s name.30 Both include celebratory types that show the two temples for which the city was neokoros looking much the same way they had during the previous, short-lived second neokoria for Elagabalus, though more often in three-quarter view, as on types 9 and 10. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K MAR ANT GORDIA[NO%] Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NEVKOR[VN] Two temples on high podia turned towards one another; a prize crown between them. a) Paris 164 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 155). Inscription 2, below, shows that the second neokoria must have been granted by 239 C.E. In the next year, inscription 4 shows that the Macedoniarch Lucius Septimius Insteianus Alexandros, chief priest (of Augustus or the Augusti?) and agonothetes of the Macedonian koinon festival, along with his wife, the chief priestess Aelia Alexandra, gave three days of celebrations, including hunts and gladiatorial combats. The festival, again the Alexandreios, is specified as being sacred, eiselastic (i.e. winners would be carried in triumph into their city) and isaktian or possibly isolympian; other inscriptions refer to Alexandreia Olympia in Beroia.31 Alexandria are mentioned on Macedonian coins with agonistic reverse types under Gordian III, and Olympia both on coins of Gordian III and those of Philip dated to 275 of the Actian era, or 243/244 C.E.32 But it must be noted that the Alexandreios contest cannot be associated with Beroia’s second neokoria, as mention of the festival was first made in 229 under Severus Alexander, probably just when the second neokoria was withdrawn. Associating neokoriai with festivals is chancy in any case, as festival names are notoriously agglutinative and fluid, and agonistic coin types are prone to abbreviation. Leschhorn, reasoning only from 30

Gaebler 1904, 292; 1907. E.g. IGRR 1:802, from Perinthos; J. and L. Robert, Bulletin épigraphique (1971) 454-455 no. 400. On the other hand, the provincial games Python gave were isaktian; see inscription 1. 32 Leschhorn 1998, with an unfortunate mistranscription, 402. 31

196

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

maximum number of prize crowns on Beroia’s coin reverses, not from actual types, believed that the two prize crowns represented provincial festivals (separate Alexandreia and Olympia) and that each had to be associated with the imperial temples of Beroia; so the Alexandreia must have been for an emperor associated with Alexander the Great, likely Severus Alexander, despite the fact that under his rule Beroia’s second neokoria was withdrawn, and his and his mother’s names later suffered condemnation in the city.33 It is more likely that the Macedonian provincial festival celebrated Alexander the Great, not the emperor(s), primarily; on that same inscription where the ‘Alexander’ of the emperor’s name was erased, the festival’s name ‘Alexandreios’ remained unharmed. Leschhorn also tried to ally a gold medallion from Aboukir in Egypt, supposedly dated to 275, with the Beroian Olympia of that year, from an old suggestion of Dressel’s; but the medallion shows a female portrait and the legend OLUM PIADO% (= ‘Olympia 274’?), while the coins give the (Aktian era) year of celebration as EO% (=275).34 The medallion cannot have been a prize for a pentaeteric festival which the coins celebrated a year later. In any case, new finds make it more likely that the Aboukir medallion simply says ‘of Olympias,’ identifying the portrait on it as the mother of Alexander the Great, who (with his family) is the most frequent subject of such medallions.35 Coin types at this period frequently combine imagery of temples with that of festivals. But there is no easy equivalency of temples and crowns: coin type 10, above, shows two temples and one prize crown, while 11, below, shows a single temple and two crowns. COIN TYPE 11. Obv. ALEJANDROU Diademed draped cuirassed bust of Alexander r. (head in lionskin, b) Rev: KOINON MAKEDONVN B NE (DI% NEVKOR, b) Four-column temple on podium at l., two prize crowns on agonistic table at r. a) Paris 193 (illus. pl. 32 fig. 156) b) Berlin, ProkeschOsten.

served as its agonothetai. But what that festival was called over time, and whether a new festival was added for each temple that made Beroia neokoros, cannot yet be proved. One could postulate that Beroia put the title ‘twice neokoros’ on its coins because it counted all the neokoriai within the koinon; since Thessalonike was a member of the koinon,36 its new neokoria could be included. But this cannot explain Beroia’s earlier second neokoria for Elagabalus, nor the fact that Beroia chose this moment to put its name on the koinon coins that it had long issued, as if to distinguish itself from Thessalonike. Also, it does not fit the picture of city rivalry that has been documented so often in this study (especially below in chapter 41) and elsewhere. It is more likely that Beroia was able to win back its second neokoria by complaining to the emperor and/or the Senate that Thessalonike, with its first, was encroaching on Beroia’s primacy in the province. This insistence on the pecking order was not to be long preserved: Thessalonike was situated at a strategic point for the armies that would have to face the Goths; Beroia was inland and less strategic, though not out of harm’s way. Beroia ceased to issue coinage in its own name or in the koinon’s after Philip. It is at just this point that an unfortunate confusion makes Beroia seem to leap out of obscurity and back into the spotlight. In trying to explain why Thessalonike became four times neokoros under Trajan Decius, Ziegler unfortunately confused Beroia in Macedonia with Beroe in Thrace (Augusta Traiana, the modern Stara Zagora), a city that was prominent in the battles between the Roman forces and the Goths in the mid-third century.37 Due to this geographical error, he believed that Beroia had been on the side of Philip because he died there, and that Philip’s enemy and successor Trajan Decius would naturally have punished it and rewarded its rival Thessalonike (though each of these suppositions is highly questionable in itself). Yet as inscriptions 5, 6, and 7 show, Beroia was not dishonored at that time, but retained its status of twice neokoros well into the mid-third century.

Certainly Macedonia celebrated a provincial festival at least since the time of Python, since he and chief priests and Macedoniarchs after him also 36

Deininger 1965, 92, 195; but see Edson 1972, 23 no. 38. See ‘Thessalonike,’ chapter 22; Ziegler 1988b, 395-401, with full bibliography; restated in Ziegler 1994, 202. He had earlier discounted Beroia as the site of Philip’s death: Ziegler 1985, 104 n. 236. 37

33 34 35

Touratsoglou 1970, inscription A; Varner 1993, 418-422. Leschhorn 1998, 402-403; also Gagé 1975, 4-5. Savio 1994-1995.

chapter

21

– beroia

197

Thessalonike would eventually go back down to twice neokoros, equal with Beroia, and shortly afterward up again to three times neokoros. This increase may reflect the situation within the province: Thessalonike, a vital harbor and the scene of usurpations and Gothic invasions, was probably more important to Gallienus than the inland metropolis Beroia. If the cities continued their contest afterward, however, there is no evidence to show it.

Valerian, dated 253-256 C.E.; in fact, the metropolis and twice neokoros Beroia honors Saloninus Caesar, his grandson; thus it dates 258-260 C.E.39 8. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 108 (A. Woodward 1911/1912, 148-149 no. 7; Tataki 1988, 134 no. 329). Undated statue base, letter forms of the mid-third century. 9. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 71. Letter forms of third century.

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA:

COINS CITING NEOKORIA:

Neokoros:38 1. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 117 (SEG 17 [1960] 315; L. Robert 1939, 131-132; Tataki 1988, 259-261 no. 1114): Neokoria confirmed by Nerva. See text above. Twice neokoros: 2. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 481. Milestone, dated by the second tribunician power of Gordian III to 239 C.E. 3. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 485. Milestone similar to inscription 2, and tentatively dated to the same year. 4. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 69 (Touratsoglou 1970, 285 inscr. B; Tataki 1988, 270271 no. 1170). Announcement of celebrations funded by a Macedoniarch and chief priest (of the Augusti?) under Gordian III, dated 240 C.E. See reference above. 5. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 109 (Contoleon 1902, 141-142, date mistranscribed; A. Woodward 1911/1912, 148 no. 6; Tataki 1988, 123 no. 270). Honorific, dated after 249/250 by the provincial era. 6. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 509 (L. Robert 1939, 128-129 no. 1; Tataki 1988, 129 no. 300, 464-465). Honorific altar, dated 250/251 by the Aktian era. 7. Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 no. 70, where it is misidentified as an honor to the emperor

Neokoros: Diadumenian: SNGLewis 1233; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, London. Twice neokoros: Elagabalus: Berlin (2 exx.), New York, Paris. Severus Alexander: Paris. Neokoros: Severus Alexander: Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.). Twice neokoros: Gordian III: BMC 158, SNGCop 1350, Berlin, Paris (2 exx.). Philip (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.): Paris.

38 Not included here are Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 nos. 61, 66, and 483, where the word ‘neokoros’ is uncertain, largely restored.

Alexander obverse, neokoros: BMC 99, 100, 102-104, 107, 113, 114, 117-119, 120, 125, 142; SNGCop 1358-1365; SNGRighetti 392; Berlin (50 exx.), Boston, London (6 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (8 exx.), Paris (18 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Alexander obverse, twice neokoros: BMC 101, 105, 106, 108-110, 121-124, 126-136, 140, 144; SNGCop 13511353, 1355, 1356, 1366-1374, 1376-1378, 1380; SNGLewis 1234-1235; SNGRighetti 393; Berlin (117 exx.), Boston, London (26 exx.), New York (17 exx.), Oxford (15 exx.), Paris (67 exx.), Vienna (36 exx.), Warsaw (13 exx.). Alexander obverse, twice neokoros, with name Beroia: BMC 1; Berlin (3 exx.), London. Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.): BMC 111, 112, 137; SNGCop 1379; SNGLewis 1235; Berlin (17 exx.), Boston, New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw. Alexander obverse, twice neokoros (year 275 = 243/244 C.E.), with name Beroia: SNGCop 134; Berlin, London, New York, Paris.

39

Keinast 1996, 221-222.

198

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

Chapter 22. Thessalonike: Koinon of Macedonia

With all the advantages of its splendid harbor and strategic location on the via Egnatia, Thessalonike had likely been the seat of Roman governors since Macedonia became a province in 146 B.C.E.1 In 42 B.C.E., after the victory of the second triumvirate at Philippi, it was awarded the status of free city. The metropolis and seat of the koinon of the Macedonians, however, was Beroia (q.v.). Strabo called Thessalonike the metropolis of Macedonia, less likely as an official title than a reflection of the city’s size and status; a native poet called it “mother of all Macedonia.”2 Calling Thessalonike ‘metropolis’ may have been common enough for Thessalonike to challenge Beroia for that title and that of ‘neokoros of the Augusti.’3 Beroia, however, defended its exclusive rights before the emperor Nerva, and Beroia won. It is likely, then, that Thessalonike looked on the honors of Beroia with rather a jaundiced eye, and perhaps even welcomed the occasion when Beroia lost its neokoria for Elagabalus. It was probably after this misfortune that Beroia and Thessalonike declared a state of concord, with koinon coins showing the koinon’s goddess sacrificing along with Thessalonike’s eponymous Victory (see Beroia, above). First Neokoria: Gordian III It is not until the reign of Gordian III that an exceptionally large and varied issue of coins first declares Thessalonike neokoros, and celebrates the title with the following types: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M R ANTV GORDIANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKEVN NEV PUYIA Four1 Papazoglou 1979, 356, 361; Touratsoglou 1988 (= T with coin numbers) 5-19, esp. 6-7 n. 10; Haensch 1997, 104-112. 2 Strabo 7.7.4 and fr. 21 E; Palatine Anthology 9.428. 3 Papazoglou 1979, 361; 1988, 144, 189-212.

column temple in three-quarter view on high podium, star to r., snake? to l., prize crown with palm above. a) SNGCop 435 (T 346).4 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU(T, abc) K M (R, c) ANT(V, abd, NIO%, b, NO% c) GORDIANO% Laureate draped (cuirassed, b) bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKEVN NEVK(ORVN, abd) PUYIA Four-column temple in three-quarter view l. a) London 1920.8-5-1684 (T 352) b) Paris 1459 (T 342) c) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 345) d) Berlin 21326 (T 351). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M ANTV GORDIANO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust (laureate head, c) of Gordian III, r. Rev: YE%%ALO(NIKEVN, abcd; -NEIKEVN, efgh) NEVKOR(VN, abcd; NEVK, g; NEVKORV, e) Four-column temple in three-quarter view r. (l., cd) on high (low, gh) podium. a) BMC 120 (T 377) b) Boston 63.2964 (T 347) c) London 1968.6-413 (T 360) d) Paris 1460 (T 350) e) Paris 1461 (T 374) f) Paris 1462 (T 370) g) Berlin, Dressel (T 365) h) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 368). Except for type 3 above, the name of the festival Pythia appears on almost all types of Gordian III’s reign, occasionally coupled with other festival names (Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia), but alone on types of the temple.5 On type 1 the temple’s attributes of a prize crown, a star, and the word Pythia may indicate that the Pythia was a sacred festival for the temple that made Thessalonike neokoros. On the other hand, no mention is made of the emperors, and an inscription commemorating the fourth celebration of the festival is dedicated to Apollo Pythios himself.6 The editor of that inscription also posited 4 Pace Touratsoglou 1988, who interpreted this and other tetrastyle temples as two-column, presumably seeing the facade as the inner view of the far side of the peripteron. 5 Touratsoglou 1988, 70-71 n. 148; Leschhorn 1998, 406408. 6 Edson 1972, no. 38.

