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, coin type 7). Worn by the head of the koinon when presiding over its festival, such a crown, labeled “common (koinos) of Cilicia,” and therefore provincial, had previously been represented on Tarsos’ coins after Commodus made that city twice neokoros (Tarsos, coin type 7). Here, Anazarbos may have put the crown on its coins as a way of alluding to its celebration of the (new?) festival and its title neokoros, i.e. its claim to honors previously unique to Tarsos.12 It should be noted, however, that Tarsos also put such a crown on its coins early in the reign of Septimius Severus, around the time of Anazarbos’ coin type 1 and its alytarch’s crown. Coupled with an obverse of the young Caracalla, Tarsos’ coin legend around its crown is no longer ‘koinos of Cilicia’ but ‘koinos of the three eparchies,’ not just Cilicia but Isauria and Lycaonia as well.13 Tarsos was apparently keeping one step ahead of Anazarbos. It is possible that the neokoria was celebrated on this issue because the honor had just been granted by Severus, though there are earlier references to imperial cult at Anazarbos.14 One inscription addressed Domitian as ‘Dionysos Kallikarpos’ and recorded a priest of the god Titus Caesar Augustus. The dedicators, both priests of the goddess Rome, also promised an (unspecified) temple to the city, probably one for the imperial cult but certainly

26

– anazarbos

221

municipal rather than provincial. Also, Anazarbos celebrated a sacred Hadrianeia festival, though such festivals were not invariably of provincial status nor due to neokoriai; most of the evidence for the Hadrianeia dates from the third century.15 A large structure similar to the ‘common (temple) of Cilicia’ that was shown on coins of Tarsos (types 2-4) had appeared on Anazarbos’ coins as early as 160/161 C.E., well before Anazarbos proclaimed itself neokoros: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K T AIL ADR ANTVNINO% %EB EU P P Laureate bust of Antoninus Pius r. Rev: KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ANAZARBV ETOU YOR (year 179 = 160/161 C.E.) Ten-column temple, star or sun in its pediment. a) London 1970-9-9-206 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 176). The temple appears on many coins with obverses of Antoninus Pius and his family.16 The Anazarban temple’s star/sun does not specify the object of cult; later, under Commodus, its image changes slightly, with only a dot in the pediment but more emphasis on flowery akroteria and antefixes.17 The Tarsian coins, on the other hand, show a ten-column temple labeled ‘common,’ i.e. provincial, with either a wreath or an eagle in its pediment; and later, under Commodus, two such temples. Though the similarity of Anazarbos coin type 2 to types 2-4 of Tarsos makes it just possible that both represent the same koinon temple, the two cities’ rivalry makes it more likely that Anazarbos showed its own decastyle temple on its coins, and all we can say about that temple is that its scale was comparable with that of the provincial temple(s) at Tarsos. The Anazarban coins do not mention the koinon, so whether Anazarbos had a provincial cult temple (or even a neokoria) in the Antonine period cannot be shown from these coin types. It is more likely that they reflect Anazarbos’ envy of Tarsos’ provincial temple(s). Though the city of Anazarbos is largely unexcavated, remains that would suit a monumental Corinthian temple, its columns 1.25 m. in diameter at the base of the shaft and perhaps 12 m. high, were

9

Ziegler 1995a. Rumscheid 2000, 25-26, 114 no. 3; Ziegler 1985, 77-78; Karl 1975, 98. 11 See chapter 25, “Tarsos,” above. 12 Ziegler 1985, 59-60. 13 Rumscheid 2000, 133 cat. nos. 36, 38. 14 S. Price 1984b, 170-171; Ziegler 1985, 143-146. 10

15

Ziegler 1985, 32-33, 67-68. Ziegler 1993b, nos. 147 (Antoninus Pius), 148-149, 197200 (Marcus Aurelius), 150, 201-203 (Lucius Verus), 151 (Faustina the younger), 181-196 (Aurelius and Verus). 17 Ziegler 1993b, nos. 261-272, year 202 = 183/184 C.E. 16

222

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

found reused in a wall in the northern part of the city.18 Foundations for nine columns running north/ south found nearby could represent one short side of a decastyle temple facing east or west. This may be the temple of the coins, but it cannot be proved that its remains are those of a temple to the imperial cult. Worn blocks from the frieze only showed garlands adorned with female heads and held by erotes, an iconography as yet unprecedented in other temples that conferred neokoria. An image more likely to be that of the temple that made Anazarbos neokoros, if only due to the timing of its first appearance close to that of the neokoria, is the following: COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EUHRO% PERT %EB Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r. Rev: %EUH ANTV[. . .]N ANAZARBEVN NEOKORON; ET HI% (year 218 = 199/200 C.E.) Fourcolumn Ionic temple, star in its pediment. a) SNGLevante supplement 327.19 Reference to a cult of Septimius Severus himself occurs on Anazarbos’ later coinage: a pair of elephants draws a small temple on a cart, and above are the words ‘of the god Severus.’ COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: YEOU %EUHROU; A M K; ANAZARBOU Two elephants draw a four-column temple on a cart r. (l., b) a) SNGLevante 142220 b) SNGLevante 1421.21 A similar scene was used on coins of Elagabalus’ mother Julia Maesa and later for his successor Severus Alexander.22 It probably represents the procession by which Severus’ statue was brought into a festival in honor of his temple, an image of which is on the cart.23 So though the neokoria is not mentioned on these coins, it is likely that they refer to a festival associated with the first neokoria.

18

Gough 1952, 106-108. Ziegler 1993b, no. 288 shows more clearly what appears to be a star (not an eagle as in SNGLevante) in the pediment. Another coin that shows a four-column temple, Ziegler 1993b, no. 280, is dated a year earlier, but judging from the photograph, may have been reworked. For Ziegler’s latest view on this coin, Ziegler 1999, 147. 20 Ziegler 1993b, no. 446. 21 Ibid., no. 447. 22 Ibid., 116, nos. 448, 449, 635. 23 On imperial images at festivals, Roueché 1993, 145-147. 19

We know the Cilician koinon to have been a fairly contentious place, with Tarsos attempting to hold its primacy against all comers. That city’s coins had boasted a second neokoria and two provincial temples since Commodus’ reign. If Anazarbos had also been neokoros at that time, would it not have advertized that fact? It seems likely, then, that Septimius Severus granted Anazarbos the title of neokoros for a newly-built temple to his cult. One must wonder, however, to what extent the neokoria of Anazarbos equaled the status of Tarsos’, especially with respect to the koinon. Anazarbos’ coins rarely refer to the koinon, only occasionally to its meetings and the Ciliciarch’s crown (type 7); its temples are never labeled ‘common’ or ‘of Cilicia.’ Tarsos’ coins, on the other hand, dwell on those themes often.24 It is likely that Tarsos retained enough control in the koinon so that it remained the organization’s focus. It is possible that Anazarbos’ temple(s) and Ciliciarchs stood in second place to those of Tarsos. Second Neokoria: Son(s) of Septimius Severus Both the last document that calls Anazarbos simply neokoros, and perhaps the first to call the city twice neokoros, include portraits of Plautilla, Caracalla’s short-lived wife: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: [F]OU PLAUTILLA %E Draped bust of Plautilla r. Rev: ANAZARBEVN NEVKO(RVN, a-c) ET AK% (year 221 = 202/203 C.E.) Prize crown (on it, OLUMPIA, d). a) Berlin, Fox b) SNGLevante 1411 c) Ziegler Sammlungen 1030 d) SNGPfPS 6.156. If it has been correctly interpreted, the following coin may be the first document of Anazarbos’ second neokoria, though it was issued in same year as coin type 5: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: AUT K M AU ANT[VNEIN]O% %E [. . .]LA [. . .?] Laureate draped bust of Caracalla r., draped veiled bust of Plautilla l. Rev: ANAZ[. . .] NEVKORVN E AK% Two temples, both four-column. a) SNGLevante supplement 328.

24

Ziegler 1985, 58-66; idem 1993b, 113-114; idem 1999, 149-151.

chapter There are several oddities about this unique coin: the year is given, as well as the full title ‘neokoros’ proper to the period before the second neokoria was granted, but the image shows two temples rather than one. In fact, both obverse and reverse images very closely resemble those of coin type 9 (below) of Elagabalus and Julia Paula. Ziegler took the type as neokoros Anazarbos’ challenge to twice-neokoros Tarsos.25 But within two years, Anazarbos was to become twice neokoros officially, and it seems odd that the city should issue this coin type prematurely, while its claim to the title, if any, was still on shaky ground. As the coin is very worn, it is even possible that the enumeration for ‘twice’ has worn away. In any case, it is certain that by 204/205 Anazarbos had became twice neokoros, probably for the cult of Septimius Severus’ son(s). The coin types of this period, just shortly after type 7, might not seem to celebrate the neokoria, but they do, in a drastically abbreviated way: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AUT K L %EP %EOUHRO% PERT Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus r. Rev: %EUHRIANH% ANAZARBOU MHTROPOLEV%; KILIKARXIA%; ET GK% (year 223 = 204/205 C.E.) Festival crown of Ciliciarch with thirteen heads and letters B G. a) SNGParis 2046 b) Boston.26 As with Tarsos from Septimius Severus on, here the letters G and B are in fact numbers, signifying that Anazarbos was ‘(set before the) three (eparchies of Cilicia, Isauria, and Lykaonia)’ and ‘two (times neokoros).’27 These titles are spelled out more fully in inscription 1, a statue base of Caracalla: INSCRIPTION 1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough 1952, 85-150 no. 2; SEG 12:514). Set up by hieraphoroi. t}w [kt]htik}w ÉAnaza[rbhn]}w mhtropÒlevw [t]«n tri«n §parxei«n Kilik¤aw [ÉI]saur¤aw Lukaon¤aw prokayezom°nhw [k]a‹ d‹w nevkÒrou... Dated within Caracalla’s tenth tribunician power (December 10, 206–December 10, 207), the inscription makes the not infrequent mistake of naming him

26

– anazarbos

pontifex maximus, a title he would only assume after his father’s death in 211.28 These abbreviations now show that Anazarbos was twice neokoros from at least 204/205 (or perhaps even late in 202/203) to 249/250.29 If the first neokoria was for the cult of Septimius Severus, the second was probably for both his sons. Again, Perinthos is a precedent, and though the names of festivals cannot be held as deterministic, Ziegler detected on Anazarban coins one letter’s worth of evidence for a festival called Philadelpheia, after the ‘brotherly love’ between Caracalla and Geta.30 Since Anazarbos retained its second neokoria after Geta’s death, presumably the temple was rededicated solely to Caracalla at that time. If Caracalla had later avoided or failed to honor Anazarbos, this cult that he had shared with the brother he later killed could have been the reason why.31 But in fact the city may have been honored late in his reign with Roman triumphal monuments for a Parthian victory, which continued to be celebrated under his successors.32 Scholars have dwelt on the fact that in the third century Anazarbos seems to imitate its more eminent neighbor Tarsos with such titles as ‘metropolis,’ ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ and ‘set before the three eparchies Cilicia, Lycaonia, and Isauria.’33 But Anazarbos was careful not to claim titles that the city had no right to or could not defend, and this restraint is shown in its treatment of the neokoria on its coins. Tarsos had been neokoros since at least the reign of Hadrian, and was already twice neokoros when Anazarbos began to proclaim itself simply neokoros. If Anazarbos had merely been parroting Tarsos’ titulature it would have called itself twice neokoros on coins even before 204/205. There was surely a rivalry for titles between the two cities, but that meant that each would aim to outdo the other, not that one would copy the other’s titles and lay itself open to accusations of falsehood. Septimius Severus may have granted Anazarbos the title neokoros in 198/199, and certainly allowed the city another temple and title for the cult of one 28

Mastino 1981, 42 n. 107, 104. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:221 mistakenly attributed Anazarbos’ second neokoria to Elagabalus, confusing it with contests celebrated in that emperor’s honor; he was followed in the error by Lendon 1997, 172. 30 Ziegler 1985, 34-35; idem 1993b, no. 303. 31 Ziegler 1993b, 114 n. 290. 32 Sayar 2000, 24 n. 73. 33 Gough 1952; Ziegler 1999. Also see Ziegler 1977, 3638 on the neokoria. 29

25

Ziegler 1993b, 112-113 no. 300. Rumscheid 2000, 115 no. 4; Ziegler 1993b, no. 306; Vermeule 1983, 21 pl. 36. 27 Weiss 1979; J. and L. Robert, Revue des études grecques (1982) 424 no. 460. 26

223

224

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

or more likely both of his sons about seven years afterwards. If so, he seems to have done the same thing in Perinthos (q.v.). But there is no documented reason why Septimius Severus should have favored Anazarbos in particular. Ziegler has assumed that it was due to Anazarbos having supported Severus in his contest for the empire against Pescennius Niger.34 This was indeed true of Perinthos, but Severus’ tendency at that time was to exalt his allied city while abasing its rival, as Byzantion was made tributary to Perinthos. In this case, though Anazarbos was indeed exalted, Tarsos is not known to have been abased, and retained its full titulature even in Severus’ early years as emperor. It may simply be that Anazarbos became important during Severus’ Parthian wars, when it was a crucial hub on the road system.35 Bilingual gravestones show that the city was probably the winter quarters for the imperial cavalry guard, the equites singulares Augusti, in the early third century.36 Whatever the origin or intention, the effect of Septimius Severus’ grant(s) was to bring Anazarbos closer to Tarsos’ level in the provincial hierarchy. After Tarsos issued coins that showed its city goddesses enthroned among and crowned by the goddesses of the three eparchies, Anazarbos issued a coin showing its city goddess in the same position; this was in just the same year that it began to proclaim itself twice neokoros, and the letters loom large below the goddess Anazarbos herself.37 Anazarbos was one of the few neokoroi to issue coins (and inscription 2, below) with the title during the reign of Macrinus.38 In his reign and afterward, the reverse type of the two temples for which Anazarbos was neokoros recurs fairly frequently. COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AUT K M OP %EU MAKREINO% %EB Laureate head of Macrinus r. Rev: (ANAZ, ac) END(OJ, bc) MHT RVM TROP KEK (ANAZ, b) G B (ET EL%, a) Two temples, one four-column, the other eight-column.39 a) SNGLevante 1416 b) London 1970.9-9-208 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 177) c) SNGPfPS 6.158. COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AUT K M A ANTVNINO% %E I PAULA %E Laureate draped bust of Ela34 35 36 37 38 39

Ziegler 1985, 79; idem 1993b, 23, 127; idem 1995a, 179. Ziegler 1995a, 176-179. Sayar 1991. J. Nollé and Zellner 1995, 42-43. On the titulature, Ziegler 1993b, 114-115. Ibid., nos. 324, 325.

gabalus r, draped veiled bust of Julia Paula l. Rev: ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL; A M K; G B Two temples, one six-column, the other four-column.40 a) SNGLevante supplement 336 b) SNGPfPS 6.168. COIN TYPE 10. Obv: IOULIA MAI%A %EB Diademed draped bust of Julia Maesa r. Rev: ANAZARBOU MHTROPOL G B Two temples, one four-column, the other six-column.41 a) SNGLevante supplement 339. COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT K M A % ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZAR ENDOJ MHTROPO ET HM% (year 248 = 229/230); B G Two four-column temples turned toward one another.42 a) SNGFitzw 5227 b) SNGLevante 1461. Types 8, 9 and 10 are unusual in showing the two temples together but dissimilar, unlike types 6 and 11 which assimilate them in the way that is usual elsewhere. The former are therefore valuable in indicating that one of the temples was on a smaller scale than the other. That one is never shown with more than four columns hints back at coin type 3, possibly a temple for Septimius Severus; the larger temple could therefore be that for his son(s), and where not assimilated to the first is shown with a maximum of eight columns (type 8). Two temples are also shown on coins issued under Elagabalus whose reverse types give a view of the acropolis of Anazarbos. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: ANAZARBO% MHTROPOLI%; A M K Two temples in three-quarter view, B G between them, on a rocky hill with stairs.43 a) SNGLevante 1419. These may or may not be the temples for which the city was neokoros, but they appear dissimilar to the representations of the Anazarban acropolis presided over by the bust of Zeus on coins of Claudius and of Trajan.44 Ziegler would conflate the two, positing that at least one older temple (that of Zeus, and perhaps that of the goddess Rome as well) on the 40

Ibid., Ibid., 42 Ibid., 43 Ibid., Maesa. 44 Ibid., 41

no. no. no. no.

378. 376. 541, 542. 445; also no. 451, same reverse die, for Julia

nos. 37-43, 97.

chapter hill was counted toward the city’s neokoriai because the imperial cult was moved into an extant temple of a god.45 This is possible, not proven; the two temples that made Anazarbos neokoros may have stood on the acropolis, but if so, the coins only indicate that they were there by the time of Elagabalus. Other coins of Elagabalus show a single four-column temple in three-quarter view with steps, but though the steps are reminiscent of those leading up to the acropolis, the building’s location and cult remain unspecified.46 Though the Anazarban hill has been much built upon, it may possibly have held more than two shrines; none of the representations of it are precise enough to identify the objects of cult within the temples. Elagabalus may have passed through this area of Cilicia on his way to Rome in 218, and though Anazarbos had received honors and titles from Macrinus, it nonetheless celebrated a festival in honor of his defeat at the new emperor’s hands.47 Afterwards Elagabalus held the office of demiourgos, and is shown in that costume on Anazarban coins of 221/222 C.E., though he was in Rome at the time.48 The procession in honor of his ‘grandfather’ Septimius Severus, commemorated on coins of his reign, has already been noted (coin type 4). A recently published inscription documents the city’s titles under Elagabalus: INSCRIPTION 3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone, from Akdam Höyük. Septimian}w Seouhrian}w ÉAntvneinian}w Kaisare¤aw t}w prÚw t“ ÉAnazãrbƒ t}w §ndÒjou mhtropÒlevw t«n tri«n §parxei«n Kilik¤aw ÉIsaur¤aw Lukaon¤aw prokayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒr[ou] ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ka‹ koinoboul¤ƒ Sometime after this inscription, Elagabalus may have allowed Anazarbos to call itself ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful,’ just as its neighbor and rival Tarsos did at that time.49 The abbreviated expression for these titles (A M K) on coins with his portrait issued at Anazarbos can be explicated by reference to in45

Ziegler 1985, 89 n. 150. Ziegler 1993b, nos. 360, 424; a similar depiction, without steps, under Severus Alexander, no. 625. 47 Ibid., 115-117. 48 Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; Ziegler 1993b, 118-119; SNGParis 2072, 2073. 49 Ziegler 1985, 36, 87-89, though adventus types cannot prove the emperor’s visit to Anazarbos in particular. 46

26

– anazarbos

225

scriptions carved shortly after his reign, under his successor Severus Alexander:50 INSCRIPTION 4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough 1952, no. 25; SEG 12:517). Milestone from between Anazarbos and Tozlu, dedicated to Severus Alexander and Julia Mamaea (names erased). ÉAnazãrbou t}w a' k(all¤sthw) [m(eg¤sthw) ka‹ §ndÒ]jou mhtropÒlevw t«n g' §p[ar]xei«n prokayezom°nhw ka‹ d‹[w] nevkÒrou ka‹ ÑRvmaÛko›w tropa¤oiw kekosmhm°nhw, teteimhm°nhw ple¤staiw ka‹ meg¤staiw ka‹ §jair°toiw dvrea›w ka‹ §leuy°rƒ koinoboul¤ƒ This inscription must date early in the reign of Severus Alexander, for on coins of 229/230 and thereafter the titles ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful’ do not appear; advantage: Tarsos.51 It is admittedly an argument from silence, but there are many Anazarban coins to consult, and the formula A M K would not have been difficult to fit onto them; it was nearly omnipresent on Tarsian coins of the time. Thus it is possible that these titles, probably allowed by Elagabalus, were removed much as the neokoriai granted by Elagabalus were, and at around the same time, by the new emperor (and likely due to Tarsos’ protests). Later, at the outbreak of Severus Alexander’s Parthian War, Anazarbos issued coins that showed the emperor sacrificing before a temple: COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT KA MA AU %EOU ALEJANDRO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: ANAZARBOU MHTROPOLEV% ET YM%; G B (year 249 = 230/231). Radiate cuirassed emperor, bull at feet, holds phiale over altar before temple in three-quarter view; from its apex, a Victory crowns him.52 a) SNGLevante supplement 344. Though Severus Alexander traveled from Rome to Antioch in 231, the location of the sacrifice shown on the coin is not specified, and cannot be taken to mean that the emperor visited Anazarbos.53 In any case, the coin was issued so early in the campaign that it may only represent the sacrifices Severus Alexander made upon leaving Rome (Herodian 6.4.1-3). 50 51 52 53

L. Robert 1977b, 37 n. 177. Ziegler 1993b, 119-121. Ziegler 1993b, no. 628a; no. 628 is similar. Halfmann 1986a, 231-232.