chapter

22

that at the foundation of the Pythia, Thessalonike withdrew from the koinon of Macedonia, as no inscriptions of Macedoniarchs or other provincial officials at Thessalonike have yet been found to postdate that point. On the other hand, the earliest record of a Macedoniarch from Thessalonike dates to 219 C.E.; there has even been some discussion as to whether a free city like Thessalonike could be a member of the koinon.7 But the inscriptions of Macedoniarchs from Thessalonike indicate that it was, and one cannot argue much of a case from the absence of such inscriptions either beforehand or after. In a parallel case in the province Asia, free cities and their citizens could participate in koinon activities, they were simply not constrained to do so.8 It may be that Beroia, jealous of its privileges, was generally able to control the koinon assembly (synedrion) and keep Thessalonike in a subordinate condition within that context. In his exhaustive study of the mint of Thessalonike, Touratsoglou saw the exceptional honors of a new pentaeteric festival and a grant of neokoros status as grouped around the time of the wedding of Gordian III and Tranquillina, with the first Pythia taking place in August 241.9 He explained the emperor’s choice of Thessalonike for such honors as due to Gordian’s philhellenism, but that alone would not fully explain why Thessalonike was singled out from hundreds of Greek cities. On the other hand, it seems to be no accident that under the same emperor both Thessalonike, perhaps the most strategic city of its province, and Beroia, less strategic but still head of the provincial koinon, each received a new neokoria and a new festival. Even if Thessalonike left the koinon at this time (and there is no evidence on whether it did), there may have been some reasoning that the two cities should keep the same status relationship as before. Beroia had already become twice neokoros by the year 240; Thessalonike’s increase in honors may also have dated to around that time. In any case, whether his motive for the honor was philhellenism or something else, Gordian III or his advisers seem to have taken careful account of the pecking order within the province. 7 Papazoglou 1988, 207-208; contra, Deininger 1965, 92, 195. For ‘freedom’ in the strict sense, see Bernhardt 1971, 233. 8 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4, on the dedications at the Flavian temple of the Augusti. 9 Touratsoglou 1988, 67-72.

– thessalonike

199

As ancient Thessalonike is hidden beneath the thriving modern city, it would be difficult to find and authenticate the temple that made the city neokoros; it is only sketchily illustrated on the coins. Some imperial portrait statues have been found in the area of an archaic Ionic temple, but such honorifics could be set up at any temple or in most public spaces, and do not necessarily identify the temple as one dedicated to the imperial cult.10 Fourth Neokoria: Trajan Decius Though Thessalonike continued to call itself neokoros in later coin legends, the types tended to repeat those minted under Gordian III, and to concentrate on the Pythian festival. Then suddenly coins showing Trajan Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus (as Caesar, thus before June 9, 251 C.E.) declare Thessalonike to be metropolis, colony, and four times neokoros.11 This leap in titulature is unprecedented for this time, though Side and perhaps Perge may have accomplished a similar jump later; and Nikopolis in Armenia Minor and Neapolis in Syria Palaestina (qq.v.) also combined colony status with neokoria.12 As for the title of ‘metropolis,’ it had previously been applied only to Beroia within the province, as confirmed by the emperor Nerva; now Macedonia, like Asia and other eastern provinces, had more than one metropolis.13 But ‘four times neokoros’ went well beyond Beroia’s two neokoriai and made Thessalonike the foremost neokoros city known of its time. Only Ephesos (q.v.) had yet become four times neokoros, an honor that had died with Elagabalus. A fascinating series of inscriptions documents Thessalonike’s jump in status. A series of statue bases honors the youths who were priests and agonothetai 10 Pace Vickers 1970, 247-250; idem 1976; Touratsoglou 1988, 9-10 nn. 29-33. Much of the exploration has concentrated on the later palatial center of Galerius’ time: Moutsoupoulos 1977. 11 Kienast 1996, 204-207. 12 Ziegler 1988b, 390, 405 n. 35 posited that Thessalonike received ius Italicum, and concomitant freedom from certain taxes, along with its status as colony. On the combination of freedom with colonial status, see Touratsoglou 1996. 13 Hadrian was active in this regard: Bowersock 1985; but see ‘Patara,’ chapter 33, below. Bowersock (78-79) suggested Pella rather than Thessalonike as Beroia’s rival, and repeated this suggestion in 1995, 89. But Pella, though a Roman colony, was far less strategic than Thessalonike in this period. See Nigdelis 1996, 139-140 n. 47.

200

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

of the ‘god Aurelius Fulvus,’ most likely a son of Marcus Aurelius who died at a tender age.14 The bases are carefully dated and for the most part follow the same format, so a sudden change stands out. Thus when the city, which on the bases dated from 219 to 240 C.E. called itself simply ‘the fatherland,’ thereafter names itself ‘metropolis and colony and four times neokoros’ as well, we can assume that Thessalonike’s citizens were showing off new titles of which they were proud. INSCRIPTION 1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated 246/247) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 10). [{ Yessalonei]ka¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne¤a ka‹ D' nevkÒrow { patr¤w ... INSCRIPTION 2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated 248-250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 11). t}w lamprçw Yessalonika¤vn mhtropÒlevw ka‹ kolvne¤aw ka‹ (t)etrãkiw nevkÒrou ... INSCRIPTION 3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated 249/250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 12). { Yessalonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvn¤a ka‹ D' nevkÒrow { patr¤w ... INSCRIPTION 4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated 250/251) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 13). { Yessalonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne[¤]a ka‹ tet[r]ãk[i]w nev[kÒ]row { patr¤w ... One notes a chronological distinction: the coins of the fourth neokoria date exclusively from the reign of Trajan Decius, yet inscription 1 dates as early as 246/247, about two years before his accession. Did three neokoriai granted by Philip endure through the reign of Decius? A simpler explanation is that the inscriptions commemorate the year in which the priesthood was served, and may have been set up at the end of that year or even after, depending on how long it took to vote the honor, allot the money, and carve the base and the statue. The explanation for Thessalonike’s sudden declaration of this plethora of titles is probably tied to events in the Balkans.15 Gothic armies were rampaging through the provinces north of Macedonia. Priscus, the governor of Macedonia, who was also the imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped there in Philippopolis by the Gothic invaders and eventually declared himself emperor. Under the circumstances,

Thessalonike’s choice of ruler became crucial. Besides being the center of Roman administration for all Macedonia, the city was both the hub of road systems to the west and north and a strong harbor, and thus crucial for transport of troops and supplies when roads across the war-torn provinces of Dacia, Moesia, and Thrace were impassable. If Thessalonike wavered, if it declared itself for Priscus for example, this lifeline would break apart. Thessalonike’s new titles may be seen as rewards for hopedfor loyalty, bonds to Trajan Decius as emperor, and a recognition of the city’s strategic importance at a time of emergency. They may also reflect the fact that the emperor was in the Balkan area, accessible and even eager to do favors for important cities, so long as they didn’t divert resources from the war effort.16 The coins both celebrate and illustrate Thessalonike’s four neokoriai: most reverse types emphasize the four temples that gave the city its title, or four prize crowns, presumably one for each temple: COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAIAN`O`%` D`E`K`I`O`%` Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH [KOL MHTR?] D NEVKORO% Four four-column temples, two above two, turned towards one another, another D above them. a) London 1972.8-7-5 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 157) (T 5). COIN TYPE 5. Obv: KAI KUIN EREN ME[%I ETROU%KILL]ON DEKION Draped cuirassed bust of Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev: YE%%A[LONIKH KOL M]HTR D NEVKORO% Four four-column temples, two above two, turned towards one another. a) Berlin, Löbbecke (T 11). COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUTO KAI% KUIN TRAIANO% DEKIO% Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH KO(LV, a) MH(TROP, a) D NEVK(ORO%, b) Four prize crowns with palms, two above two.17 a) BMC 140 (T 2) b) Berlin, Fox 188 (T 3). COIN TYPE 7. Obv: KAI KUIN EREN ME%I ETROU%KILLON DEKION Draped bust of Herennius Etruscus Caesar, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH KOL MHT D NEVKORO% Kabeiros with hammer and rhyton standing l., four prize crowns 16

14 15

L. Robert 1946; Edson 1972, nos. 153-170. Touratsoglou 1988, 18 n. 85

Halfmann 1986a, 235-236. A similar reverse for Decius’ wife Herennia Etruscilla, unique and very obscure, is in Parma: T 7. 17

chapter

22

with palms in field around him. a) London 1958.3-4-112 (T 8) b) Paris 14.99 (T 9). The equation of temples and prize crowns is interesting. Thessalonike neokoros had minted with reverse types of one prize crown, but that type was common to many cities, neokoroi or not. An exact correspondence between four temples and four prize crowns is more striking and may perhaps indicate that a festival for each temple was included in the grant. The contests are not named any more than the temples are, however. The Pythia festival had already appeared on coins of the time of Gordian III, sometimes coupled with the names Kabeireia, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia, but these three festival names are not documented later. In fact, one must wonder whether the four temples for which the city was neokoros, if new, were ever completed. In a time of dire emergency, of armies passing in and out of the city, of inflation and exaction and flight, such diversion of funds seems unlikely, especially when there were three new neokoriai at once. Perhaps older temples received new aspects of the imperial cult instead. Gaebler suggested that the three new neokoriai were for Trajan Decius, his wife Etruscilla, and their son Herennius Etruscus.18 But there is no precedent among the neokoroi for an emperor’s wife receiving honors equivalent to those of the emperor himself. Normally one would expect her to be enshrined in the same temple with the emperor, as Faustina and Antoninus Pius (as well as other members of their family) were at Sardis. It is slightly more likely that both sons of the emperor, Herennius Etruscus and his younger brother Hostilian, were worshipped; the former was named as Augustus late in his father’s reign. The neokoriai for Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta at Perinthos (q.v.) might serve as a precedent, but in that case the father’s cult was instituted first, followed by a joint cult for the two sons as Augusti. But Herennius Etruscus appears on the coins of Thessalonike four times neokoros with only the title Caesar, not Augustus, and Hostilian is not known to have appeared at all. Outside of Trajan Decius himself, the objects of cult of the three new neokoriai at Thessalonike cannot yet be known. It is just barely possible that Thessalonike had masked a gradual acquisition of neokoriai under the plain title ‘neokoros,’ known on its coins since 18

Gaebler 1935, 130.

– thessalonike

201

Gordian III. The apparent rivalry with Beroia, however, makes it likely that each of the two cities would proclaim as many titles as they could, in competition with each other. Ziegler sought to explain Thessalonike’s extraordinary honors by proposing a scenario in which Beroia supported Philip as emperor while Thessalonike, Beroia’s rival, stood up for the eventual victor, Decius, and won three neokoriai thereby.19 Though this is not impossible, it is tenuous, and there is no direct evidence for it. A single source, the monk John of Antioch, stated that Philip, on campaign against the ‘Scythians,’ heard the news of Decius’ revolt at Perinthos in Thrace and fled towards Beroe; a city by that name (also known as Augusta Traiana, the modern Stara Zagora) was a notable crossroads in the province of Thrace.20 Even if Philip was killed in or near Beroe (rather than Verona, as the Latin sources hold), this is much likelier to be the city in Thrace, closer to Perinthos, than Macedonian Beroia; if Philip was fleeing, why would he travel so far down along the coast into Macedonia, and then inland, where he could be more easily trapped?21 Most historians accept a battle at Verona and discount the version of John of Antioch entirely;22 and even those who don’t discount it place the events in Thracian Beroe, not Macedonian Beroia.23 In any case, the fact that the emperor was (just possibly) killed at a city does not indicate that the city in question supported him; if anything, the reverse. And finally, even if Decius were getting back at Beroia in Macedonia by rewarding its rival Thessalonike (which in this scenario did nothing on its own to earn its honors), why were Beroia’s two neokoriai left untouched at just this period, as Beroia’s inscription 4 shows? Septimius Severus, whose actions at the end 19 Ziegler 1988b, 395-401, with full bibliography; restated in Ziegler 1994, 202. Ziegler 1985, 104 n. 236 had earlier discounted Beroia as the site of Philip’s death. 20 C. Müller 1878-1885, 4:597-598 no. 148; Dusanic 1976, 428 n. 6; Schönert-Geiss 1989. For a misattribution of neokoria to Augusta Traiana after 209, see Gerasimov 1966; corrected by Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. One example of the coin in question was damaged, and resembled an emperor handing a temple to a city goddess; other examples from the same reverse die make it clear that they merely join right hands. 21 Peachin 1991, 340 n. 63 also confused Beroe in Thrace with Beroia in Macedonia. 22 E.g. Selinger 1994, 13-14; Potter 1990, 254-256; Pohlsander 1982, 220-221. 23 Prickartz 1993, though without realizing that Ziegler meant the Macedonian city, 64 n. 74.