226

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

During the reign of Severus Alexander and shortly afterward, a single, frontal temple became a popular reverse type, perhaps even the sign of a denomination, on coins of Anazarbos.54 The depictions are generally hasty, often show a dot, rarely a star or the letters G B, in the pediment, and sometimes elaborate the acroteria at the expense of the pediment itself. The number of columns on these temple reverses varies greatly: four,55 five,56 seven,57 eight,58 nine,59 ten,60 and eleven.61 They may represent the ten-column temple that had been appearing on Anazarban coins since Antoninus Pius (type 2 above), but they are anything but specific. Under Philip, even the enumeration of the neokoria slips off the coins of Anazarbos—the only title on the city’s coins is that of metropolis, occasionally with mention that the city boasted a free koinoboulion.62 Third Neokoria: Trajan Decius But soon Anazarbos became the first city in Cilicia to be three times neokoros, outpacing its rival Tarsos by a few years. The first coins known to claim this honor are dated to 249/250 C.E. One type shows the three temples and spells the title out in full: COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT K KUI TRAIAN DEKIO% %E Radiate cuirassed bust of Trajan Decius r. Rev: ANAZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO G; KAI G NEVKOROU; ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/ 250 C.E.). Three temples, the topmost sevencolumn, the lower two four-column with masonry sides in three-quarter view, on high podia.63 a) SNGLevante supplement 354. 54

Ziegler 1993b, 34. Ibid., no. 580: Severus Alexander. 56 Ibid., no. 557: Julia Mamaea. 57 Ibid., nos. 475, 484, 485, 556-568, 575, 576: Severus Alexander; nos. 510, 561, 562, 565: Julia Mamaea; no. 644: Maximus Caesar. 58 Ibid., nos. 569-571, 577, 581: Severus Alexander; nos. 552-555, 558-560: Julia Mamaea. 59 Ibid., nos. 572-574, 578, 579, 582: Severus Alexander; nos. 511, 517, 551, 556, 563: Julia Mamaea. 60 Ibid., no. 496: Severus Alexander; nos. 512-514, 564: Julia Mamaea; no. 645: Maximus Caesar. 61 Ibid., no. 515: Julia Mamaea. 62 Ibid., 329-332, nos. 723-741; for koinoboulion types under Caracalla, nos. 308-322; under Trebonianus Gallus nos. 789-790 (specified as free, as it also had been on inscription 4, early in Severus Alexander’s reign). 63 Ibid., no. 753; no. 752 also shows three temples. 55

Another type’s obverse echoes that of coin type 1, the proclamation of the first neokoria, in showing the reigning emperor and his two sons on curule chairs:64 COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AUT KA TRAI DEKKIO%; ETR ME% DEKION; ME KUINTO% Togate figures of Herennius Etruscus, Trajan Decius, and Hostilian seated on curule chairs. Rev: ANAZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROPO G G ET YJ% (year 269 = 250/251 C.E.). City goddess with axe before bull.65 a) SNGParis 2122 b) SNGLevante 1497 c) SNGLevante 1498. Other types make no obvious fuss over the new neokoria, but only change the enumeration of the title from ‘two’ to ‘three.’ Instead, the coins issued in the year 268, and especially those of 269 (249– 251) concentrate on the city’s festivals. COIN TYPE 16. Obv: AUT K KUI TRA DEKKIO% %EB Radiate head of Trajan Decius r. Rev: ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/ 250); OIKOUMENIKO%; G G Prize crown labeled DEKIO%.66 a) SNGLevante 1495 b) SNGPfPS 6.239 c) SNGPfPS 6.240 COIN TYPE 17. Obv: ME%%ION KOUINTON KAI%ARA Cuirassed bust of Hostilian Caesar r. Rev: ANAZ ENDOJ ET HJ% (year 268 = 249/ 250); OIKOUMENIKO%; G G Prize crown labeled DEKIO%.67 a) SNGLevante 1502 b) Ziegler Sammlungen 1133 c) SNGParis 2125 d) SNGPfPS 6.241 e) SNGPfPS 6.242. COIN TYPE 18. Obv: ERENNIAN ETROU%KILLAN %EB Diademed draped bust of Herennia Etruscilla, crescent at shoulders. Rev: ANAZARBOU ENDOJ MHTROP; G G; ET YJ% (year 269 = 250/251). Seated city goddess of Anazarbos, the river god Pyramos at her feet, saluted with two wreaths and a prize crown by three other city goddesses (the three eparchies).68 a) SNGCop 53. 64 Also note SNGParis 2164 and SNGPfPS 6.297, which use a similar type as a reverse for a coin of Valerian (with Gallienus). 65 Ziegler 1993b, no. 773. 66 Ibid., no. 744. 67 Ibid., no. 745. 68 Ibid., no. 770.

chapter It is likely that a festival in honor of the neokoria for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos, may be referred to on the prize crown of the earlier coin types 16 and 17, issued for Decius and his younger son Hostilian.69 Other types dated 249-251 C.E. show five prize crowns in total, and thus go beyond mere celebration of the new Decian festival.70 Type 18 illustrates what Anazarbos perceived as its position in the province, enthroned before the three eparchies. Anazarbos’ neokoria, its festival, and thus its triumph over Tarsos probably were rooted either in the city’s strategic importance or support for Trajan Decius during a time of turbulence in the East.71 But of the specifics we know little or nothing. In June 251, however, Trajan Decius was killed, and though he was initially deified, his name was later erased from the monuments, probably under his successor Trebonianus Gallus.72 Yet Anazarbos’ third neokoria survived the condemnation of Decius’ memory; indeed, under Trebonianus Gallus Anazarbos boasted yet another festival, as the coins show six prize crowns, and once again called itself ‘first, greatest, and most beautiful.’73 The reason for the continuation of the third neokoria is unknown, and Ziegler’s guess that it was for the cult of Dionysos rather than that of the emperors has little to stand behind it.74 But by this time it may be that neokoros (and any temple that could be built for it in this time of trouble) was considered just one more title rather than being so closely associated with the emperor who granted it. For example, Thessalonike in Macedonia (q.v.) was given three additional neokoriai by Trajan Decius, but did not lose them all after his death, retaining one and falling into line with its provincial rival, Beroia, at two neokoriai each. In a similar way Anazarbos and Tarsos still jousted for position: almost as a reply to Anazarbos’ boast on 69

BMC (Cilicia) p. cv; Karl 1975, 34; Ziegler 1993b, 124. Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751, 771, 772. 71 Ziegler 1985, 99-108 (and after him S. Mitchell 1993, 1:224; Lendon 1997, 172), though an eastern journey for Decius is based solely on a misunderstood coin of Caesarea Maritima; see Halfmann 1986a, 235-236. 72 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Ziegler 1994, 188-197; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265; Ziegler 1988b, 391-392. The condemnation was documented but not understood by Varner 1993, 487-488. 73 Ziegler 1985, 41, 50, 108-113 and idem 1993b, 125, again connecting the honor with the emperor(s)’ “projected” Eastern journey, without showing why Anazarbos specifically merited imperial attention. 74 Ziegler 1985, 49; idem 1993b, 124-125. 70

26

– anazarbos

227

type 18, Tarsos issued coins under Trebonianus Gallus that showed its own city goddess enthroned and crowned by the three eparchies as Anazarbos’ had been; the difference is that for Tarsos, one of the crowns is that of the Ciliciarch.75 Though both cities were metropoleis and Anazarbos had one neokoria more, Tarsos was probably still claiming primacy as seat of the leader of the koinon. The abbreviation for ‘three times neokoros’ continued to appear on Anazarbos’ coinage down to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, when the evidence comes to an end; the last year for which coinage was issued was 272 (253/254 C.E.). One final question is whether Anazarbos’ attainment of three neokoriai (as well as its frequent emissions of coinage) was due to the increased presence of emperors and their armies in the area, as Ziegler wished to interpret it.76 The answer is partially yes, as strategic places in the Empire were more likely to receive rewards, such as titles, to encourage their loyalty. But Ziegler’s argument can become circular: Anazarbos was rewarded, therefore Anazarbos must have been strategic (or have chosen the right side); Trajan Decius granted the city a neokoria, therefore Trajan Decius must have visited; and if the sources indicate that he did not, then he must have planned to. As well as examining Cilicia, an area that was near the Romans’ eastern theater of war, we should compare it with Asia, more remote from direct troop movements. For example, Antoninus Pius made one of Asia’s cities neokoros, despite the fact that he never left Italy while he was emperor. Later, Caracalla gave eight neokoriai in Asia alone, though few of them can be placed on his route to the East; Elagabalus granted four, though his path from Emesa to Rome may have bypassed Asia completely; Severus Alexander one or two, one of them for the cult of Artemis, and again, connected neither with imperial visits nor with troop movements. There was then a twenty-year interim, until Valerian granted at least three neokoriai in Asia, all to cities that had lost one previously, with no apparent consideration of their strategic value in the Eastern wars he was fighting. Certainly both troop movements and imperial visits could be factors in proliferating honors and coin75 Rumscheid 2000, 138 no. 56 (Volusian); Ziegler 1985, 26, 60-61. 76 Ziegler 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159-160.

228

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

age, but they were not the only factors, as Ziegler himself admitted. More importantly, Anazarbos always had an eye on Tarsos, and vice versa, in their mutual competition for status and honors. Eventually the junior city became the equal, for a time in terms of neokoria and of sacred festivals even the superior, of its eminent neighbor. This may have been due to strategic position or direct imperial favor, but it is also possible that a rival to Tarsos was deliberately fostered by the smaller cities of the koinon.77 We can only hope for further evidence to see whether either or both applied. Anazarbos’ later history is unclear. Like Tarsos, Aigeai, and the rest of the province, it is likely to have suffered in Shapur of Persia’s third campaign, in which he captured the emperor Valerian and made deep incursions into the eastern provinces.78 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. Sayar 2000, no. 4 (Gough 1952, 85-150 no. 2; SEG 12:514). Statue base of Caracalla, December 206–December 207 C.E.; see text above. 2. Sayar 2000, no. 11 (Gough 1952, no. 16; SEG 12:516). From Akdam. Milestone dedicated to Macrinus and Diadumenian (names erased), dated before December 31, 217. 3. Sayar 2000, no. 12. Milestone, from Akdam, inscribed under Elagabalus. See text above. 4. Sayar 2000, no. 13 (Gough 1952, no. 25). Inscribed under Severus Alexander; see text above. 5. Sayar 2000, no. 6 (Dagron and Feissel 1987, 161163 no. 101). Dedication to Severus Alexander by the council and people of the Alexandrian Septimian Severan Antoninian Kaisareans at Anazarbos, glorious metropolis, set before the three eparchies Cilicia, Isauria, and Lycaonia and twice neokoros. 6. Sayar 2000, no. 18 (Ramsay 1882, 157 no. 18; IGRR 3:898). Milestone, from a mile south of Anazarbos. Undated. 7. Bourget 1929, no. 206 (Kaster 1983; Sayar 2000, 14-15 no. 3). From Delphi. Epigram of Naevianus,

77 For early evidence of anti-Tarsos feeling among other cities in the koinon, see Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51 and 34.7-15, 27, 47-48; Ziegler 1993b, 126-128. 78 The sources, including the ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ are usefully collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65.