202

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

of a long civil war Ziegler took as the model for imperial behavior towards all rivalrous cities, did not just reward his adherents, but punished his and their enemies with loss of all privileges, as he had by exalting Perinthos (q.v.) over Byzantion. Though Trajan Decius exalted Thessalonike, he did not abase Beroia. One must wonder about the provincial status of temples and titles granted wholesale, in batches of three. Were such temples integrated into the koinon of Macedonia, its head still presumably Beroia, and if so, how did they operate? Unfortunately, no evidence exists on which to base a decision. Thessalonike’s four neokoriai do show that there was still enough esteem for the title ‘neokoros’ to make it worth seeking, or at least worth boasting of. The problem is that the single title alone does not seem to have been sufficient, especially when there was rivalry over titles among the cities. Thessalonike’s honors were piled on almost indiscriminately and all at once, a milestone in the process of titular inflation. It appears as if Decius had promised to make Thessalonike the most illustrious city in the East, and had done it with titles, not only making the city metropolis and colony but giving it more neokoriai than any other city of its time. It is unfortunate that the coins are not more explicit about the temples and the objects of cult in them. In any case, Thessalonike would not keep its four neokoriai long. Two Withdrawn: Valerian and Gallienus After the issues for Trajan Decius the city issued no coinage for Trebonianus Gallus, so far as is known; but this is not uncommon among eastern cities, very few of which minted in that reign. When the title started to appear again, on coins of Valerian, Gallienus, and Gallienus’ wife Salonina, it was as early as 253/254 C.E., and the number of neokoriai had diminished to two.24 The reverse types are overwhelmingly agonistic, with no overt reference to temple(s) for which the city was neokoros. This is borne out by another inscription of a priest and agonothetes of the god Fulvus dating after 253/254 and calling Thessalonike twice rather than four times neokoros:

INSCRIPTION 8. Edson 1972, no. 167 (dated 253/254) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 15). { Yessalonika¤vn mhtrÒpoliw ka‹ kolvne¤a ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow { patr¤w... It is notable that the formula of civic titles on later bases of the priests of Fulvus returns to calling Thessalonike simply ‘the fatherland.’25 This simplification may reflect a certain unwillingness to boast of titles that had lately been decreased. One could explain the loss of two neokoriai from the Roman side as a condemnation of Trajan Decius’ memory by his successor. But the situation was not simple: Trebonianus Gallus was Decius’ comrade-in-arms and saw to it that he was deified. On the other hand, Gallus then had to adopt Decius’ younger son Hostilian as his co-ruler, and may have fallen out with him soon; perhaps a month after his accession, Hostilian was dead, and both his and his father’s names were erased from monuments, no doubt by Gallus’ orders.26 But if three of Thessalonike’s four neokoriai were for Decius and his family, why were only two eliminated by the eventual condemnation of their memories? There is no evidence that the loss of two neokoriai was punishment inflicted on the city for some infraction. Thessalonike was as strategic a city as it ever had been; our (admittedly exiguous) sources have documented no political error on its part. In any case, had the city defied or insulted the ruler it would likely have been stripped of all its titles. Yet it remained metropolis and colony and retained two of the four neokoriai, one more than it had had before the time of Decius. We should also compare Anazarbos in Cilicia (q.v.), which received a third neokoria under Trajan Decius, but did not lose it afterward despite the condemnation of his memory. It makes more sense to reason that Thessalonike as four times neokoros was far out of line with its province and even with the rest of the Roman East. The reduction to two (at the complaint of rival cities, perhaps Beroia?) only restored the balance to a situation that was closer to the reality of intercity relations. Presumably Trajan Decius had given Thessalonike extraordinary honors as a reward for extraordinary service or loyalty, whether promised 25

Edson 1972, nos. 168, 169 (dated 258/259 and 262/263). Kienast 1996, 204-210; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265; Ziegler 1988b, 391-392; 1994, 188-197. The condemnation was documented but not fully understood by Varner 1993, 487488. 26

24

Touratsoglou 1988, 77.

chapter

22

or fulfilled. After his death that action, seen at some distance and in the perspective of other cities’ status, may have looked less wise. Thessalonike was not, however, to be driven back to being merely neokoros, the title it claimed up to the time of Philip. Instead it probably was allowed to keep one neokoria (for Trajan Decius? or for whom?) and only lost the superfluous two. That still gave it equal standing with Beroia, at least when that city’s neokoriai were last documented in 250/251. This fluctuation in the neokoriai of Thessalonike shows how titulature could still serve as a barometer of status among cities. A city would grasp at an opportunity for more neokoriai, but other cities kept a jealous eye on the process, thus controlling its expansion. Yet this was at a time when funds for building temples and holding festivals must have ranged from rare to nonexistent. Even if such tangible benefits were in doubt, the title ‘neokoros,’ especially in multiples, must still have been both desired and envied. Third Neokoria: Gallienus Part of Thessalonike’s loss would soon be made up. Some few coins of Gallienus and Salonina proclaim the city three times neokoros. They are dated to Gallienus’ sole reign, after Valerian’s capture by Shapur I in 260.27 Coin types are similar to those already in use for the second neokoria: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K POPL LIK EG GALLHNO% Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH MHT(R, c) KOL (KOL MHT, b) B NE City goddess with cornucopia and statuette of Kabeiros. a) London 1975.4-11-1 b) Paris 1507 (T 60) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 158) c) Warsaw 57019 (T 59).

– thessalonike

203

COIN TYPE 10. Obv: ...GALLHNO% AUG Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%ALON[IKH M]H K G NE Three prize crowns with palms, one above the others. a) Vienna 10084 (T 4) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 160). Only type 10 is new; its three prize crowns, as formerly under Trajan Decius, match the number of neokoriai and thus may celebrate contests associated with them, though this is probable rather than assured. The reign of Valerian and Gallienus was more often a time of restoring neokoriai to cities than of taking them away; perhaps the city’s shock at being stripped of two neokoriai was being moderated by the restoration of one. But as it happens, Thessalonike was the center of much activity in the midthird century. Perhaps the most likely occasion for returning the third neokoria was to reward the city for holding off a Gothic invasion ca. 254.28 The Goths had reached Thessalonike after ravaging southern Thrace, and there was fear that they would proceed south into Greece, as is evident from the fact that the Athenians and Peloponnesians suddenly began to rebuild their old walls. The Goths surrounded Thessalonike, but its citizens held out and fought back with courage. They broke the siege and the attackers seem to have turned back for home. Thus Thessalonike could be said to have saved Greece. Certainly such an achievement would merit a third neokoria, and would also explain why the city goddess of Thessalonike now carried an image of Victory. On the other hand, Macedonia, and specifically Thessalonike as the headquarters of its governors, was likely the scene of the revolt of Valens ‘Thessalonicus’ against Gallienus, which lasted until 261.29 A third neokoria may have been the city’s reward for returning to its loyalty to Gallienus.

On coins of the third neokoria, minor changes are made: for example, the city goddess carries a Victory instead of Kabeiros, and a letter for the denomination is included in the field. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT GALLIHNO% AUG Radiate draped bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: YE%%ALONIKH MH [K]O G NE City goddess with cornucopia and statuette of Victory, D in field. a) Paris 1508 (T 27) (illus. pl. 33 fig. 159) b) Oxford (T 3). 27

Touratsoglou 1988, 81; Kienast 1996, 214-216.

28

Zosimus 1.29.2-3; Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn 1841-1897) vol. 30 593 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno mundi 5748. Some of the descriptions duplicate an earlier incursion under Trebonianus Gallus: Bleckmann 1992, 183-189; but also Potter 1990, 310-314. 29 Ammianus Marcellinus 21.16.10, Epitome de Caesaribus 32.4; also the Historia Augusta, Thirty Tyrants 19, which called him proconsul of Achaia. Barbieri 1952, 311-312 no. 1735; Schlumberger 1974, 150-151; Thomasson 1984, 196 no. 52; Kienast 1996, 227.

204

part i – section v. koinon of macedonia

INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Four times neokoros: 1. Edson 1972, no. 162 (dated 246/247) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 10). See text above. 2. Edson 1972, no. 163 (dated 248-250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 11). See text above. 3. Edson 1972, no. 164 (dated 249/250) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 12). See text above. 4. Edson 1972, no. 165 (dated 250/251) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 13). See text above. 5. Edson 1972, no. 150. Honors Tiberius Claudius Magnus, a praefectus classis. Dated by neokoria. 6. Edson 1972, no. 177. Honors Flavia Claudia Silvane, a chief priestess and gerousiarch. 7. Edson 1972, no. 231. Fragment of inscription from a pavement. Twice neokoros: 8. Edson 1972, no. 167 (dated 253/254) (L. Robert 1946, 40 no. 15). See text above.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Gordian III: BMC 118-122, 124, 126-131; SNGCop 429, 430, 432, 434-438; SNGRighetti 376; Berlin (26 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (9 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford, Paris (23 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.). (T 104-112, 129-133, 143-153, 155-203, 218-319, 321-359, 362-425).

Tranquillina: BMC 132; SNGCop 439; Berlin, London, New York. (T 426-439). Philip: BMC 135-137; Berlin (6 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. (T 1-38, 42-53, 57-101). Otacilia: BMC 138; Berlin; Paris. (T 107, 109-112, 114122). Philip Caesar: BMC 139; Berlin, London, Oxford, Paris, Vienna. (T 124-149). Four times neokoros: Trajan Decius: BMC 140; Berlin, London, Paris. (T 1-3, 5). Herennius Etruscus: Berlin, London, Paris. (T 7-9, 11). Twice neokoros: Valerian: SNGCop 441; Berlin (2 exx.), London, New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.) (T 1-13, 16-30). Gallienus: BMC 441; SNGCop 443, 444; Athens, Alpha Credit Bank (2 exx.);30 Berlin (4 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (5 exx.), Warsaw. (T 31-64, 66-72). Salonina: BMC 142, 143; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw. (T 73-106). Valerianus: (T 107-109). Non-imperial obverse: SNGCop 394; Boston, Paris. (T emission VI group Q, emission X group B, and emission XI, all in joint rule of Valerian and Gallienus). Three times neokoros: Gallienus: Paris, Vienna. (T 1-4). Salonina: Paris. (T 5).

30

Touratsoglou 1996, 177-178 nos. 2, 3.

chapter

23

– neokaisareia

205

SECTION VI. KOINON OF PONTUS Chapter 23. Neokaisareia: Koinon of Pontus (Polemoniacus) In order to understand the situation of the neokoroi of Pontus, it is necessary to examine the full history of the area and its organization. These are topics that are still uncertain, and further study may alter the conclusions. Nonetheless, the fact that the territory of Pontus was early divided among various client-kings and Roman provinces affected the koina within it and the cities that were members of those koina. Pompey annexed the territory of Pontus after his victory over Mithradates VI Eupator.1 Among its cities were Amaseia, the old capital of the kings of Pontus; and Kabeira, later to be renamed Neokaisareia, a fortress commanding the Lykos river valley and former residence of Mithradates himself.2 Subsequently Mark Antony took a large portion of the Pontic territory that included Kabeira/Neokaisareia and assigned it to a client-king, Polemon, and his heirs; this area later became known as ‘Pontus Polemoniacus.’ Amaseia, however, was in the region which was transferred to the Roman province of Galatia (and so later called ‘Pontus Galaticus’) in 3/ 2 B.C., from which ‘liberation’ it dated its new era. In 64 C.E., when the last client-king, Polemon II, ‘retired,’ Pontus Polemoniacus also came into a Roman province, and Neokaisareia began its new era.3 From the fact that Neokaisareia seems to have gained the status of metropolis itself, rather than coming under Amaseia as metropolis, it is likely that Pontus Polemoniacus was placed under the administration of the governor of Cappadocia, not Galatia.4 Later, under Vespasian, these two provinces were united under the same governorship, and Pontus Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland of Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia) 1

Marek 1993b, with earlier bibliography. Magie 1950, 180-181, 369-371. 3 Leschhorn 1993, 130-143, 471-474. 4 Marek 1993b, 62 n. 421, contradicting Remy 1986, 43 and S. Mitchell 1993, 2:153. 2

were merged into the same province.5 When the huge province of Galatia/Cappadocia was divided later in the reign of Trajan, both parts of Pontus went with Cappadocia; eventually, under Severus Alexander, they were split off from Cappadocia to form a Pontic province of their own.6 But as late as the early fourth century, Pontus Polemoniacus could be distinguished and divided from the other Pontus, now called Diospontus. There is ample evidence that the Pontic cities associated themselves into koina, but the question is, how many? Until recently, the dominant theory was that there was one grand koinon of Pontus, which overlapped provincial lines and may have followed the borders of Pompey’s original annexation.7 On the other hand, strong arguments have existed for several distinct koina of Pontus, and these have now been remarshaled by Marek.8 Unfortunately, most of the evidence, both inscriptional and numismatic, postdates the era at which Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus were united. In favor of the unitary theory, it is true that none of the inscriptions or coins, found outside both Pontus Polemoniacus and Galaticus as far as Herakleia in the Pontic part of the province Bithynia, makes any distinction or subdivision: all name Pontarchs, or chief priests of Pontus, or the koinon of (the cities in) Pontus. On the other hand, the same situation prevails in an area very far distant: there were Pontarchs at the other end of the Black Sea, with a koinon of Pontus centered on Tomis.9 We

5 Marek 1993b, 79-81; Remy 1986, 51-61 on Vespasian’s unification, and 67, 71 on a document still using the names Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemonianus, which Marek placed in the late first century and Remy in 114 C.E. S. Mitchell 1993, 2:155 explained the controversy. 6 Remy 1986, 101-104, 106-108. 7 Deininger 1965, 64-66. 8 Marek 1993b, 73-82. 9 Nawotka 1997, 216-236; though at one point Tomis is specified as the “metropolis of left (eÈ\numow) Pontus.”

206

part i – section vi. koinon of pontus

cannot realistically imagine that too as part of some monstrous ‘superkoinon’ of Pontus. Marek, however, chose a very weak keystone for his argument for several separate koina: a coin of Neokaisareia issued under Septimius Severus. Its reverse shows the city goddess of Neokaisareia as the central figure in a group of five other similar goddesses. The legend, which has been often misread or misinterpreted, is KOIN PON NEO-KAI MHTRO, that is, ‘Neokaisareia, metropolis of the koinon of Pontus.’10 From the number of city goddesses, Marek deduced that the koinon of which Neokaisareia was the metropolis could have had only six cities; and, since the coin was issued when Pontus Galaticus and Pontus Polemoniacus had already been united, he had to go through intense efforts to rule out cities generally found therein. But the principles of numismatic interpretation should caution us: in a small space, numbers of figures, like columns on a temple front, may be abbreviated. If there were as many as fifteen cities in the Pontic koinon, how would you show them all on a coin only a few centimeters in diameter? The coin, therefore, only indicates that there were at least six cities in the koinon to which Neokaisareia belonged, but does not rule out that there were more. On the whole, the evidence seems to favor a basic principle: a single koinon would generally not overstep the boundary of a Roman province, and the cities in it would not be responsible, some to one governor, others to another.11 If this were so, what would result if, as in the divided Pontus, two separate koina had been allowed to develop, one for Galaticus, the other for Polemoniacus, which then were made to reunite when the two territories merged in the same province? The answer is what we know did in fact happen: two cities of Pontus, Amaseia and Neokaisareia, each claimed to be metropolis well before the proliferation of metropoleis within a single province became common.12 10 Best seen (though also misread): BMC 2, pl. V.9. Marek 1993b, 74 and 76, cited the same coin legend two different ways, the former a serious misreading taken from an earlier authority and including the word ‘neokoros.’ 11 F. Cumont 1903; Haensch 1997, 288 overlooked this problem when he compared one koinon overlapping provincial boundaries to one financial administrator doing the same: whereas a single financial administrator could interact with each governor independently regarding affairs in his province, a koinon making unified decisions while overseen by two or three governors is extremely rare (only the concilium Galliarum). 12 Bowersock 1985.

Presumably if their koina had remained separate they would have specified each (even with an abbreviation) on their coins, but both claim identical honors: metropolis and first of Pontus. Neokaisareia, however, seems to have become the chief center of the (unified) koinon, and minted coins for it. First Neokoria: Trajan Neokaisareia may have been the first of the two Pontic metropoleis to declare itself neokoros on a coin. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [AUT KAI%] NER [TRAIANO% %EB...] Laureate head of Trajan, r. Rev: NEOKAI%ARIA NEVKORVN Legend in double laurel wreath. a) Paris 1277 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 161). The coin is so far unique. Though worn, the portrait is recognizably Trajan, his titulature arranged in a similar manner to that on other contemporary coins of Neokaisareia.13 Most of the reverse design is given over to this grammatically odd declaration of neokoria, at a time when no other city but Ephesos had yet begun to proclaim itself neokoros on coins. On the other hand, other cities outside Asia had begun to stake claims to neokoria, as Beroia did under Nerva, though the title is documented through inscriptions rather than coins. It may be that the Trajanic coin commemorates Neokaisareia’s establishment as koinon center of the reorganized Pontus, as documents of this koinon first began to appear during the reign of Trajan.14 Though Amaseia rivaled Neokaisareia in claiming to be metropolis of Pontus, Neokaisareia was probably as yet the only neokoros city in the provincial organization; this would explain the boast of coin type 1, and Amaseia’s failure to retort (so far as is known) in any but the most indirect and allusive manner. There has been some debate over what emperor’s cult could have been established in the temple that first made Neokaisareia neokoros. A temple of Rome and Augustus was posited as the simplest solution.15 Of course, Pontus Polemoniacus, including Neokai-

13 Weiser 1988. The earliest issues of Neokaisareia yet known are those issued by the legatus of Galatia/Cappadocia, (Quintus Orfitasius) Aufidius Umber, dated to 100/101 C.E. Stumpf 1991, 280-282; Remy, Amandry, and Özcan 1995. 14 Deininger 1965, 64-66; idem 1983. 15 F. Cumont and E. Cumont 1906, 268.

chapter

23

sareia, did not belong to any Roman province, but was part of a client kingdom until 64; on the other hand, nothing rules out a temple to Rome and Augustus in a client kingdom.16 If the legend of coin type 1 is true, anyone after Trajan is excluded.17 Of emperors whose monuments did not suffer condemnation, that leaves Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, or Trajan himself. Both Neokaisareia and Amaseia began to use the title ‘neokoros’ regularly on their coins at the same date, 161/162 C.E. (year 98 of the era of Neokaisareia). COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUTO K OUHRO% %EBA%TO% Laureate head of Lucius Verus, r. Rev: ADR NEOK NEVKO PR(O, d) PON ET qH The Dioskouroi with spears, stars over their heads (an altar between them, bcde). a) SNGvA 97 b) Oxford 25.9.1929 c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer e) Berlin 550/187. By that year Neokaisareia also issued coins with a four-column temple on the reverse for the koinon of Pontus.18 This same temple, and occasionally the title ‘neokoros’ as well, appears most frequently on civic coins of Septimius Severus and his sons, but the representations are so varied and so strange that it may be hard to reconcile one with another, or any with a particular cult.19 COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: KOI PON NEOKAI% NEV MHT ET RMB (year 142 = 205/206 C.E.) Four-column temple with double doors open, disc in pediment. a) Berlin 7909 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 162). COIN TYPE 4. Obv: P %EP GE[TA% KAI%] Draped bust of Geta Caesar r., boyish. Rev: KOI [PON] NEOKAI% NEVK [MH] ET RMB Four-column temple, dot in pediment. a) Oxford, Godwyn. The temple in question generally appears with the dotted capitals that indicate Corinthian columns, though where the die-cutter used only two dots the 16 Perhaps the best documented is that in Herod the Great’s foundation of Caesarea on the harbor Sebastos: Josephus, Jewish War 1.414 and Jewish Antiquities 15.339. 17 M. Price and Trell 1977, 94-98 for Septimius Severus. 18 SNGvA 6992. 19 M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97 figs. 165, 166, 168-174 for the representations on coins that do not cite neokoria. See also S. Price 1984b, 150-151, 181, 267.

– neokaisareia

207

result looks Ionic. It is most often four-column, although one example shows five columns, probably in error. The masonry of the cella is usually depicted in the side intercolumniations and above the decorated doors in the center intercolumniation. Occasionally these doors stand slightly open. On one coin two radiate busts seem to be imposed on the doors above two ‘door knocker’ shaped objects, while on another a single radiate bust hovers over a flaming altar in the central intercolumniation. A single, nonradiate bust appears over a ‘door knocker’ that floats in the air without benefit of doors; the same ‘door knocker’ is set on a sort of armature with the bust above it, like a legionary standard, in a gabled niche within the temple. Again, three busts float in the spaces between the column capitals, or like the radiate busts, two hang on shields on the double doors, while in the intercolumniations two male statues stand in contrapposto on tall pedestals. A single statue in a similar pose and on a similar pedestal but holding a sceptre also appears in the central intercolumniation. Though all these may well represent one temple, no evidence declares what that one temple was. Olshausen saw a resemblance between the male statues and the Dioscuri, but did not collect all the varying representations.20 Price and Trell identified the building as the gate to a sanctuary of Ma, the war goddess whose best-known Pontic shrine was at a different city, Komana.21 The reasoning behind the identification of the structure as a gate instead of a temple is that sometimes a lighted altar appears within, and since sacrifices were properly made in front of the temple and not within it, Price and Trell reasoned that this must be the gate to an altar court. Unfortunately, they were rebutted by their own figure 179, which shows lighted altars in the same position within two temples. These should not be gates because they are shown in three-quarter view as independent rectangular structures with gabled tile roofs. We should perhaps see the type as symbolic, abbreviating, and compressing: the altar symbolizes the cult within the temple, or is moved from before it to within it due to lack of space. If the Neokaisareia temple is that of a deity, it was a deity so syncretistic as to be unidentifiable from the available evidence. On the other hand, none of 20

Olshausen 1990, 1879. M. Price and Trell 1977, 95-97. On Ma, Olshausen 1990, 1886-1887. 21

208

part i – section vi. koinon of pontus

the coin types explicitly conflicts with representations of the imperial cult, and some may hint at it. Multiple cult statues may represent the successive emperors, while imperial busts on military standards and on honorific shields are well known.22 Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander The dated coins of Neokaisareia show that the city became twice neokoros by 226/227 C.E. Thus Neokaisareia was one of three cities that apparently became neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander. The reign of that emperor is better known for the withdrawal of all the neokoriai for Elagabalus (see Historical Analysis, chapter 38, below). His rare grants of the title seem to have been mainly in provinces where no such awkward withdrawals had to be made, and Pontus is among these. The grant was the occasion for issuing celebratory types showing the two temples for which the city was neokoros, and associating them with one or two festivals, symbolized by prize crowns. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: A K M [AUR] %EOU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: [PR]O P[ON NEOKAI]%A MHTROPO DI% NEVKOR ET RJG (year 163 = 226/227 C.E.); IEROU Two four-column temples, a dot in each pediment; above each a prize crown with palm.23 a) Berlin 58/1874. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJA[NDRO%] Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI MHTR DI% NEVKOR ET RJG Two two-column temples turned toward one another, a round altar within each, a prize crown with palms above. a) London 1973.1-12-2 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 163). COIN TYPE 7. Obv: A(U, b) K(AI, b) M AU(R, b) %EOU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI MHTR DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two four-column temples, disc in each pediment. a) Warsaw 84269 b) Berlin, Löbbecke.

COIN TYPE 8. Obv: obscure, worn. Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: [. . . ] MHTROPO DI% NEVKO ET RJG Two six-column temples, dot in each pediment, in three-quarter view facing each other; stairs leading up to each. a) Tokat 7.1.2, from Erbaa.24 COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: MHTR NEOKE%ARIA% DI% NEVKOR ET ROA (year 171 = 234/235 C.E.) Two four-column temples, a dot in each pediment; between them an amphora with palms, above, a prize crown with palms. a) Paris 417 b) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: MH NEOKE%A DI% NEVKO ET ROA Two four-column temples, a prize crown with palms above. a) Paris 416 b) Boston 69.1084. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: A(U, b) K M AU(R, b) %E(OU, b) ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: NEOKAI(%A, a) MHT(R, ab) DI% NEVK(O, bd) ET ROA Two four-column (Corinthian, b) temples, a dot in each pediment. a) London 1973.1-4-4 b) Paris 1972.922 (illus. pl. 33 fig. 164) c) Paris 1290 d) Vienna 14145 e) Berlin, Löbbecke. The two temples for which Neokaisareia was neokoros are shown as identical, as usual for multipletemple coin types. The columns are clearly Corinthian on some examples, but again appear Ionic when shown with only two dots for capitals. One type shows a single temple in an unusual three-quarter view: COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K M AU %E ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEOKE%ARIA% MH ET ROA Six-column temple in three-quarter view. a) SNGRighetti 570 b) Ireland 2000, no. 1342. This may be one of the temples of the Pontic koinon for which Neokaisareia was neokoros, but it should be noted that the title ‘neokoros’ is not in the

22

Winks 1969. Çizmeli, Amandry, and Remy 1995, 103 no. 19 appears from the illustration to be the same type, with a legend mentioning neokoria in the exergue, but this has not been noted in the transcription. 23

24

Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin no.), 125, pl. 33.