poet and scholar. Dated by the period of the second neokoria. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Septimius Severus (earliest year possibly 217 = 198/199 C.E.): 79 SNGLevante 1406, supplement 1.327; SNGPfPS 6.153; London, New York (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 280?, 282, 284-286, 288-289, 291-292). Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta Caesar (earliest year, 217 = 198/199 C.E.): London (Ziegler 1993b, no. 281); Ziegler Sammlungen 1029 (obscure). Julia Domna (earliest year, 218 = 199/200 C.E.): Private collection (Ziegler 1993b, no. 293). Caracalla: SNGPfPS 6.154-155; London (Ziegler 1993b, no. 291).80 Plautilla (latest year, 221 = 202/203): SNGLevante 1411, 1412; Ziegler Sammlungen 1030-1033; SNGParis 2052; SNGPfPS 6.156; Berlin, London (Ziegler 1993b, no. 294-299). Geta Caesar (earliest year 218 = 199/200): Berlin (Ziegler 1993b, no. 283) ; SNGPfPS 6.152. Twice (neokoros): Caracalla and Plautilla? (year 221 = 202/203; see text above): SNGLevante supplement 1.328 (Ziegler 1993b, no. 300). Septimius Severus (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): SNGLevante 1407; SNGParis 2046 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 301-302, 306). Julia Domna (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): Boston (Ziegler 1993b, no. 305). Geta Caesar (earliest year 223 = 204/205 C.E.): SNGLevante 1413; Ziegler Sammlungen 1033a (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 303-304). Caracalla (earliest year, 223 = 204/205 C.E.): BMC 15; SNGCop 43; SNGLevante 1409, 1410; Ziegler Sammlungen 1034; SNGParis 2047-2051; SNGPfPS 6.157 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 307-322). Macrinus: SNGLevante 1414-1416; Ziegler Sammlungen 1035-1037; SNGParis 2053, 2054; SNGPfPS 6.158, 160-163; London (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 324-327, 341347). Diadumenian Caesar: BMC 16; SNGCop 44; SNGvA 5483; SNGLevante 1417, 1418; Ziegler Sammlungen 1038, 1039, 1042-1045; SNGParis 2055-2059; SNGRighetti 1501; SNGPfPS 6.159 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 323, 328340). Elagabalus: BMC 17, 19, 20; SNGCop 45; SNGvA 54845488; SNGLevante 1419, 1420, 1423, 1426-1436, supplement 1.330, 334, 335; Ziegler Sammlungen 1049-1060; SNGParis 2062, 2064, 2066, 2068-2073; 79 Ziegler 1993b, no. 280, with earliest date, appears reworked; the earliest year for the others is 218 = 199/200 C.E. 80 Previously identified as Elagabalus by Hill 1923, 222-223 no. 17, through a misreading of HIC (218 = 199/200 C.E.) as MC (240 = 221/222 C.E.).

chapter SNGRighetti 1502; SNGPfPS 6.164, 165, 170-175, 177, (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 348-350, 355, 356, 358-363, 365-373, 391, 395-411, 417, 420, 422, 424-426, 431, 433, 434, 436, 441-445, 461-471). Elagabalus and Julia Paula: BMC 22; SNGLevante 1437, 1438, supplement 1.336; SNGPfPS 6.167, 168 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 377-379). Julia Paula: BMC 23, 24; SNGLevante 1439-1442, supplement 1.337, 338; Ziegler Sammlungen 1065, 10671069; SNGParis 2074-2077; SNGPfPS 6.169, 180, 181 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 380-384, 386-390, 392, 393, 437-440). Julia Maesa: SNGLevante 1443, supplement 1.339, 340, 342, 343; Ziegler Sammlungen 1061, 1063; SNGParis 2078, 2079; SNGPfPS 6.146, 183 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 351-354, 375, 376, 455-459). Julia Soaemias: Ziegler Sammlungen 1064 (Ziegler 1993b, no. 374). Severus Alexander: Adana 78, 79; BMC 26-29; SNGCop 46, 47; SNGFitzw 5227, 5228; SNGvA 5489-5498; SNGLevante 1446-1466, 1469-1472, supplement 1.344-346; Ziegler Sammlungen 1070-1096; SNGParis 2081-2096; SNGRighetti 1503, 1504; SNGPfPS 6.184186, 188-191, 196-202, 206-216 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 472-475, 478-480, 482-494, 498-507, 518, 519, 521529, 531-549, 566, 567, 569, 570, 572, 573, 575581, 583, 585-622, 624-640, 642, 643). Julia Mamaea: BMC 30; SNGvA 5499; SNGLevante 14731475, 1477-1479; Ziegler Sammlungen 1099, 1100, 1102; SNGParis 2097, 2098; SNGPfPS 6.187, 193, 195, 203-205 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 481, 497, 508-510, 512-515, 517, 552, 554-557, 559-563). Maximinus: SNGvA 5500 (misread); SNGLevante 1480, supplement 1.348; SNGParis 2099 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 653-656, 661-665). Maximinus and Maximus: SNGLevante supplement 1.350 (Ziegler 1993b, no. 652). Paulina: SNGLevante 1482 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 649-651). Maximus Caesar: Adana 80; SNGLevante 1483, supplement 1.351; SNGParis 2102, 2104; SNGRighetti 1505; SNGPfPS 6.218, 219 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 646-648, 659, 669, 670, 672-674); Ireland 2000, no. 1737. Gordian III (latest year, 262 = 243/244): BMC 31, 32; SNGCop 49, 50; SNGvA 8668 (= SNGLevante 1486); SNGLevante 1487, 1488, supplement 1.352; Ziegler Sammlungen 1104, 1108, 1109, 1114-1116, 1119; SNGParis 2105-2108; SNGRighetti 1506, 1507; SNGPfPS 6.221, 223-225, 230-233 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 683, 688, 697-705, 716, 718, 720, 721).

26

– anazarbos

229

Tranquillina: SNGvA 5503; SNGLevante 1489, 1490; Ziegler Sammlungen 1120; SNGParis 2109, 2111; SNGRighetti 1508; SNGPfPS 6.227-229 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 706-708, 710-715, 722).81 Three times (neokoros): Trajan Decius (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): BMC 35; SNGLevante 1494-1496, supplement 1.354; SNGPfPS 6.239, 240, 243, 251 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 744, 748, 752, 753, 759, 771, 772). Trajan Decius, Herennius Etruscus, Hostilian: SNGLevante 1497, 1498; SNGParis 2122 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 751, 773). Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 36; SNGCop 52, 53; SNGvA 5505; SNGLevante 1499, supplement 1.355; Ziegler Sammlungen 1140; SNGParis 2120, 2121; SNGRighetti 1511; SNGPfPS 6.246-250 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 758, 760-770). Herennius Etruscus (earliest year: 268 = 249/50 C.E.): SNGCop 54; SNGLevante 1500, 1501, supplement 1.356; Ziegler Sammlungen 1131, 1132; SNGParis 2123, 2124 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 743, 749, 756, 757). Hostilian (earliest year: 268 = 249/250 C.E.): SNGLevante 1502, 1503; Ziegler Sammlungen 1133; SNGParis 2125, 2126; SNGPfPS 6.241, 242 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 745747). Trebonianus Gallus: SNGLevante 1504-1506, supplement 1.357; Ziegler Sammlungen 1141; SNGParis 2128-2130; SNGRighetti 1512; SNGPfPS 6.261-263 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 780, 781, 789-791). Volusian: BMC 37, 38; SNGvA 5506; SNGLevante 15071512, supplement 1.358-360; Ziegler Sammlungen 1142-1157; SNGParis 2131-2139; SNGRighetti 1513; SNGPfPS 6.252-260, 264, 265 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 774-779, 782-788, 792-797, 799-802).82 Valerian: Adana 81; BMC 40-45; SNGCop 56-61; SNGFitzw 5231; SNGvA 5508-5515; SNGLevante 1513, 1515, 1516, 1518-1522, 1524-1528, supplement 1.361; SNGLewis 1728; Ziegler Sammlungen 1164-1183, 11851213; SNGParis 2140-2163; SNGRighetti 1514-1516; SNGPfPS 6.267-289, 292-305 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 803, 804, 807-819, 825-827, 829-831, 833-840). Gallienus: SNGvA 5516; Ziegler Sammlungen 1214-1220; SNGParis 2165, 2166; SNGPfPS 6.290, 291 (Ziegler 1993b, nos. 820-824).

81 82

See also Leypold 1991, 72 no. 1. See also Leypold 1991, 72 no. 2.

230

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

Chapter 27. Aigeai: Koinon of Cilicia First Neokoria: Severus Alexander Aigeai, an important harbor and intermittently a free city with the right of asylum, became the last of the three known neokoroi in Cilicia.1 Both its eminent predecessors, Tarsos and Anazarbos (qq.v.), were already twice neokoros. There was an old rivalry between Tarsos and the people of Aigeai, who felt oppressed by the power of the larger city.2 Aigeai certainly would have declared itself neokoros as soon as possible, just as it claimed as many other titles, including imperial names, as it could.3 Since the title does not appear on coins until the reign of Severus Alexander, it is likely that it was given by him; its earliest date is 277 of the city’s era, or 230/231 C.E.4 The emperor was in the East in 231 for his confrontation with the Persians. Due to its strategic port, Aigeai was of great importance to the Roman campaign.5 Though an imperial visit to Aigeai or its vicinity is not verbally documented, several coin types allude to Severus Alexander’s presence, or at least interest, in the city.6 COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K ALEJANDRON ARX ME OIK A%KLH Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: ALEJANDROUPOLI% ADRIANVN AIGAIVN; ZO% (year 277 = 230/231 C.E.) Laureate, cuirassed emperor rides horse r., raises r. hand. a) SNGLevante 1772 b) SNGParis 2365. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M A %EO ARX [ME?] ALEJANDRON Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., mature; snake-entwined 1

Bernhardt 1971, 162-163, 191; Rigsby 1996, 460-462. See also S. Price 1984b, 272. 2 Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 33.51, 34.10, 34.14, 34.47-48. 3 L. Robert 1978b; idem 1973. 4 Ziegler 1985, 93-94; Woodward 1963, 7. Of course this assumption can only be based on coins known to date. For the era beginning in 47/46 B.C.E., see Bloesch 1989, 11-22. 5 Ziegler 1993b, 81-82, 128-129. 6 Weiss 1982, 198-203; accepted by Halfmann 1986a, 115.

staff to r. Rev: [MAK YE?] EUG P[I%?] NEVKOROU AIGAIVN; ZO% (year 277 = 230/231 C.E.) Laureate (cuirassed?) emperor with snakeentwined eagle sceptre, bull at feet, holds phiale over altar before a four-column temple in threequarter view with arch in entablature, Asklepios within. a) SNGLevante 1771. COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [AUT KAI] ALEJANDRON ARX M[E OI]K K? A%KLH Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snakeentwined staff to r. Rev: [MAK EUG] PI% YE ALEJ[ . . . ] NEVKOR[ . . . ] AIGAIVN [ . . .] Laureate, cuirassed emperor with snake-entwined eagle sceptre holds phiale over altar before Asklepios at l.; at r., mural-crowned city goddess crowns emperor. a) Ziegler Sammlungen 1394.7 COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT KAI ALEJANDRON ARX ME OIK K A%KLH Laureate draped cuisrassed bust of Severus Alexander r., snakeentwined staff to r. Rev: MA(K, b) EU(G, b) PI% YEOF(I, a) (ENDOJVN, b) NEVKOROU AIGAIVN; HO% (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.) City goddess seated on altar, a goat (punning symbol of the city) at her feet, holding four-column temple with arch in entablature in three-quarter view. a) SNGLevante 1775 b) London 1962.11-15-1 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 178).8 COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU ALEJANDRO% Laureate head of Severus Alexander r., snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: MAK EUG PI% YE NEVKOROU; HO% (year 278 = 231/232 C.E.); AIGAIVN Four-column temple with arch in entablature in three-quarter view, Asklepios within. a) SNGLevante 1774. Had type 1, showing the emperor’s arrival for his military campaign, stood alone, there would be little evidence for Severus Alexander’s direct connection 7 8

Ziegler 1988a (= Ziegler Sammlungen). Woodward 1963, 5 no. 1 pl. 1.4.