chapter

23

legend, though it appeared in the same year as coins of the second neokoria. There are also several agonistic types that mention the Pontic koinon or its contests, and type 5 uses the term ‘sacred’ in the genitive singular, even though the type seems to refer to two festivals; perhaps the sigma is missing from IEROU(%) (AGVNA%).25 Unfortunately, the same word is very worn on the following type, but it floats between two prize crowns: COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU K M AUR %EO ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: KOI PO NEOKE%A MHTROPO DI% NEVKORV ET RJG; IE[ROU%?] Table with two prize crowns on it, each with palm. a) Tokat 5.1.30, mistranscribed (from Zela) b) Ireland 2000, no. 1344. The fact that ‘twice neokoros’ is wedged beneath this agonistic table, plus the frequent appearance of prize crown(s) floating over the two temples, indicates that each temple for which Neokaisareia was neokoros had an associated festival, though those festivals remain unnamed. The multiple-temple and agonistic types were issued in two series eight years apart, in 226/227 and 234/235. They may have been minted to celebrate the occurrance of pentaeteric contests (one type of 234/235 mentions isaktios), but the gap between mintings may have been normal.26 Neokaisareia minted no coins with the title ‘neokoros’ under Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus. Thus we cannot tell whether the second neokoria was withdrawn due to the short-lived condemnation of Alexander’s memory between 235 and 238.27 Certainly the city continued to be entitled ‘twice neokoros’ on coins of Gordian III, Valerian, and Gallienus. There is even a revival of the doubletemple reverse type with obverses of Gordian’s wife Tranquillina, and a yet later one for the emperor Valerian:

– neokaisareia

COIN TYPE 14. Obv: %AB TRANKULINA %EB Draped bust of Tranquillina, r. Rev: KOIN PON MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET ROH (year 178 = 241/242 C.E.) Two four-column temples, dot in each pediment. a) Tokat 8.1.18, from Neokaisareia (Niksar). COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AU K PO LIK OUALERIANO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian, r. Rev: MH NEOKE%ARIA% ET RqB (year 192 = 255/256 C.E.) Two four-column temples on a single ground line, dot in each pediment; a prize crown above, between their roofs. a) Coll. F. L. Kovacs.28 One must note, however, that the title ‘neokoros’ does not appear on either of these. One agonistic type of these later years refers to Aktia, which may conceivably represent a festival for one of the two temples that made Neokaisareia neokoros. But this cannot be certain, as the Aktia appear well after the second neokoria.29 There are no inscriptions yet known that call Neokaisareia neokoros.

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Trajan: Paris. Lucius Verus: SNGvA 97; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford. Commodus: SNGvA 98, 6758; Berlin. Septimius Severus: Berlin. Geta Caesar: SNGTüb 2070; Oxford. Twice neokoros: Severus Alexander: Tokat 5.1.28, 5.1.30, 7.1.2, 8.1.14; Ireland 2000, nos, 1341, 1343, 1344; Berlin (7 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (5 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.). Gordian III: SNGvA 111, 6761; Paris. Valerian: BMC 16; Istanbul;30 Paris. Gallienus: Ireland 2000, no. 1380; Paris (2 exx.). 28

25

Karl 1975, 61; the suggestion for restoration is thanks to an anonymous reader. 26 Klose and Stumpf 1996, 112 no. 206. 27 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed that the condemnation was unofficial.

209

Klose and Stumpf 1996, 113 no. 210. Karl 1975, 8-12 and n. 15; but Neokaisareia did not date its coins by the Aktian era, as he stated. See also Jürging 1991, 44-47, assuming nonetheless a connection between Aktia and neokoria. 30 Çizmeli, Amandry, and Remy 1995, 107 no. 34. 29

210

part i – section vi. koinon of pontus

Chapter 24. Amaseia: Koinon of Pontus (Galaticus) The situation of Amaseia, ancient capital of the Pontic kings, with respect to the rest of Pontus has already been discussed in chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ above.1 Amaseia had been one of the chief cities of Pontus Galaticus and thus belonged to a Roman province since 3/2 B.C.E. It is likely that at first it and its rival for Pontic primacy, Neokaisareia, were under the administration of different provincial governors, Amaseia under the governor of Galatia, and Neokaisareia under that of Cappadocia.2 Later, under Vespasian, Galatia and Cappadocia were united under the same governorship, and Pontus Galaticus (including Amaseia) and the inland of Pontus Polemoniacus (including Neokaisareia) were merged into one province.3 Both cities called themselves metropolis and first of Pontus. When Neokaisareia issued its first coin claiming the title ‘neokoros,’ under Trajan, Amaseia minted coins with no mention of neokoria but with an unidentified temple on the reverse.4 Set on a high podium with parastades flanking the steps, its design is much like that of the slightly later temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.). Though precise in architectural details (four fluted Ionic? columns on high bases) and in date (115 of the Amaseian era, or 112/113 C.E.),5 the type does not specify the object of cult within the temple. If the image represented is an imperial temple, use of the type may have been a subtle way for Amaseia to assert its status as a holder of a temple of the imperial cult against neokoros Neokaisareia, though that 1 In general, the picture presented here is that given by Marek 1993b (with earlier bibliography); to this add Haensch 1997, 281-290, with Amaseia as possible seat of the governor of the unified Pontus in the third century. 2 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 4. 3 See chapter 23, ‘Neokaisareia,’ n. 5. 4 SNGRighetti 538, 539; SNGvA 18; Ireland 2000, nos. 103, 106; M. Price and Trell 1977, 93 fig. 164; though the latter named it the temple of Zeus Stratios, no evidence is given for or against this identification. See also S. Price 1984b, 267. For the temenos of Zeus Stratios, centered on a high altar, see Olshausen 1990, 1901-1903; French 1996a, 91-92; idem 1996b. 5 Leschhorn 1993, 115-124, 466-469.

hypothesis cannot be proved without further evidence. First Neokoria: Marcus Aurelius It is more significant that with the exception of the anomalous early issue of Neokaisareia under Trajan, both cities’ coinages began regularly to trumpet the title ‘neokoros’ (along with ‘metropolis and first of Pontus’) at the same date, 161/162 C.E. (year 164 of the era of Amaseia, 98 of that of Neokaisareia). Amaseia was also proud of its epithet ‘Hadrianic’: it preceded the city’s name on virtually all of its postHadrianic coinage, and in the Severan period epithets from the reigning emperor’s name were added as well. The neokoria of Amaseia comes before the title metropolis on its first coins of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, but slips down after it on all subsequent issues. This initial emphasis on neokoria may have been the sign of a recent official grant of the title, or a way of drawing attention to its first appearance on the coins. Certainly the reverse types show no sign of a temple, as they had under Trajan, but are instead purely imperial, referring to the rulers and the concord between them: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT KAI% M AUR ANTVNINV(%, a ; ANTVNINO, d) %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Marcus Aurelius r. Rev: ADR AMA% NEVK K MHT K PRV P(ON, cd; PONT efg) (K, c); ET RJD (year 164 = 161/162 C.E.). Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, both togate, join right hands. a) SNGvA 24 b) SNGRighetti 543, year obscure c) Paris 94 d) Warsaw 58633 e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) New York 1944.100.41180 (obv.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 165) g) New York, 1944.100. 41179 (rev.=illus. pl. 34 fig. 166) h) Tokat 5.1.3, year obscure.6 6

Amandry, Remy, and Özcan 1994 (= Tokat with coin no.), 123 pl. 29.

chapter Also of interest are later coins, dated to 225/226 C.E., that show a general view of the city. Though either a tetrastyle or hexastyle temple facade was shown on the lower central slopes of the fortress, there is no way of identifying such a summary sketch as any particular temple, much less an imperial one.7 COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K %EOUHRO% ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: ADR %EU ALEJ AMA%IA% MHT NE PR P(ON, c) ET %KH (year 228 = 225/226 C.E.). View of the city of Amaseia; five towers to the left, five to the right; two temples and rocky landscape between. a) SNGvA 44 b) Berlin 1025/1893 c) New York, 1944.100.41218 (illus. pl. 34 fig. 167) d) Ireland 2000, no. 232. Amaseia continued to use ‘neokoros’ among its titles on coins down to the time of Severus Alexander, but no inscriptions that mention the city as neokoros are yet known. COINS CITING NEOKORIA : Neokoros: Marcus Aurelius: BMC 3; SNGvA 22, 24, 6700; SNGRighetti 542, 543; Tokat 5.1.3; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London, New York (3 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). 7

M. Price and Trell 1977, 91-93, figs. 159, 162.

24

– amaseia

211

Lucius Verus: BMC 5; SNGvA 23, 25; SNGRighetti 544; Ireland 2000, no. 144; Berlin (6 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London, Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Commodus: SNGCop 107; SNGvA 27, 6701, 6702; SNGRighetti 545-547; Ireland 2000, nos. 171, 172, 182; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London (4 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (14 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.).8 Septimius Severus: BMC 6-16; SNGCop 108-110; SNGvA 28-30, 6703; SNGRighetti 548, 549; Ireland 2000, nos. 192, 199; Berlin (18 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Oxford (3 exx), Paris (20 exx.), Vienna (7 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Julia Domna: SNGCop 111; SNGvA 31; Ireland 2000, no. 204; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna. Geta Caesar: BMC 36, 37; Ireland 2000, no. 230; Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York (3 exx.), Paris (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Caracalla: BMC 17-32, 34, 35; SNGCop 112-117; SNGvA 32-40, 6704-6709; SNGRighetti 550, 551; Ireland 2000, nos. 209-214, 219, 221; Berlin (33 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (5 exx.), New York (25 exx.), Oxford (10 exx.), Paris (46 exx.), Vienna (11 exx.), Warsaw (6 exx.). Severus Alexander: BMC 39, 40; SNGCop 119; SNGvA 4144, 6710-6712; SNGRighetti 552-554; Ireland 2000, nos. 231-235, 238, 240, 246, 257; Berlin (9 exx.), Boston (3 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York (7 exx.), Paris (21 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.), Warsaw (5 exx.).

8 A possible addition to this group was found in a tomb at Özükavak: Remy 1990, 86 no. 16, but the title was misspelled (NRVKOR) and no photograph was published.

212

part i – section vii. koinon of

CILICIA

SECTION VII. KOINON OF CILICIA ChaptER 25. TARSOS: KOINON The earliest appearance of the title ‘neokoros’ in the province of Cilicia was on coins of the city of Tarsos. Level Cilicia, on whose plain Tarsos stood, had been a Roman possession since the late Republic and part of the unified province of Cilicia since the reign of Vespasian; Tarsos, besides being a free and inviolate city, was likely the seat of the governor.1 It was also headquarters of the koinon of Cilicia, whose representatives pursued the prosecution of Cossutianus Capito in 57 C.E.2 Dio Chrysostomos addressed several orations to the Tarsians, noting that though their city had been metropolis from the start, it was not getting along with the smaller Cilician cities; they resented its dominance, the fact that they had to go there to sacrifice, and that Tarsos had pursued several prosecutions of Roman officials on its own hook.3 First Neokoria: Hadrian or before Tarsos’ first known use of ‘neokoros’ is on coins with obverses of Antinoös as hero, issued sometime after his death in Egypt in 130. Antinoös’ depiction with the Egyptian hem-hem crown is probably based on dated Alexandrian coins that were first issued after October 134.4 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: ANTINOO% HRV% Ivycrowned head of Antinoös l. Rev: ADRIA TAR%OU MHTROPO NEOKOROU NEV IAKXV Four1 Haensch 1997, 267-272; Rigsby 1996, 475; Ziegler 1993a; Remy 1986, 61-62; Bernhardt 1971, 190, 228. 2 Tacitus, Annals 13.33, 16.21; though a date as early as Augustus may not be proved, this does indicate the koinon’s existence by 57. The arguments of Ziegler 1995b for no independent koinon before Hadrian are ultimately based on silence regarding Ciliciarchs and independent koinon festivals. 3 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 33.51; 34.7-15, 27, 47-48; Swain 1996, 187-206; C. Jones 1978, 76; preferable to the interpretation of Kienast 1971. On the rivalry with Anazarbos (and also Aigeai), Ziegler 1993b, 126-128. 4 H. Meyer 1991, 137-140, 149-151.