chapter with Aigeai. But type 2 shows not some generalized scene but the emperor sacrificing before the temple of Asklepios at Aigeai. This temple, which other coins show with as many as eight (Corinthian?) columns and/or an eagle in its pediment, is here identified by Asklepios’ cult statue and by an arch in the facade, a recurrent feature that may represent either an arched entry or a niche that stood over the statue.9 Since it recurs even in the most minuscule representations, such as on the temple held by the city goddess in type 4, it should reflect reality, as it was probably included to make the temple identifiable to those who handled the coins. Type 5’s larger format shows the details of temple and image more clearly. Type 3 is similar to 2, though the god here stands independent of the temple and the emperor himself is crowned by the city. Type 4 shows the temple, again with arched facade, held by the city goddess, a visual symbol of neokoria. The city’s other titles, ‘Macedonian,’ ‘noble,’ ‘faithful,’ ‘god-loving,’ ‘of good repute’ (also ‘mistress of ships’ on type 7 below) are abbreviated;10 the title ‘neokoros,’ however, is carefully spelled out, though it too would be abbreviated on later coins. Again, this shows that the coins were probably issued shortly after the title was granted. On type 1 the city also called itself ‘Alexandroupolis’ after Severus Alexander, but as it had earlier called itself ‘Makrinoupolis,’ before that ‘Antoneinoupolis,’ and before that ‘Severiana,’ ‘Commodiana,’ and ‘Hadriana,’ this is not an indicator of extraordinary imperial favor. Cassius Dio, in relating how in 15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senatorial decree to get Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote that in his own (and Severus Alexander’s) time, the cities had only to make out a list of whatever imperial names they liked.11 This may be an overstatement, but Dio’s disillusion reflects a real proliferation, and consequent devaluation, of such eponyms. The obverses of types 1-4 reveal a complication, however. The emperor is portrayed in normal guise, wearing military costume.12 But at the same time a snake-entwined staff, symbol of Asklepios, hovers 9 Bloesch 1989, 34-41. For an earlier eight-columned example with straight lintel, under Macrinus, see SNGPfPS 6.65. 10 Cohen 1995, 355-357; on ‘mistress of ships,’ Adams 1984, corrected by Ziegler 1993b, 129 n. 364. 11 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8. 12 The catalogues and Ziegler 1994, 200-201 n. 71, interpreted the emperor’s serrate-edged wreath as the diadem of a

27

– aigeai

231

before him; the same staff had appeared at the shoulder of Asklepios himself on the obverse of a rare silver alloy issue of Aigeai under Caracalla.13 The reverses of types 2 and 3 also show the emperor holding an eagle-topped sceptre entwined by a snake, a combination of imperial and divine attributes that had appeared on coins of Aigeai just the year before.14 The obverse legends of types 14 honor Severus Alexander (in the accusative case) with titles that have now been interpreted as ‘greatest chief priest of the world and of Asklepios.’15 A wellminted, unworn example such as the obverse of type 3(a) shows the sloppily formed letters typical of Aigeaian coins more clearly than usual, especially the crucial double kappa. So it is likely that Aigeai made Severus Alexander, already pontifex maximus at Rome, its chief priest of Asklepios, and perhaps was made neokoros in return. Also, it should be clear that if the snake-entwined staff on the obverse of these coins means an identification with Asklepios, the emperor Valerian was so assimilated too, as the same symbols appear on his coins later (type 7, below). The coins leave little doubt that Aigeai was neokoros for the temple of Asklepios. We cannot assume from this that the title was for the god and not for the emperor, however.16 No document yet known specifies that Aigeai was neokoros of Asklepios, while at the same time Magnesia (q.v.) issued no coin with the word neokoros without ‘of Artemis.’ Though on type 2 the emperor sacrifices before the temple in question, Pergamene coins (q.v.) had shown Caracalla sacrificing to his cult partner in the temple they shared, at a time when Pergamon was three times

priest, but this is more than the worn depictions can bear out. Rumscheid 2000, in her exhaustive catalogue of agonothetic crowns, did not include it. The depiction somewhat resembles the headdress of the demiourgos on coins of Tarsos and Anazarbos (qq.v.), and Aigeai had such a magistrate, at least in the Hellenistic period (Cohen 1995, 355, 357 n. 7). But Bastien 1992, 2:421-424, did not note any depictions of emperors as demiourgoi at Aigeai. 13 SNGLevante 1740; pace Bloesch 1965, pl. 23.1, on the identification of Asklepios and emperor; though the god has a lowering brow, I do not see any other resemblance to Caracalla, not even via Alexander the Great. 14 SNGLevante 1765. For the eagle sceptre, Bastien 1992, 2:421-424. 15 Weiss 1982, 200, 202; but Bloesch 1989, 34-35 n. 37 disagreed, preferring “founder of the eiselastic worldwide (common?) Asklepieia (festival).” Weiss’ hypothesis is preferable, but the question is by no means settled. 16 S. Price 1984b, 272 no. 143.

232

part i – section vii. koinon of cilicia

neokoros of the Augusti, not of any god; and Elagabalus had been shown in the same way before his temple and Apollo’s at Philippopolis (q.v.). On types 2 and 3, Severus Alexander holds the snakeentwined eagle sceptre, the attributes of Asklepios and imperial triumph combined; that and the snake staff of Asklepios on the obverses of coin types 1-5 assimilate the emperor to the god. It is thus likely that Severus Alexander became Asklepios’ cult partner, as well as his priest, in the temple at Aigeai. Aigeai minted no coins with the title ‘neokoros’ under Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus, so it is impossible to say whether its neokoria was endangered by a condemnation of Alexander’s memory after his death.17 In any case, the problem was obviated after Alexander’s consecration in 238; indeed, he is among the deified emperors commemorated on an altar to Gordian III and his family at Aigeai.18 Doubtless the deified Severus Alexander continued to be specially honored in the city he had made neokoros. Thereafter a steady scatter of coins over the years kept calling Aigeai neokoros, with an occasional reappearance of a type that alludes to the title: COIN TYPE 6. Obv: MAR IOU FILIPPON EPI KE% Laureate (radiate, c) draped cuirassed bust of Philip Caesar r., beardless. Rev: EU PI YE MA AIGEVN NE; Bq% (year 292 = 245/246 C.E.) Seated city goddess, a goat at her feet, holds a small temple in three-quarter view with arch in entablature, a figure within, eagle at apex.19 a) London 1975.4-11-296 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 179) b) SNGParis 2375 (ascribed to Philip Senior) c) SNGCop 39 d) Berlin 694/1914 e) Ziegler Sammlungen 1398. Coins showing the portraits of Trajan Decius and his family indicate that under him (but not after) Aigeai was allowed to call itself ‘Asklepioupolis,’ while coin reverses of the goddess Hygieia were given the features of the Empress Herennia Etruscilla. Ziegler believed that these coin types and legends emanated from a religious policy of the emperor himself, to honor Asklepios in opposition to the new Savior whose partisans, the Christians, he was per-

secuting.20 But Decius otherwise showed no extraordinary attention to Asklepios; the god did not appear on his Roman coinage, nor did the emperor honor Asklepios’ other, more famous shrines at Pergamon, Epidauros, or Kos.21 It is more likely that Aigeai itself either requested the title ‘Asklepioupolis,’ specifically, or was granted it instead of an eponym from the current emperor’s name, an honor it had often taken before but which in this case had been awarded to its inland neighbor Mopsos instead.22 This is reminiscent of Caracalla’s diversion of the neokoria for Ephesos (q.v.) from his own name to that of the city’s patron goddess, Artemis. Like Severus Alexander, the emperor Valerian appears to have had some contact with Aigeai. As with Severus Alexander, it is possible that he visited the city in person: he journeyed to the eastern front for his own Persian war in 254, within the following coin type’s year of issue. Coins of Anazarbos also hint at an imperial visit in the same year, and by January 255 the emperor was already stationed just across the Gulf of Issos, in Antioch.23 COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AU K POU LIKI OUALERIANO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Valerian r., snake-entwined staff to r. Rev: AIGAIVN NEV NAUARXIDO%; T (year 300 = 253/ 254 C.E.) Laureate togate emperor with snakeentwined staff holds phiale over altar before twocolumn temple with arched entablature in three-quarter view. a) BMC 39 b) Vienna c) New York 1944.100.53037 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 180) d) SNGLevante 1801.24 Type 7 is a distinct echo of type 2, and though togate rather than in military attire, Valerian is represented with some of the same attributes that Severus Alexander had had. He also allowed a sacred and worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor, the first known at Aigeai (and so not a direct result of the neokoria, which had been granted almost twentyfive years earlier).25 It is then possible that he, who like Severus Alexander came to the East to fight the Persians, was also named chief priest of Asklepios

20 17

Kienast 1996, 177-179; pace Varner 1993, 418-422, who believed that the condemnation was unofficial. 18 Weiss 1982; for the order and date of inscriptions on the altar, see Dagron and Feissel 1987, 124. 19 Pick 1904, 12 no. 9.1.

21 22 23 24 25

Ziegler 1994. Selinger 1994, 22-28. Von Aulock 1963, nos. 77-78. Halfmann 1986a, 236-238. Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5 fig. 7. Despite Ziegler 1985, 51, 94, 115; idem 1994, 201.

chapter and/or received cult in the temple of Asklepios for which Aigeai was neokoros. The war turned out badly for both Valerian and Aigeai, however; the Sassanid king Shapur boasted of having captured the one, probably in 260 C.E., and conquered the other soon after.26 No later documents of the neokoria are known. The city’s pride, its temple of Asklepios, seems to have survived the sack, only to be destroyed later, at the behest of the Christian emperor Constantine.27 No inscriptions of Aigeai as neokoros are yet known. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Severus Alexander: BMC 37; SNGLevante 1771, 1774, 1775; Ziegler Sammlungen 1394; SNGParis 2357, 2369; London. Julia Mamaea: SNGLevante 1778; Ziegler Sammlungen 1397; SNGParis 2371; Berlin, Paris. Balbinus: SNGLevante 1779; Paris. Pupienus: SNGParis 2373; Berlin. Balbinus, Pupienus, Gordian III: SNGLevante supplement 1.411; SNGParis 2374.28 Gordian III: London. Tranquillina: Berlin. 26

The ‘res gestae divi Saporis,’ ll. 27-29, lists the Cilician cities conquered; Bleckmann 1992, 118-119. The sources are collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65. 27 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 3.56; Sozomenos 2.5.5. 28 Weiss 1982, 196 n. 17.

27

– aigeai

233

Philip: SNGRighetti 1487; Berlin. Philip, Otacilia, Philip Caesar: SNGLevante 1780; SNGParis 2376; Berlin. Otacilia: SNGLevante supplement 1.414; Ziegler Sammlungen 1399; New York. Philip Caesar:29 SNGCop 39; SNGLevante 1781, 1782; Ziegler Sammlungen 1398; Berlin, London, Paris. Trajan Decius: SNGPfPS 6.73 Herennia Etruscilla: BMC 38. Herennius Etruscus: Private collection, Hecht.30 Hostilian: SNGLevante 1785; Ziegler Sammlungen 1401; Berlin.31 Volusian: SNGLevante 1786. Aemilian: SNGLevante 1787-1789; SNGParis 2379, 2380; SNGRighetti 1488; London (2 exx.), New York, Vienna. Cornelia Supera: SNGLevante 1790-1792; Vienna (2 exx.). Valerian: BMC 39, 40, 42; SNGCop 40; SNGvA 5460; SNGLevante 1793-1801, supplement 1.416, 417; Ziegler Sammlungen 1402, 1405; SNGParis 2381-2387; SNGPfPS 6.74-77; Berlin (3 exx.), New York (4 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw.32 Gallienus:33 BMC 43; SNGvA 5461; SNGLevante supplement 1.418; SNGParis 2389, 2390; SNGPfPS 6.79-80; Ziegler Sammlungen 1406, 1407; Berlin. Salonina: SNGLevante 1804; Ziegler Sammlungen 1408; Berlin (2 exx.).