OF

CILICIA

column Corinthian temple, disc in pediment, outer aisles grilled and garlanded; within, volute krater on pedestal. a) BMC 159 (illus. pl. 34 fig. 168). The appearance of the word ‘neokoros’ on this particular coinage does not indicate that Tarsos became neokoros for the cult of Antinoös, however.5 In fact the only reason for this novel use of the title may have been the large size and unusually spacious design of this special issue of coins. Tarsos generally preferred its title ‘metropolis,’ which precedes ‘neokoros’ on coins with Antinoös’ portrait. Judging from the types, veneration for Antinoös at Tarsos was both eclectic and syncretistic. He received the epithets and attributes of both Dionysos and Apollo and was probably also assimilated to the local river god Kydnos. The temple for which the neokoria was granted, however, was not the one that appears on type 1, which is probably a heroön of Antinoös as Dionysos/Osiris. A more likely candidate for the temple that made Tarsos neokoros appears on coins issued from the time of Hadrian to that of the young Commodus. A few examples follow: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT KAI YE TRA PAR UI YE NER UI TRAIA ADRIANO% %E; P P Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Hadrian l. Rev: ADRIANVN TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOINO% KILIKIA% written across architrave of tencolumn temple, wreath in pediment. a) In trade.6 COIN TYPE 3. Obv: TAR%OU MHTROPOLE Veiled mural-crowned draped bust of city god5 Despite H. Meyer 1991, 150 and Ziegler 1985, 67 n. 2; later corrected in Ziegler 1995b, 184-185 n. 10. See also S. Price 1984b, 274. 6 Ziegler 1995b, 185 pl. 23.4, a silver tetradrachm. The author does not state whether he himself examined the coin, so its genuineness must be taken as provisional. On silver coins of Tarsos under Hadrian, Ziegler 1993b, 94-95.

CHAPTER 25

dess r. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA% written across architrave of ten-column temple, eagle in pediment. a) SNGCop 351 b) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 34 fig. 169) c) SNGParis 1435 d) SNGParis 1436 e) Ziegler Sammlungen 674.7 COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT(O, a) (KAI, b; K, c) (TI, bc) AI(LIO%, a) (KAI%AR, a; ADRI, bc) ANTVNINO% %EB (EU PP, bc) Laureate draped bust of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: ADRIANVN TAR%EVN MHTROPOLEV%; KOINO% KILIKIA%, the latter in architrave of ten-column temple, wreath (or eagle, ad) in pediment. a) SNGvA 5989 b) SNGParis 1444 c) SNGParis 1445 d) SNGParis 1446 e) SNGLevante 1014 a) SNGvA 5989 Coin type 2, if genuine, dates after Hadrian took the title p(ater) p(atriae), though that title occasionally appears on other coins before it became official in 128.8 The temple is identified by the words (~) koinÚw (naÒw) Kilik¤aw, ‘common (temple) of Cilicia’ written on its entablature. This was certainly a temple for the provincial (imperial) cult, situated in the chief city of the province, Tarsos. Whether Tarsos’ koinon temple and resultant neokoria were actually due to Hadrian, or only first appear on coins of his reign, can be debated back and forth. The province was established under Vespasian, so it seems unlikely that it had no common temple until as late as 128; on the other hand, by the time of Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius, Cilicia’s provincial arrangements had been changed, and it was joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form the ‘three eparchies.’9 Tarsos’ neokoria and a provincial temple both first appear on coins under Hadrian, and Hadrianeia Olympia are documented later; but Tarsos had long been metropolis of Cilicia, and many non-neokoroi (including Anazarbos, Tarsos’ rival in Cilicia) celebrated Hadrianeia. Hadrian did visit Tarsos at the beginning of his reign, though a substantive visit that could include a reorganization of the koinon on his later sea journey from Egypt is more questionable.10 On full consideration of all these facts, it is possible that



TARSOS

213

Cilicia’s first koinon temple was built at Tarsos for the cult of Hadrian, which made the city neokoros at that time, but the suggestion cannot be taken as definitely proved.11 Second Neokoria: Commodus It was assuredly under Commodus that Tarsos became twice neokoros. The coins make it clear by not only proclaiming the title but by showing the new temple, either alone or with its predecessor: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: (AUT KAI, acd) (M, cd) (L AIL, befg) AURH KOMODO% %E(B, f) Laureate draped cuirassed (wearing crown and garments of demiourgos, c) bust of Commodus r., (unbearded and youthful, a; bearded and mature, b-g). Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV%; DI% NEVKOROU; KOMODEIO% Ten-column temple (eagle in pediment, ac). a) SNGParis 1462 (illus. pl. 34 fig. 170) b) BMC 169 c) SNGParis 1463 (illus. pl. 34 fig. 171) d) SNGParis 1464 e) SNGCop 362 f) SNGvA 5995 g) Boston 63.939. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT KAI% AUR KOMODO% %EB Bust of Commodus r. wearing crown and garments of demiourgos. Rev: ADRIAN KOMODIANH% TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% DI% NEVKOROU; KOINOI KILIKIA% written across the entablatures of two ten-column temples, a wreath above them. a) BMC 168 b) SNGvA 5996 c) Berlin, Fox. On the former issue the new temple is identified by the legend ‘Commodian’ on its entablature. An eagle sometimes appears in the pediment, a justaposition that recalls the earlier provincial temple. Both it and the temple to Commodus are identified on type 6 as ‘common (temples) of Cilicia,’ and above them hangs a wreath, which either symbolizes the new festival in honor of this temple, called ‘isolympic worldwide Kommodeios,’12 or the crown of the Tarsian magistrate, the demiourgos, which Commodus wears on the obverse of types 5c, 6 and others. Several emperors were made (honorary) demiourgoi of

7

Ziegler 1988a (= Ziegler Sammlungen, with coin no.). Kienast 1996, 128-131. 9 Ziegler 1999; cf. Remy 1986, 78-81, 96-98 (‘the three eparchies’ as a single province from Antoninus Pius, then a break, then again from Septimius Severus). 10 Birley 1997, 259-260; Halfmann 1986a, 190, 194. 8

68. 81.

11

Despite Ziegler 1993b, 22-23; 1995b; and 1985, 21, 67-

12

CIG 4472; Miranda 1992-1993, 84-85; Karl 1975, 80-

214

part i – section vii. koinon of

Tarsos and are shown in the distinctive official dress on the coins.13 The date of Tarsos’ neokoria for Commodus can be isolated using the emperor’s portrait and titulature. One coin that shows his new temple, type 5 example a, shows him unbearded and youthful; it does not specify his praenomen, but the portrait probably dates shortly after his succession in 180, when he also granted neokoria to Nikomedia (q.v.).14 Dated coins of Tarsos’ neighbor Anazarbos show Commodus as bearded by 183/184 C.E.15 Unfortunately type 5a is obscure where the neokoria should be mentioned; on the other hand, its illustration of the new temple should be decisive. Unless coin 5a inexplicably revived a very out-of-date portrait type of the emperor, Tarsos seems to have become twice neokoros before ca. 183/184. Later coins of the second neokoria, with bearded portraits, name the emperor first Marcus Aurelius Commodus, and later Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, a change back to an earlier name that he affected after 18 August 191.16 The coins with his portrait in the dress of demiourgos either show the former name or do not specify. Therefore Commodus’ grant of the neokoria to Tarsos and his demiourgeia both assuredly date before August 191. It is likely that the neokoria came first, the demiourgeia afterward. The delay would have allowed the temple to be started and arrangements for the celebratory festival, the isolympic worldwide Kommodeios, to be made.17 The reason for Commodus’ special favor is not clear. So far as is known, at this time Tarsos was chief city of its koinon and sole neokoros of its province. A second neokoria put it on the level of the greatest cities of Asia, such as Pergamon, Ephesos, Smyrna, and Sardis. It is certainly possible that Commodus’ chief point of interest in Tarsos was its patron god Herakles, with whom the emperor identified strongly later in his reign.18 But the neokoria

13

Ziegler 1977, 36-38 summarizing Cilician neokoroi; 1993b, 119 n. 312 on the timing of Commodus’ term as demiourgos (though not precise on the neokoria, see below). 14 Kienast 1996, 147-150; after October 180, Commodus’ name changed from Lucius to Marcus. 15 SNGParis 2041; SNGLevante 1401. 16 Shelton 1979, 103; see above, n. 14. 17 Ziegler 1985, 22, 68-71 and 1993b, 104 was unaware of type 5a and so dated the neokoria late in the 180s and associated it with the cult of Herakles. 18 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221.

CILICIA

was more likely granted earlier than has previously been realized, as mentioned above. As early as ca. 180-182, Commodus made Nikomedia twice neokoros at the behest of one of his courtiers, but the title was soon withdrawn when that courtier fell. It is difficult to tell what influence made Commodus turn toward Tarsos in the same way, and probably only a short time after. The decastyle temple of Commodus at Tarsos may have been found at the site known as Donuktaâ (illus. pl. 2 fig. 11).19 This is east of and probably outside the ancient city; the remains of one of the few other civic buildings yet found at Tarsos, the theater on Gözlü Kule, are about one km. away.20 Though largely robbed out, the remains of cement/ conglomerate foundations can restore the outlines of a temple large enough to have had ten columns along the facade (which is 49.60 m. long) and twentyone along the flank (105.30 m.). Set on a podium 11.57 m. high, it faced northeast, and was approached from the front by a steep staircase; vaulted corridors led from the pronaos to the lower cella. Fragments of white marble architectural decoration show the order as Corinthian, with a column height of ca. 20 m.; a ca. 9 x 13 m. foundation block at the back of a cella ca. 73 m. long may have served as a base for cult statues. Nothing specifically identifies this as an imperial temple, or as that of Commodus rather than the decastyle on coins of Antoninus Pius, but in the excavator’s opinion the drilled style of the architectural ornament argues for a date toward the end rather than the middle of the second century.21 In the late Roman period, a circular altar or monument was added to the center of the stairs in the front, a design which recalls the temple of the deified Julius Caesar in the Forum in Rome; in this case, however, the function of the addition is unknown. A piece of white marble colossal statuary, apparently of Roman workmanship, was found on the site, but consists only of a thumb and forefinger.22 Tarsos continued to celebrate its twice-neokoros status with double-temple coin types, temple-bearing divinities, and illustrations of the crown, stud19 Baydur 1990a. Among Baydur’s yearly (up to 1993) reports, the most important are Baydur 1989 and 1990b. 20 Zoroglu 1995, 39, 68-70. 21 Ziegler and Weiss preferred a Hadrianic date, based on Zeigler’s beliefs concerning the foundation of the koinon: Weiss 1997, 33. 22 Baydur 1992, 415-416; Cuinet 1891, 45-46.

CHAPTER 25

ded with imperial portrait busts, that the head of the koinon of Cilicia wore when he presided over its festivals.23 COIN TYPE 7. Obv: ADRIANH KOMODIANH TAR%O% H MHTROPOLI% Seated city goddess, river god Kydnos at feet. Rev: KOINO% KILIKIA% TAR%OU DI% NEVKOROU Agonothetic crown with eight portrait heads. a) SNGParis 1470 b) Berlin, Prokesch-Osten c) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer. COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT KAI% L %EPT %EUHRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Septimius Severus r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTRO TVN G EPARXEIVN; KOINOI KILIKIA% Two six?-column temples turned toward each other. a) SNGParis 1473 (incorrect) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 172) b) SNGLevante 1022. In spite of the fact that many of these reverse types seem to celebrate the second neokoria, until recently it appeared that after Commodus the title itself had slipped off the city’s coinage. In its place came a series of single-letter abbreviations of longer titles. These could be explicated by comparison with the inscriptions, where the titles were written out in full: INSCRIPTION 1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480 (IGRR 3:880; OGIS 578; Laminger-Pascher 1974, 32 no. 1, after revision by Wilhelm in 1891). Dedication to Severus Alexander. ÉAlejandrianØ [Seouhria]nØ ÉAntvneinianØ [ÑAdrianØ] Tãrsow { pr\th k[a‹ meg¤sth] ka‹ kall¤sth m[htrÒpoliw] t«n g' §parxei«n [Kilik¤aw] ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw proka]yezom°nh ka‹ b' nevkÒr[ow] mÒnh teteimhm°nh dhm[i]ourg¤aiw te ka‹ Kilikiarx¤ [aiw] §parxik«n ka‹ §leuy°rƒ k[oi]noboul¤ƒ ka‹ •t°raiw ple[¤]staiw ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvrea¤w. . . For example, ‘first and greatest and most beautiful’ in Tarsos inscription 1 boiled down to AMK. Less easily interpreted were the letters G and B, which began to appear on the coins just as ‘twice neokoros’ disappeared, in the reign of Septimius Severus. These enigmatic symbols were not abbreviations for names but numbers, ‘three’ and ‘two.’24 Amplified to their full significance, they stand for ‘(set before 23

Rumscheid 2000, 24-31, 133-138, cat. nos. 36-56. Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques (1982) 424 no. 460. See chapter 26, ‘Anazarbos,’ below, for a similar situation. 24



TARSOS

215

the) three (eparchies of Cilicia Isauria and Lykaonia), two (times neokoros),’ formulae which occur on the inscription. Thus the second neokoria was being cited on the coins, though in so abbreviated a form as to be incomprehensible up to recent times. An example of the use of these abbreviations is on a sculpture that gives us a precious glimpse of a Ciliciarch in full dress.25 Found at Pompeiopolis on the coast west of Tarsos, he is dressed in tunic and himation and holds a scroll. His tall modius-crown has a wreath at its base adorned with five imperial busts, all male, and five letters, which left to right read GMAKB; but if one reads from the center and most important letter, alternating left to right thereafter, one gets the familiar AMKGB, ‘first, greatest and most beautiful, set before the three eparchies, twice neokoros.’ From this titulature, the sculpture has been convincingly dated to the time of Tarsos’ second neokoria, with the two Victories and the letters attached to the crown also paralleled on the city’s coins in the mid-third century; a strong stylistic support is offered by a portrait of Trajan Decius (249-251 C.E.) in Rome.26 Anazarbos, which also held some of these titles, is farther off from the findspot; its coins refer less often to the koinon and the Ciliciarch’s crown, which the Tarsians may have tried to keep from them; and only used the titles ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ intermittently at the time to which the statue probably dates.27 Tarsos constantly boasted those titles, and it is important to note how things that should be specific to one city have found their way onto the adornment of a provincial official; with its titles on the Ciliciarch’s crown, Tarsos shows its continued domination of the koinon. Despite Commodus’ eventual downfall and an initial condemnation of his memory, Tarsos retained its second neokoria, probably due to the favor of Septimius Severus, who won a great victory over his rival for empire Pescennius Niger in Cilicia in 194. As a newcomer to the throne, Severus needed the distinction and sense of continuity that descent from an imperial family could convey. Thus he called 25 Recognized by L. Robert 1961, 178; Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat. no. 34. 26 Frey 1982; Weiss 1997, 29. 27 See ‘Anazarbos,’ chapter 26, esp. coin type 7; that city was ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ in and briefly after the reigns of Elagabalus and Trebonianus Gallus. Ziegler 1999, 149-151; pace Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34.