29 See Ziegler 1994, 197 on his titles EPI(fan°staton) KE%(ara). 30 Hecht 1968, 34 no. 21; Ziegler 1994, 194. 31 See Ziegler 1994, 188-199. 32 Weiss 1982, n. 31 pl. 5.7. See also Butcher 1991, 195 no. 259. 33 See also Butcher 1991, 195 no. 260.

234

part i – section viii. koinon of armenia

SECTION VIII. KOINON OF ARMENIA Chapter 28. Nikopolis: Koinon of Armenia (Minor) Nikopolis was founded by Pompey in the Pontic territory of Armenia Minor. Its name commemorated his victory over Mithridates VI of Pontus in 66 B.C.E., and there he settled the soldiers wounded in his campaigns.1 Armenia Minor passed through the hands of various client kings before it was annexed to the Roman empire ca. 71/72 C.E., from which ‘liberation’ Nikopolis dated its new era.2 The territory probably was under the command of the governor of Cappadocia, but Armenia Minor had a koinon of its own with an Armeniarch at the head of it.3 Nikopolis had few rivals for primacy in its koinon, as it was one of the few urban centers in the area. The inscription that mentions the first Armeniarch (who was also first of the Hellenes) was found there, and the occasional issues of coinage in the name of the koinon are identical in many respects to the rare coins of Nikopolis.4 Thus it seems that Nikopolis was neokoros due to its position as metropolis and head of the koinon, much as Beroia was for Macedonia (q.v.). Nothing is known of temples built in the city, however. First Neokoria: by time of Hadrian or after Inscription 1, though obscure at a critical point, is probably a document of Nikopolis’ first neokoria. INSCRIPTION 1. CIG 4189. ÑAdrian}w NikopÒ(l)evw t}w [-?- ne]vkÒ(r)ou ka[‹ mh]tropÒle[vw]. . . The title ‘Hadrianic’ appears on the city’s coins under Hadrian himself, and other documents 1

Marek 1993b, 37-39, 48-53. Leschhorn 1993, 144-149, 475; S. Mitchell 1993, 1:118; Remy 1986, 30, 53. 3 Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10. 4 IGRR 3:132; Pick 1914. 2

indicate that the emperor may have visited Nikopolis or at least the area in 123-124 or 129-131.5 This may have been the occasion for a grant of neokoria, but it is possible that the title was awarded earlier, when the territory was absorbed among the Roman provinces. Second Neokoria: by time of Gordian III Only one inscription documents the fact that Nikopolis became twice neokoros by the time of Gordian III. INSCRIPTION 2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. { mhtrÒ[poliw] ka‹ d‹w [n]ev[kÒrow] Nikopolit«n [¸t]a[l]ikØ kolvn¤[a]. . . The inscription is dated by the name ‘Gordiana’ given to the Legion XIII Gemina Pia. The city of Nikopolis holds the titles of metropolis, twice neokoros, ‘Italian’ colony (with ius italicum). By the time of this inscription, in the third century, there was no contradiction in a city’s being both a colony and the center of a provincial imperial cult. That distinction had seemed basic to Augustus’ foundation of cults in Asia and Bithynia, as discussed by Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 (see ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1): Romans were to worship the deified dead, Hellenes the living ruler, and only the latter temples later conferred neokoria. On the other hand, the number of provincials who became Roman citizens burgeoned over time, and they continued to participate in koinon activities and cults, until Caracalla finally granted Roman citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. As for colony status, though it earlier had important im5 F. and E. Cumont 1906, 307; Magie 1950, 622, 1484, opted for the later trip, as repairs were made to the main road in 129, but Halfmann 1986a, 188-210, esp. 198, held that Hadrian returned from Egypt by sea in 131, leaving only 123/124 for his trip along the eastern border up to Trapezos.

chapter plications as to the kind of taxes colonists paid, the distinction between Roman and non-Roman municipalities became increasingly blurry, especially after Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial status; the title colonia no longer implied any change in the composition of the city’s population.6 Nikopolis’ status as a colony rested on a firmer basis than sheer honorific, as its original settlement was by Pompey’s wounded soldiers. But it is the first example of a neokoros Roman colony yet known.

6 Bernhardt 1982; Levick 1967, 1-6, 184-192, on other colonies with ius italicum, 84 n. 7; J. Nollé 1995.

28

– nikopolis

235

Neapolis in Syria Palaestina and Thessalonike in Macedonia (qq.v.) would soon follow. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. CIG 4189. Fragmentary, Hadrianic or after. See text above. Twice neokoros: 2. Grégoire 1909, 35 no. 13. From Gumuâden, southeast of Nikopolis. Dated to the time of Gordian III or thereafter. See text above. No coins of Nikopolis citing neokoria are yet known.

236

part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

SECTION IX. KOINON OF THRACE Chapter 29. Perinthos: Koinon of Thrace When the emperor Septimius Severus confronted a challenger for the Empire, Pescennius Niger, his greatest obstacle lay at the Hellespont. Asellius Aemilianus, proconsul of Asia and one of Niger’s ablest generals, had already seized Byzantion and therefore held the key to the Black Sea as well as a bridgehead into Europe.1 Niger’s forces advanced on nearby Perinthos, seat of the governor of Thrace, which was held for Severus by Fabius Cilo.2 Niger’s army was at first successful, but had to retreat back into Asia at the arrival of Severus’ main forces. The emperor himself soon arrived on the scene and took up headquarters at Perinthos while his generals besieged Byzantion and drove Niger and his armies back through Asia and Bithynia. The eastern cities had to choose which contestant they would support. Perinthos, of course, stood behind its imperial occupier. Byzantion held firm for Niger for over two years, through an increasingly hopeless siege. When Severus finally triumphed, he alloted rewards and punishments among the various cities as he saw fit. The punishment for Byzantion’s crimes of revolt and stubborn defiance was particularly severe. All the soldiers and magistrates were put to death, the walls were demolished, and citizens’ property was confiscated. In addition, Severus turned his enemy’s loss into its rival’s gain: he deprived Byzantion of its freedom and civic status, made it tributary, and handed it and its territory over to the Perinthians, who treated it none too well.3 As a bonus, Severus gave Perinthos the right to build a temple to his own cult and thereby to call itself neokoros, the first neokoros city known in Thrace.

1

223. 2

Birley 1988, 102, 105, 108-120; Halfmann 1986a, 216-

Sayar 1998, 74-75, 115-116; Haensch 1997, 329-332. 3 Cassius Dio 75.14; Herodian 3.6.9; Sayar 1998, 116-118, 158-159.

First Neokoria: Septimius Severus One of the earliest issues of Perinthos celebrating the neokoria is coin type 1, which honors Septimius Severus’ second visit to the city in 196, following the capture of Byzantion. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, b) of Severus, r. Rev: EPIDHMIA (EPIMHDIA, sic d) B %EUHROU PERINYIVN NEVKORVN Eightcolumn temple, below it a galley rowing l. in whose bow the emperor raises his right hand; in the stern, two military standards. a) BMC 33 (illus. pl. 35 fig. 181) b) Vienna 8891 c) Berlin, Löbbecke d) New York 1923.17.17 (S-G 461, 463, 464).4 Though this coin shows that Perinthos must have become neokoros by the time of Severus’ second visit in 196, scholars have postulated that the honor was granted and the temple begun during the emperor’s previous stay, in winter 193/194, while the issues of 196 celebrate the temple’s completion and its dedication by the emperor, which made the neokoria official.5 Though this chronology is certainly possible, it does not necessarily follow from the situation. In 194 Byzantion and Perinthos were both under siege, the one by hostile, the other by friendly forces. Occupation by legions, even allied ones, was a harrowing and expensive predicament. The presence of the emperor himself was an additional honor and an additional expense.6 As the campaign headquarters for the emperor and his armies, Perinthos must have given all its energies, all its men, transportation, and supplies, to the siege of Byzantion and the war in general. It is doubtful whether the citizens 4

Schönert-(Geiss) 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers). Hasebroeck 1921, 86-87; Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 45; Halfmann 1986a, 216, 219. 6 Lehnen 1997, 42, 93-95; Ziegler 1993b, 138-140. 5

chapter could have devoted any time, personnel, or even draught animals to constructing a large (at least octastyle) temple in the midst of a war. After the war was won and Byzantion capitulated, however, Severus rewarded his partisans the Perinthians with Byzantion and all its lands. Ziegler suggested that such grants of enemy land were Severus’ way of making up for years of drain on his allied cities’ economies.7 This may have finally allowed Perinthos to begin building a temple for the cult of Septimius Severus to fulfill its new title ‘neokoros.’ The coin types that may be dated to 196 only show a schematic octastyle temple, and could just as well celebrate the inception of building as its completion. The first (and thereafter frequent) appearance of the eight-column temple on the early issues that feature the title ‘neokoros’ tends to indicate that it represents that temple for which the city was neokoros. In addition, coin types show Septimius Severus himself holding a temple, as if in presentation, or the city goddess holding it, symbol of the city as neokoros. COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AU K L %EPTI %EUHROE (sic) PE Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN Laureate, cuirassed Severus standing l., with spear and small six-column temple. a) S-G 479 (2 exx.). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN City goddess standing l. with cornucopia and small eight-column temple held over altar. a) S-G 474 (2 exx.). Though intermittent excavations have been undertaken around Perinthos, no sure sign of a temple that could have made the city neokoros has yet been found.8 Large-size coins with reverse type of the temple alone, such as type 4, show a Corinthian octastyle with figural sculpture in the pediment; smaller coins give more summary representations. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P(E, a) Laureate head (draped cuirassed bust, cegi) of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN (NEOKORVN, beh) Eight-column Corinthian temple, disc (figures, f) in pediment, on three-step

29

– perinthos

237

podium. a) London 1920.11-11-4 b) Oxford, Godwyn c) Paris 1118 d) Paris 1119 e) SNGCop 741 f) Vienna 8892 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 182) g) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer h) Berlin, Knöbelsdorff i) Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 462, 466-473, 488-491). COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKOR Eight-column temple on three-step podium. a) SNGCop 742 b) Paris 1120 c) Vienna 8894 d) New York, Newell e) Berlin, Löbbecke f) Berlin, Imhoof. (S-G 514, 515). COIN TYPE 6. Obv: L %EPTI GETA% KAI%AR Draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN (NEVKORVN, d) Six-column (eight-column, d) temple on three-step podium. a) Paris 1186 b) Berlin, Löbbecke c) SNGFitzw 1755 d) Cambridge, McClean (S-G 634, 635). Schönert-Geiss believed that the festival known as Severeia antedated the neokoria granted to Perinthos.9 The name Severeia Perintheia appears on a coin type (S-G 458) which does not mention the neokoria, and though this silence does not assure a date prior to the grant, the almost invariable reference to neokoria on coins afterwards makes it likely. At first associated with Perintheia (presumably a festival for an eponymous hero Perinthos), the Severeia, with the qualification ‘first,’ appears alone on coins with, and without (S-G 457), the title ‘neokoros’: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: [AU] K L %EPTI %EUH[RO%] Laureate head of Severus, r. Rev: %EBHREIA PRVTA PERINYIVN NEVK[ORVN] Prize crown with palm and trumpet on agonistic table. a) BMC 32 (S-G 476).

Second Neokoria?: Sons of Septimius Severus Later in his reign, probably around autumn 209, Severus made his younger son, Geta, Augustus; his elder son Caracalla had been Augustus since 197.10 It was around the time that Geta’s status was raised that Perinthos began to show two temples instead

7

Ziegler 1978. Sayar 1998, 53-55; for an inscription of a building dedicated to Hadrian and Sabina and containing multiple cult statues, 219-220 no. 37. 8

9 Schönert-(Geiss) 1965, 46; followed by Leschhorn 1998, 410-412; Karl 1975, 108-109, 127. 10 Kienast 1996, 162-167; Birley 1988, 186-187.

238

part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

of the previous single temple on its coins.11 In addition, the legends proclaim a new festival, the Philadelpheia or festival of brotherly love, named in honor of the supposed concord between Caracalla and Geta, who are shown joining hands: COIN TYPE 8. Obv: AU(T, abde) K(RA, abe; KAI d) P %EP GETA% %EB Radiate draped bust of Geta as Augustus, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN The two young emperors, togate, join r. hands. a) BMC 49 b) BMC 50 c) Paris 1179 d) Paris 1180 e) Paris 1181 (S-G 640, 641). The city goddess who earlier held one temple now holds two: COIN TYPE 9. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with two temples (one in l. on top of cornucopia, cd)12 a) Berlin, Rauch b) Berlin, Imhoof c) Paris 1131 d) Munich (S-G 516, 517). COIN TYPE 10. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUH(R, abcdfg; %EUHR, e) ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN City goddess with two six-column temples, altar to l.13 a) BMC 41 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 183) b) Paris 1160 c) Paris 1161 d) Paris 1162 e) Paris 1163 f) Berlin, Imhoof g) Vienna 8910 h) Oxford (S-G 594-598). COIN TYPE 11. Obv: AUT KRA P %EP GETA% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r., bearded. Rev: PERINYIVN NEOKORVN City goddess with cornucopia and one small eightcolumn temple, a second in field r.14 a) Munich; scratches over the second temple (illus. pl. 36 fig. 184) (S-G 653). The two temples are portrayed on coins as being exactly alike. Prize crowns, symbolizing their festi-

11 For a misattribution of neokoria to another city in Thrace, Augusta Traiana, at just this time, 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. 12 Pick 1904, 8 nos. 4.1, 4.2. 13 Ibid., 9 no. 4.4. 14 Ibid., 8 no. 4.3.

vals, float above them, and one is qualified as Aktia, the other Pythia. COIN TYPE 12. Obv: AU K L %EP %EUHRO% P Laureate (draped, a) cuirassed bust of Severus, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORV(N, abcd); AKTIA; PUYIA Two fourcolumn temples on podia, turned toward one another, above each a prize crown with palm. a) Boston 63.1241 b) Paris 1132 c) Paris 1133 d) New York, Newell (illus. pl. 36 fig. 185) e) Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 518, 519). COIN TYPE 13. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EOUHR ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate (draped, fj) cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. (with spear, abcdefghi) Rev: PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA (LKTI MUYIL, sic m) Two eight-column (six-column, g) temples on podia, turned toward one another, above each a prize crown with palm. a) BMC 42 b) BMC 43 c) Paris 1165 d) Paris 1166 e) Paris 1167 f) Paris 1168 g) New York 47.56 h) Berlin, Pfau i) Berlin 455/1915 j) Berlin, Fox k) Berlin, Löbbecke l) Vienna 8919 m) SNGCop 746 n) SNGMil 538 (S-G 599-601, 614-618). COIN TYPE 14. Obv: AUT P %EP GETA% % Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Geta, r. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA Two four-column temples on high podia, turned toward one another, above each a prize crown. a) Paris 1189 (S-G 668). The celebration appears to have been composed of two (perhaps pre-existing) contests: the Aktia, modeled on the festival that Augustus fostered to commemorate his victory at Actium; and the Pythia, on the pattern of the festival at Apollo’s sanctuary in Delphi.15 The Severeia that was celebrated earlier in Perinthos may be represented here simply by its generic name, Aktia, whereas the Pythia, which is mentioned more often, is probably the new festival Philadelpheia; in one case (S-G 505) a type of a single prize crown is labeled Philadelpheia Pythia. Of all these agonistic and double-temple coin types, only one or two can be securely dated before 209 or 210, when Geta still had the title Caesar; for example:

15

Moretti 1953, no. 75, dated to second half of the second century C.E.; also IGRR 1:802, 4:161.

chapter COIN TYPE 15. Obv: AU(T, cd) K M AU ANTVNEINO% KAI P %EP GETA% KAI(%AR, abe) Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. and draped cuirassed bust of Geta Caesar l. Rev: FILADELFEIA PERINYIVN NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA Two prize crowns and palm on an agonistic table, five apples and an amphora beneath. a) Boston 62.367 b) BMC 46 c) Paris 1176 d) Paris 1177 e) Berlin, Löbbecke (S-G 627630). The majority of types fall after he became Augustus, thus the series probably began a little before September/October 209 (or possibly autumn 210).16 It is notable that inscriptions (nos. 1-4 and possibly 5 below) that name Perinthos neokoros probably all date previous to this; there is no document besides the coins that securely dates between 209 and 249 (the latter date for inscription 6, below). As the new festival was for Caracalla and Geta, whom their father intended to share the Empire, presumably they shared the temple at Perinthos also. It was a significant honor for a city to become neokoros not just for Septimius Severus but for his sons, all within a period of just over a decade, and it shows that Perinthos’ ties to the Severan dynasty were particularly close. The only other city that may have been made twice neokoros in this way was Anazarbos in Cilicia (q.v.). One may wonder about the reason for such an enhancement so soon after the original honor, however. As early as 202, on his way back from his eastern campaigns, Severus began to abate his enmity towards the cities that had supported Niger almost a decade before. He and his family visited Nikaia (q.v.) at that time, and even Byzantion was restored to its civic status.17 The latter city then received permission to take the imperial name Antonina, implying that Caracalla was the one who interceded for his father’s forgiveness: in the Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1, he often took that role. But Byzantion’s restoration removed it from the grasp of Perinthos. It may have been to make up for this that Perinthos was so soon given yet another imperial temple, this time for the sons of the emperor who granted the first one. Adjustments were undoubtedly made after Septimius Severus’ death: Caracalla soon eliminated his brother ruler, and no doubt the cult in Perinthos’

29

– perinthos

second temple became his alone. The (ironic) festival name Philadelpheia of course disappeared from the coins after Geta’s death. It should be noted, however, that throughout this period Perinthos’ coins only call the city neokoros, without enumerating how many times it held the honor. This is probably because it had no rivals in the province, no other neokoroi, so there was no need to specify.18 As we shall see, when a rival arose, Perinthos immediately began to claim its honors in full. In spring 219 Caracalla’s putative son, the new emperor Elagabalus, set out from Nikomedia for Rome. The sources affirm that he traveled via Thrace, and directly on his route lay Perinthos.19 The city commemorated his passage with coins that show him radiate-crowned, at sacrifice, among military standards, or in a triumphal chariot, and all name Perinthos twice neokoros. An issue for his first wife Julia Paula (whose short-lived marriage may have been confined to the year 220)20 confirms the early date by which Perinthos began to use the full enumeration: COIN TYPE 16. Obv: IOUL KORNH PAULA %EB AUT KAI%AR ANTVNEINO% AUG Draped bust of Julia Paula r. and laureate draped bust of Elagabalus l. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Julia and togate Elagabalus join right hands.21 a) Paris 1201 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 186) b) Paris 1202 There are also types of the two temples, either alone or held by the city goddess as neokoros. But similar types showing two temples had already been minted at Perinthos since the last years of Septimius Severus’ reign. The new types echo the old, even down to the mention of Aktia and Pythia (formerly with Philadelpheia) contests. COIN TYPE 17. Obv: AUT K M AURH ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA Two eight-column temples turned toward one another, above each a prize crown with palm. a) S-G 714 (1 ex.). COIN TYPE 18. Obv: AUT K M AURHLI ANTVNEINO% %E Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% 18

Though this was doubted by Ziegler 1993b, 113. Cassius Dio 79.3.2; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. 20 Kienast 1996, 173-174. 21 It should be noted that this type did not appear in the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965. 19

16 17

Kienast 1996, 166-167; also see Birley 1988, 218. Birley 1988, 142-143; Halfmann 1986a, 218, 221.

239

240

part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

NEVKORVN Two temples turned toward one another. a) SNGMil 540 (S-G 684, 685).

COIN TYPE 19. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus l. with aegis. Rev: PERINYI[VN DI%] NEVKORVN City goddess with one small temple, a second on top of her cornucopia.22 a) Paris 1191 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 187). COIN TYPE 20. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EUH ANTVNEINO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. with aegis. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Seated city goddess with two temples.23 a) Vienna 8929 (S-G 719). The extraordinary circumstance is that Perinthos’ title ‘twice neokoros,’ which first appeared under Elagabalus, outlasted the condemnation of that emperor’s memory. All the cities that became neokoroi for the cult of Elagabalus would lose that honor under his successor, Severus Alexander, and probably at a time before Alexander went East to war (see ‘Historical Analysis,’ chapter 38). Perinthos, however, remains twice neokoros on all known coins of Severus Alexander, a particularly extensive series which includes types that show the emperor on horseback, crowned by Victory, and sailing on a galley with Egyptian gods, probably referring to those eastern campaigns of 231-233.24 The persistence of a neokoria of Elagabalus for ten years after that emperor’s murder and the condemnation of his memory seems inexplicable. Indeed, the title would persist on subsequent coinage even after Severus Alexander’s own death. Schönert-Geiss, in her exhaustive study of the coinage of Perinthos, explained this persistence by positing an unlikely sequence of events: that twice neokoros Perinthos’ temple to Elagabalus was rededicated upon his death to Severus Alexander, and that upon his death it was again rededicated, this time to Gordian III.25 This hypothesis overlooks the fact

22

Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.5. Again, this type did not appear in the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss) 1965. 23 Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.6. 24 S-G 740, 782, 786, 787, 790; Halfmann 1986a, 231-232; the possibility of an Egyptian visit is bourne out by the Perinthian coin type. 25 Schönert-Geiss 1965, 22, 46; the first accepted by Sayar 1998, 76, 81, but without mention of the condemnation of Severus Alexander.

that other cities, including Nikomedia, Philippopolis, Beroia, Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, Hierapolis, and perhaps Tripolis, would all lose their neokoriai for Elagabalus with no opportunity for rededication. Of those, only Beroia would regain its second neokoria as early as 240, under Gordian III; Nikomedia, Ephesos, and Sardis would not regain their titles until the reign of Valerian. Why would Perinthos alone have received the privilege of such repetitive rededications when all these other cities did not? Robert suggested an alternate theory: that the loss of the second neokoria caused Perinthos such embarrassment that it ceased to issue any coinage whatever until the title was restored.26 It is true that no Perinthian coin is known for the reign of Severus Alexander’s successor Maximinus. Yet this could have been due to a number of factors, the most likely a short lapse between mintings. Robert’s theory also does not account for the fact that of all the cities whose number of neokoriai increased under Elagabalus, only Perinthos used martial coin types of Severus Alexander with that number still undiminished. This should indicate that Perinthos was still twice neokoros in the 230s, and that its second neokoria, though datable to Elagabalus’ reign, was not due to that emperor’s cult. It seems more likely that, though the second neokoria appeared under Elagabalus, it was not for a cult of Elagabalus, and that the similarity of the new double-temple, twice-neokoros issues to the old double-temple, single-neokoros issues under Septimius Severus was not an accident. Even the Aktia and Pythia remained; they would continue under Severus Alexander, Gordian III, and down to the end of Perinthian coinage at the time of Gallienus: COIN TYPE 21. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU AL[EJAN]DRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples turned toward each other. a) Paris 121627 (illus. pl. 36 fig. 188). COIN TYPE 22. Obv: AU K M AUR %EU ALEJANDRO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% 26 27

1965.