216

part i – section vii. koinon of

himself the brother of Commodus, rehabilitating the memory of an emperor who had been execrated for two years, and installing him among the honorable and deified dead.28 Since no documents exist that show Tarsos going back to a single neokoria in the interval of Commodus’ dishonor, we cannot tell exactly how long it may have lasted, but certainly portraits on Tarsos’ coins show that the city was twice neokoros shortly after the youthful Caracalla was made Augustus in 197, which is also close to the time that Anazarbos received its first neokoria.29 Ziegler has suggested that Tarsos was initially on the side of Pescennius Niger, while its rival Anazarbos gained the advantage by declaring for Septimius Severus early.30 But though Anazarbos indeed garnered some new titles, Severus did not mete out the punishment to Tarsos that was his usual treatment for partisans of Niger. The same author has posited that, as at Laodikeia (q.v.), a member of the Severan family shared cult with Commodus at Tarsos.31 Though this is not impossible, it cannot be proved from Ziegler’s evidence, which was the names of the festivals that Tarsos chose to celebrate. Though the Kommodeios ceased to be mentioned as often on coins, and Severeia appeared, such festivals were common to many cities that were never neokoroi, and cannot be taken to indicate the object of cult in a neokoros city’s temple (see chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in the summary, Part II). Caracalla during his sole rule favored Tarsos as his father had, granting it his name as an epithet, a silver coinage, grain from Egypt, and perhaps some honor to one of its temples, before which he is shown sacrificing on coin type 9.32 Like Commodus, he took the office of demiourgos, but he may have actually been in the city, or at least in the area.33 Tarsian coins of his time (and later, under Gordian III) celebrated the two koinon temples, either held by the city goddess as neokoros (coin types 10 and 12), or as the setting for the meetings of the koinon council at Tarsos (coin type 11).

28

Merkelbach 1979. Lendon 1997, 172 n. 332 misunderstood this as a new grant of neokoria by Septimius Severus. 29 Ziegler 1995a, 179 n. 13; Kienast 1996, 162-165. 30 Ziegler 1985, 79; Ziegler 1999, 143. 31 Ziegler 1985, 22, 28, 75-77; after him S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221. 32 Ziegler 1984 attempted to associate the hero of an ancient novel with Caracalla in particular. 33 Halfmann 1986a, 223-230; Ziegler 1985, 81-84.

CILICIA

COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: [...ANTV]NIANH% %EUHR ADRI TAR%OU A M K G B Togate emperor with phiale and lituus before temple in three-quarter view; below it, male figure raises axe over bull. a) SNGParis 1514 (retouched) (illus. pl. 34 fig. 173). COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOUHRO% ANTVNEINO% P P (Laureate draped cuirassed, a-c; in crown and dress of demiourgos, d) bust of Caracalla r. Rev: ANTVNIANH% %EUHR ADR(IANH%, a-c) TAR%OU A M K G B Seated city goddess holding two ten-column temples.34 a) London 1925.10-1-6 b) Berlin c) Adana 19035 d) SNGLevante 1059. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KAI M AUR %EOUHRO% ANTVNEINO% (%EB, bd) P P Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: ADRI %EOUHRI ANTONEINOU(POL, ad) TAR%OU (MHTRO, bcd) KOINOBOULION G B Goddess (Koinoboulion)36 with cornucopia and phiale between two six-column (four-column, b) temples (in three-quarter view and surmounted by eagles, d). a) SNGParis 1492 b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) BMC 190 d) SNGLevante 1036 e) Boston 61.1063. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M ANT GORDIANO% %EB P P Radiate draped bust of Gordian III r. with spear and shield. Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% A M K G B Seated city goddess holding two temples, one five-column and one four-column37 (both seven-column, g; one eight and one six? h). a) London 1919.8-22-10 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 174) b) Vienna 38659 c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) New York, Newell e) New York, Tarsus 1975 f) SNGLevante 1143 g) SNGLevante 1144 h) SNGRighetti 1684. In the reign of Elagabalus, Anazarbos began to use to use titles like ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ that previously had been peculiar only to Tarsos, though Tarsos underwent no known dishonor during his reign. They only appear on Anazarban coins and inscriptions from the time of 34

Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2. Cox 1941 (=Adana with coin no.). 36 Ziegler 1985, 85 n. 126; a personification of the Meeting of the Provincial Assembly, despite Gaebler 1929. 37 Pick 1904, 10 no. 6.2. See also Butcher 1991, 186 no. 66. 35

CHAPTER 25

Elagabalus to early in the reign of Severus Alexander, however, and it is possible that they were withdrawn by the new emperor, possibly by petition of the Tarsians. Anazarbos then pulled ahead to become three times neokoros in the reign of Trajan Decius. This may have galled Tarsos, but it was not due to any action on that city’s part that we know of, nor does it seem to have been intended to dishonor Tarsos, which kept its full titulature.38 Tarsos continued to declare itself (abbreviatedly) twice neokoros into the early reign of Valerian and Gallienus. Third Neokoria: Valerian and Gallienus Later coins of Valerian, Gallienus, and Gallienus’ wife Salonina, however, changed the enumeration from GB to GG, meaning that Tarsos had finally become three times neokoros. The change may have been due to Valerian himself, as there is good evidence for his presence in the East, and even in Cilicia.39 But though coins of Anazarbos better document his advent, it was Tarsos he honored with a third neokoria. COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AU KAI POU LI OUALERIANO% %E P P Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian r. Rev: TAR%OU MHTROPOLEV% A M K G G; %EUHRIA OLUM; ADRIANIA EKI(XIRIAI, b) AUGOU%(TI, b) AKTI(A, b) Three prize crowns (one labeled AK[TI]A, a) on agonistic table. a) SNGvA 6077 (misread) b) SNGLevante 1185 with corrigendum c) Ziegler Sammlungen 829 d) Ziegler Sammlungen 830 (obscure) e) SNGRighetti 1714 f) Anamur, Ayvagedigi hoard no. 16540 g) Anamur, Ayvadegi hoard 166. Tarsos’ issues concentrated on festivals rather than temples at this time. Type 13 shows three prize crowns for the contests Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia Ekecheiria, and Augustia Aktia.41 The names of the contests are minuscule, and there may be an element of wishful thinking in trying to see them on the coins, especially when they are placed on the prize crowns themselves. 38 Despite Ziegler 1985, 85-87, 104-105, ultimately based on silence. 39 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237; Ziegler 1985, 114-119. 40 Rebuffat 1994, 101. 41 Ziegler 1985, 25, 29-30, 118, especially on the Ekecheiria, usually associated with the Olympic truce.



TARSOS

217

Though all these contests honor emperors, they do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of Tarsos. ‘Neokoros’ first appeared on coins under Hadrian, though the title may have antedated the coins. The second neokoria was for Commodus, whose cult was presumably restored by Septimius Severus. The third neokoria was likely for Valerian, and perhaps for Gallienus as well. Ziegler, however, was struck by the fact that there is a coincidence on some coins of Valerian and Gallienus between number of neokoriai (three) and number of prize crowns (three). This led him to assume that Tarsos definitely became neokoros under Hadrian (Hadrianeia); that its second neokoria for Commodus was subsumed under the name of Septimius Severus, and that the name of the same second “neokorate” festival changed from ‘isolympic worldwide Commodan’ to ‘Severan Olympia’ to ‘isolympic Antoninian’ and back to ‘Severan’ again; and that the third festival was known simply as ‘Augustan’ rather than being named after Valerian or Gallienus (the great majority of citations of Augustia do occur on coins issued under Valerian and Gallienus).42 The first and third are in fact possible, or at least not contradicted by other evidence. The second, however, is both overcomplex and contradicted. To deal with the coincidence of prize crowns and neokoriai: only one of the agonistic coin types issued when Tarsos was twice neokoros shows two crowns; the rest show one.43 True, three-crown types were issued after the grant of the third neokoria, for festivals including the imperial names Severus, Hadrian, and Augustus.44 But in the same period, coins of Anazarbos proclaim that city three times neokoros but show up to five prize crowns; Sardis (q.v.) issues types showing three prize crowns both before and after it is made three times neokoros; and innumerable cities mint coins with types of prize crowns without any of them being neokoros.45 There is no necessary dependence of prize crowns from neokoriai. As to Septimius Severus’ usurpation of the cult established for Commodus, it is known that Tarsos’ ‘isolympic worldwide Kommodeion’ festival was in fact

42

Ziegler 1985, 26-31; Karl 1975, 24-28, 106. One crown: Ziegler 1985, types A4, 5, 7-11, 17-19, 25; two crowns: type A12. 44 Ziegler 1985, types A20-23. 45 Ziegler 1985, types B47, B49; see chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ in Part II. 43

218

part i – section vii. koinon of

celebrated after Commodus’ death; an inscription honoring a boxer from Laodikeia in Syria, dated to 221 C.E., states that he won at this festival as a youth, probably during Caracalla’s sole rule.46 The Severeia festival mentioned on coins of Severus himself, and presumably on those later, could be one of two known at Tarsos: the Severeia Olympia Epinikia, associated with the victory of Severus’ forces over Pescennius Niger’s at the borders of Cilicia, and celebrated at ‘the Quadrigae’ not only by Tarsos, but by Anazarbos and perhaps by Antioch in Syria as well;47 or the Severeios Antoneinianos, a worldwide contest honoring Severus and Caracalla, mentioned on an inscription of Tarsos itself.48 Neither of these associates it necessarily with a neokoria for Tarsos. It would be best to await clearer evidence before affirming a direct rather than a coincidental association of neokoriai and festivals at Tarsos. Ziegler has dated the grant of the third neokoria to precisely 255/256.49 He based his argument partly on Valerian’s passage through the city on his return to Rome, though Halfmann doubted that Valerian made any such return.50 But the same period saw grants of neokoriai to as many as ten cities, few of which could have been personally visited by either Valerian or Gallienus. Coins of Tarsos offer no types or titulature that can be precisely dated. Thus Tarsos’ third neokoria can only be dated with certainty within the range 253-260, before Valerian was captured by the Persians and coinage with his portrait ceased.51 The third neokoria brought Tarsos back into line with its rival Anazarbos, which had been made three times neokoros by 249/250. The only other Cilician neokoros, Aigeai, was still issuing coins with the simple title, and was not on the level of rivalry reached by the other two. Tarsos, however, was soon to suffer: after King Shapur captured Valerian, Persian forces pushed their way deep into the Ro46

IGRR 3:1012. Herodian 3.3.6-3.4.5 gives details of a crucial battle at a mountain pass, though not explicitly the Cilician gates north of Tarsos; Cassius Dio 75.7.1-8 goes directly to Issos. Both are “at the borders of Cilicia,” where the victory took place; see Harper 1970; Mutafian 1988, 241-242; J. Nollé 1998, 330-331. For a possible identification of Quadrigae/Kodrigai as Qatragas near Issos, see Hild and Hellenkemper 1986, 96-97, 108-111; Hild and Hellenkemper 1990, 1:389-390. 48 IGRR 3:881. 49 Ziegler 1985, 116-117. 50 Halfmann 1986a, 236-237. 51 De Blois 1976, 25. 47

CILICIA

man provinces, and Tarsos is named among the great cities that they sacked.52 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. Le Bas-Waddington 1480. Dedication to Severus Alexander. See text above. 2. Waddington 1883, 281 no. 1 (IGRR 3:879). Dedication to Severus Alexander similar to no. 1, but enumeration restored. 3. Dagron and Feissel 1987, 74-75 no. 30. Another dedication to Severus Alexander. This time the city’s imperial names are in descending order by date, and the epithet ‘sacred’ follows ‘twice neokoros.’

COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Antinoös: BMC 158, 159; SNGCop 360; SNGLevante 1004; SNGParis 1415-1422; Berlin (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Twice neokoros: Commodus: Adana 185; BMC 168-170; SNGCop 362; SNGvA 5995-5997; SNGParis 1463-1468; SNGLevante 1019, supplement 1.260; Ziegler Sammlungen 684, 685; SNGPfPS 6.1349, 1350; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, London, Oxford (2 exx.). Non-imperial obverse, time of Commodus: SNGParis 1470; Berlin (2 exx.). Twice (neokoros): Septimius Severus: Adana 187; BMC 172-174; SNGvA 5999, 6000; SNGParis 1474-1478; SNGLevante 10241029, supplement 1.261; Ziegler Sammlungen 687-689; SNGPfPS 6.1351; Berlin, London (2 exx.), New York. Julia Domna: SNGvA 6002-6004; SNGParis 1479-1481. Caracalla: Adana 189-191; BMC 182, 183, 185-191, 193201, 206 (the last misattributed to Elagabalus); SNGCop 367, 370; SNGvA 6006, 6008-6015, 60176019, 6022 (the last misattributed to Elagabalus); SNGParis 1482-1493, 1504, 1506, 1507, 1509-1517, 1520-1523, 1525-1531, 1533-1539, 1541, 1542; SNGLevante 1032-1036, 1043-1044, 1046, 1049, 1050, 1052, 1054, 1057-1066, 1068, 1069, supplement 1.262-264, 266-269; SNGLewis 1738, 1739; Ziegler Sammlungen 690-692, 695-697, 700, 703-717; SNGRighetti 1661-1663; SNGPfPS 6.1353, 1355, 1356,

52 Joannes Zonaras Epitome historiarum ed. M. Pinder (Bonn 1841-1897) vol. 30 594 (12.23); Georgios Synkellos, Ecloga Chronographia, ed. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig 1984) 465-466, anno mundi 5748. The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65.

CHAPTER 25

1358-1360, 1362-1365, 1367, 1368, 1370, 1371; Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), Paris. Plautilla: BMC 202; SNGParis 1545; SNGLevante 1071. Geta Caesar: BMC 203; SNGParis 1546; SNGLevante 1072. Macrinus: Adana 193; BMC 204-205; SNGCop 371; SNGvA 6020; SNGParis 1552-1554; SNGLevante supplement 1.272, 273; Ziegler Sammlungen 719, 720. Elagabalus: BMC 207; SNGCop 366, 369, 373; SNGvA 6023-6025; SNGParis 1557, 1558, 1560-1568; SNGLevante 1078-1080, supplement 1.274; Ziegler Sammlungen 722-733; SNGPfPS 6.1374-1378. Julia Paula: SNGParis 1571, 1572; SNGLevante 1086; Ziegler Sammlungen 736; SNGRighetti 1666. Julia Maesa: SNGPfPS 6.1379. Severus Alexander: Adana 197; SNGvA 6027, 6028; SNGParis 1573-1576, 1579, 1581-1583; SNGLevante 1087, 1088, 1090, supplement 1.275, 276; Ziegler Sammlungen 737; SNGPfPS 6.1380; London, Paris. Julia Mamaea: SNGParis 1584. Maximinus: Adana 198, 199; SNGCop 375-379; SNGvA 6029-6032; SNGParis 1585, 1586, 1588-1606, 16081614; SNGLevante 1092-1104, supplement 1.277, 278; SNGLewis 1747-1749; Ziegler Sammlungen 738-744; SNGRighetti 1667-1672; SNGPfPS 6.1381-1384; Vienna. Maximus Caesar: BMC 237; SNGvA 8716; SNGParis 16161620; SNGLevante 1106-1109; Ziegler Sammlungen 745; SNGRighetti 1673, 1674. Balbinus: SNGCop 380; SNGvA 6033, 6034; SNGParis 16211630; SNGLevante 1110, 1111, supplement 1.280; Ziegler Sammlungen 746; SNGRighetti 1675-1677; SNGPfPS 6.1385. Pupienus: Adana 200; SNGvA 6035; SNGParis 1631-1639; SNGLevante 1112-1116; Ziegler Sammlungen 747-749; SNGRighetti 1678, 1679; SNGPfPS 6.1386-1390. Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III Caesar: SNGLevante 1117; Ziegler Sammlungen 750. Gordian III: Adana 201-206; SNGCop 381-389, 391; SNGvA 6036-6043, 6045-6055; SNGParis 1640-1673, 16751711, 1713-1723; SNGLevante 1118-1147, supplement 1.281-288; SNGLewis 1751, 1752; Ziegler Sammlungen 751-777, 779, 781-787; SNGRighetti 1680-1696; SNGPfPS 6.1391-1411, 1413-1416; Berlin, London, New York (2 exx.), Vienna. Tranquillina: SNGCop 393; SNGvA 6056, 6057; SNGParis 1724-1728; SNGLevante 1148, 1149, supplement 1.289; Ziegler Sammlungen 788-792; SNGRighetti 1697; SNGPfPS 6.1417-1423.



TARSOS

219

Philip:53 Adana 207-209; SNGCop 394, 395; SNGvA 60586060, 6062, 6063; SNGParis 1729-1743; SNGLevante 1150-1154; Ziegler Sammlungen 794-798, 799 (identified as Philip II); SNGRighetti 1698-1701; SNGPfPS 6.1424-1428. Otacilia: Adana 211; SNGCop 396; SNGvA 6064; SNGParis 1744-1753; SNGLevante 1155; Ziegler Sammlungen 800802; SNGRighetti 1702, 1703; SNGPfPS 6.1429-1433. Trajan Decius: Adana 213, 216; SNGCop 397-402; SNGvA 6065, 6066; SNGParis 1754-1773; SNGLevante 11561165, supplement 1.290, 292; SNGLewis 1753; Ziegler Sammlungen 803-811, 813; SNGRighetti 1704, 1705; SNGPfPS 6.1434, 1435, 1437-1442, 1444, 1445. Etruscilla: SNGCop 403; SNGvA 6067-6071; SNGParis 1774-1780; SNGLevante 1166-1172, supplement 1.293; Ziegler Sammlungen 814, 815; SNGPfPS 6.14471456; Ireland 2000, no. 1747. Herennius Etruscus: SNGParis 1781. Hostilian: SNGParis 1782, 1783. Trebonianus Gallus: SNGCop 404, 405; SNGvA 6072-6075; SNGParis 1784-1792; SNGLevante 1173-1177, supplement 1.294; Ziegler Sammlungen 816, 817; SNGRighetti 1707, 1708; SNGPfPS 6.1457. Volusian: SNGParis 1794 (misidentified), 1795, 1796; SNGLevante 1178. Valerian: SNGCop 406; SNGvA 6076; SNGParis 1797-1813; SNGLevante 1179-1184; SNGLewis 1754; Ziegler Sammlungen 820-828; SNGRighetti 1709-1713; SNGPfPS 6.1459-1465; Ireland 2000, no. 1748. Gallienus: SNGCop 409; SNGParis 1826, 1827; SNGLevante 1194; SNGPfPS 6.1466-1470. Three (times neokoros): Valerian: Adana 217; SNGCop 407, 408; SNGvA 6077, 6078; SNGParis 1814-1825; SNGLevante 1185-1187, 1190-1193; Ziegler Sammlungen 829-832; SNGRighetti 1714-1716; SNGPfPS 6.1471-1474; Berlin. Gallienus: SNGCop 410; SNGvA 6079, 6080; SNGParis 1828-1832; SNGLevante 1195, 1197, supplement 1.295; Ziegler Sammlungen 833, 834; SNGPfPS 6.1475, 1476. Salonina: Adana 218; SNGCop 411; SNGvA 6082; SNGParis 1833-1837; SNGLevante 1198-1200; Ziegler Sammlungen 835, 836; SNGPfPS 6.1477. 53 Similarity in portrait and titulature make distinguishing between Philip and his son of the same name as Augustus difficult, especially when the coins are worn. Kienast 1996, 198200; see also Leypold 1989, 89-90 nos. 14-15.

220

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

Chapter 26. Anazarbos: Koinon of Cilicia Anazarbos was a prosperous city in an area of eastern Cilicia that Pompey allotted to client kings; in 19 B.C.E. its ruler, Tarkondimotos II, named it ‘Kaisareia at Anazarbos’ in honor of Augustus, and the city began a new era.1 Its part of Level Cilicia came under direct Roman control in 17 C.E., the whole was joined with Cilicia Tracheia by Vespasian around 72 C.E., and that Cilician province was then joined with Isauria and Lycaonia to form the ‘three eparchies’ in the time of Hadrian or Antoninus Pius. The seat of the governor and of the Cilician koinon was Tarsos (q.v.), a city with which Anazarbos would spar for primacy in the province. First Neokoria: Septimius Severus Anazarbos began to proclaim itself neokoros in the reign of Septimius Severus.2 The title, as in other cases, may have been the result of the emperor’s presence in the East, perhaps in the aftermath of his campaign against Pescennius Niger, or more likely in his subsequent wars against the Parthians. Several scholars have used an anecdote about a poet, Oppian, to prove that Anazarbos was a stop on Severus’ travels.3 But the biography from which the anecdote comes is contradicted by other sources. ‘Vita A’ of Oppian records that Septimius Severus visited Anazarbos, home of the poet and his father Agesilaos: though it was Agesilaos’ duty as a public figure in his city to greet the emperor, as a philosopher he refrained, so Severus banished him to an island.4 Other biographies, including the Suda, locate the poet’s hometown in Korykos in Cilicia

rather than Anazarbos, though that claim is not dependable, as it derives from a reference within the poem itself.5 But more importantly, internal evidence indicates that the only one of the poems ascribed to Oppian that is datable to the Severan period, On Hunting, was not written by a Cilician at all, but by a Syrian from Apamea, who dedicated it to Caracalla. Though the author of the other, On Fishing, was indeed Cilician, and may even have been from Anazarbos, references in the poem to an emperor Antoninus and his mature son (likely Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, as Eusebius set this Oppian’s visit to Rome in 172 C.E.) should date the Cilician poet’s work well before the advent of Septimius Severus. If that emperor exiled anyone’s father, it was that of the later Oppian, so from Apamea, not Anazarbos.6 Where the literary evidence is illusory, the coins offer a more secure contemporary document for what is likely to be the grant of the neokoria, and is at the very least the first known appearance of the title at Anazarbos: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: [GETA]% K; AU K M ANTVNINO%; AU K L %E %EOUHRO% Togate figures of Geta, Septimius Severus, and Caracalla seated on curule chairs l. Rev: %EU [ANTV] KAI%AR ANA[ZARBV] PRO N[EV]KOROU; ALUTARXIA%; ET ZI% (year 217 = 198/199 C.E.) Festival crown with nine busts. a) London 1962.11-15-27 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 175) b) Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (obscure).8 The obverse shows Septimius Severus and his two sons seated in Roman magisterial chairs, while the

1

Sartre 1995, 133, 135, 168-169, 216; Ziegler 1993b, 2224, 68; Mutafian 1988, 195-211. On the royal family, see Dagron and Feissel 1987, 67-71. 2 S. Price 1984b, 272. 3 As does Ziegler 1985, 73-79; Gascó 1992, 235-239; Lehnen 1997, 240; see Halfmann 1986a, 216-223. 4 Westermann 1845, 63-68. On the duty of citizens, especially those of high rank, to attend at imperial visits, see Lehnen 1997, 231-243, 259-262.

5 A. Mair, Oppian Colluthus and Tryphiodorus (Cambridge MA 1928) xiii-xxiii. 6 Hamblenne 1968. 7 Woodward 1963, 7 no. 2. Also see Ziegler 1985, 38 type B21; Ziegler 1993b, no. 281. 8 Ziegler 1988a (=Ziegler Sammlungen). Ziegler’s interpretation of the titulature (1993b, 262 no. 281; 1985, 33 type B8) has been questioned by J. Nollé and Zellner 1995.

chapter reverse dates the coin to a time when Severus and his family were in the East for his second campaign against the Parthians, when Caracalla had recently been declared Augustus and Geta Caesar.9 The legend refers to the position of alytarch, or senior steward, at a celebration of an Olympic festival, which the emperor may have held honorifically or even in person.10 This is likely the Severeia Olympia Epinikia at Quadrigae, also celebrated by Tarsos, perhaps as the koinon festival of Cilicia.11 The reverse’s pictorial type is the crown, studded with nine portrait busts, generally used by an agonothetes when presiding at the festival he gave, and here presumably worn by the alytarch. A similar crown, but with the letters of Anazarbos’ titles interspersed among the busts, is labeled ‘of the Ciliciarchy’ on later coins of Severus (below