L. Robert 1976, 53 n. 28. This type did not appear in the corpus of Schönert-(Geiss)

chapter NEVKORVN Eight-column temple in three-quarter view. a) SNGFitzw 1757 (S-G 756)

COIN TYPE 23. Obv: AUT K M AUR %EU ALEJANDRO% AUG Laureate cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. with aegis. Rev: PERINYIVN IVNVN B NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with one small temple, another on top of her cornucopia; to either side a prize crown, one with a purse, the other with five apples on top.28 a) Oxford b) Paris 1228 c) Vienna 8943 (S-G 784). COIN TYPE 24. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Two eight-column temples turned toward each other. a) Vienna 8948 (S-G 824). COIN TYPE 24. Obv: M ANT GORDIANO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gordian III, r. Rev: PERINYIVN IVNVN B NEVKORVN; AKTIA; PUYIA City goddess with two small temples; to either side a prize crown, one with a purse, the other with seven apples on top.29 a) Paris 1255 b) Berlin 869/1900 c) SNGFitzw 1758 d) SNGMil 546 (S-G 861). COIN TYPE 26. Obv: AUT GALLHNO% %EBA% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Gallienus, r. Rev: PERINYIVN DI% NEVKORVN Two six-column temples turned toward one another. a) London 1905.10-14-2 (S-G 909). The evidence of the coins indicates that the second neokoria had already been granted late in the reign of Septimius Severus for the joint cult of Caracalla and Geta, and after Geta’s death for Caracalla alone. The question is, why didn’t Perinthos claim to be ‘twice neokoros’ at that time? Unfortunately Perinthos so far lacks inscriptions that date securely to the period in question, from slightly before autumn 209 to 218 C.E., which could amplify the evidence of the coins. Cities in Asia like Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna were certainly giving their full enumeration of neokoriai on coins and inscriptions. But the key must lie in the situation within the province of Thrace, not in Asia. From the outset of the Severan dynasty, Perinthos had been the premier city of Thrace. It triumphed

29

– perinthos

resoundingly over its nearby rival, Byzantion. It had one, and then another provincial temple to the emperors at a time when no other city in its province was neokoros, much less twice neokoros. All this changed, however, when Elagabalus rode through Thrace and made that province’s nominal, though overshadowed, metropolis Philippopolis (q.v.) neokoros. It is no accident that at the very time Philippopolis began to advertise its new neokoria, on coins of Elagabalus and of Julia Paula, Perinthos suddenly started to give itself the full title of twice neokoros. Previously there had been no need for Perinthos to specify its full titulature, but now there was. As in other koina, the situation in Thrace can be explained only by considering intercity rivalry as one of the most powerful explanatory factors behind neokoria. Perinthos’ number of neokoriai would never diminish, down to the end of its history. Inscription 7, dated to 274-275, still names Perinthos “the most illustrious twice neokoros.” INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Sayar 1998, no. 56 (Dumont 1876, 149-150 no. 72c; IGRR 1:787). From copy of Cyriacus of Ancona. Vow for the health of Septimius Severus and his family, including Caracalla Caesar, thus dated from (at earliest) mid-195 to autumn 197.30 2. Sayar 1998, no. 40 (Taâliklioglu 1953, 483-487; SEG 14:482) from Bisanthe. Milestone with Septimius Severus as Parthicus Maximus (after January 198) and Geta as Caesar (before autumn 209 or 210).31 3. Sayar 1998, no. 10 (CIG 2022; Dumont 1876, 155 no. 74c; IGRR 1:786). Statue base of Septimius Severus as Parthicus Maximus but not yet Britannicus Maximus, thus 198-210.32 4. Sayar 1998, no. 11. Fragment of a dedication mentioning Julia Sebaste, probably Julia Domna, and if so dated between 193-217 C.E. 5. Sayar 1998, no. 307 (Seure 1912, 321-322 no. 20). From Sariköy. Statue base of Caracalla Augustus, thus after autumn 197 to his death in 217. Though Sayar dated it to his sole reign, the titulature is not 30

28 29

Pick 1904, 9 no. 4.7. Ibid., 9 no. 4.8.

241

31 32

Kienast 1996, 162-165. Ibid., 158, 166. Ibid., 158.

242

part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

so exclusive, and it is also possible that the statue was part of a group set up during his father’s or brother’s lifetime.33 Twice neokoros: 6. Sayar 1998, no. 12 (Le Bas-Waddington 1664; CIG 2023; Dumont 1876, 155 no. 74d; IGRR 1:788). Statue base of Trajan Decius. 7. Sayar 1998, no. 13 (Kalinka 1926, 133 no. 29). Statue base of Ulpia Severina, wife of Aurelian, as Augusta, thus 274-275.34 Aurelian’s martial activities meant that he was frequently in the area of Perinthos and Byzantion; he was in fact killed on the road between the two in 275.35 COINS CITING NEOKORIA:36 Neokoros (types that record one neokoria but show two temples, two prize crowns, or the Philadelpheia are separately indicated below): Septimius Severus: BMC 27, 29, 30, 32, 33; SNGCop 740742; SNGRighetti 297; SNGMil 533; Berlin (8 exx.), London (4 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (9 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 459-493, 505515). Julia Domna: BMC 34-36; Berlin, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 530-545). Caracalla Caesar: BMC 37; New York (2 exx.), Paris, Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 546-552). Caracalla Augustus: BMC 38-41, 44; SNGCop 748, 750; SNGFitzw 1753, 1754; SNGRighetti 299, 300; SNGMil 536, 537; Berlin ( 6 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Paris (24 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.) (S-G 553576, 582-585, 587, 589-594, 602-613, 619-626). Geta Caesar: SNGFitzw 1755, 1756; SNGMil 535; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (3 exx.) (S-G 631, 633-638). Geta Augustus: BMC 47, 48; SNGCop 752; Berlin (2 exx.), Boston, Paris, Vienna (S-G 642-645, 651-652, 654660). Non-imperial obverse: Berlin, Paris (2 exx.) (S-G 203206). Neokoros with types for second neokoria (two temples, two prize crowns, Philadelpheia): 33

Mastino 1981, 86-87. Kienast 1996, 233. 35 Sayar 1998, 119-123; Halfmann 1986a, 239-240. 36 The basic reference for all Perinthian coins is SchönertGeiss 1965 (= S-G with coin numbers). 34

Septimius Severus: BMC 31; SNGMil 534; Berlin (10 exx.), Boston, London, New York (2 exx.), Paris (8 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.) (S-G 494-504, 516-527). Caracalla Augustus: BMC 42, 43; SNGCop 746, 747; SNGMil 538; Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (11 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.) (S-G 577-581, 586, 588, 595-601, 614-618). Caracalla Augustus and Geta Caesar: BMC 46; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.). (S-G 627-630). Geta Augustus: BMC 49, 51, 52; SNGCop 751; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, Munich (2 exx.) Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.) (S-G 639-641, 646-650, 653, 661-668). Twice neokoros: Elagabalus: BMC 53-57; SNGCop 753; SNGRighetti 301; SNGMil 539, 540; Berlin (8 exx.), Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (12 exx.), Vienna (8 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.) (S-G 669-726). Elagabalus and Julia Paula: Paris (2 exx.). Julia Paula: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 727). Julia Maesa: London, New York, Oxford, Paris (S-G 728732). Severus Alexander: BMC 58-61; SNGCop 754-756; SNGFitzw 1757; SNGMil 541; Berlin (17 exx.), Boston (4 exx.), London, Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (25 exx.), Vienna (9 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 733-790). Julia Mamaea: SNGCop 757; Berlin, London, New York, Paris (S-G 791-797). Gordian III: BMC 1, 62-71, 62a; SNGCop 758-761; SNGFitzw 1758; SNGMil 542-546; Berlin (15 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), London (3 exx.), New York (5 exx.), Oxford (3 exx.), Paris (26 exx.), Vienna (17 exx.), Warsaw (4 exx.) (S-G 798-862).37 Tranquillina: BMC 72-74; SNGCop 762, 763; SNGMil 547, 548; Berlin (4 exx.), London, New York (2 exx.), Paris (7 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (S-G 863-895). Gallienus: BMC 75; SNGFitzw 1759; Berlin, Boston, London (2 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (S-G 896-903, 905-913). Non-imperial obverse: BMC 10-12; SNGCop 730, 731; Paris (6 exx.), Vienna (4 exx.) (S-G 207-221, dated to time of Severus Alexander).

37

Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 172-174 nos. 1718-1725, list issues of Perinthos twice neokoros under Gordian III celebrating concord with the following cities: Ephesos, Kyzikos, Nikomedia, and Smyrna; see S-G 914-917. Weiss 1998, 6465, saw Perinthos as celebrating its connection with other neokoroi, but its minting for Nikomedia may also recall the closer connection between the two when both stood for Septimius Severus, against Byzantion and Nikaia (q.v.) for Pescennius Niger; the latter two also minted concord coins for each other.

chapter

30

– philippopolis

243

Chapter 30. Philippopolis: Koinon of Thrace First Neokoria: Elagabalus On the emperor Elagabalus’ route from Emesa in Syria across Thrace and Moesia to Rome lay the city of Philippopolis.1 Though it was the center of the koinon of Thrace, it had apparently not yet become neokoros.2 Perinthos, seat of the Roman governor and strategically situated on the Propontis, had overshadowed it.3 But a previous imperial traveler on this route, Septimius Severus, had likely given it the title of metropolis, and Elagabalus’ passage offered a similar opportunity for the city to request an honor.4 Coins issued in the name of Julia Paula confirm that Philippopolis was neokoros by 220.5 Coin type 1 symbolizes the new grant: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AUT K M AURHL ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, l. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU Apollo and the laureate, togate emperor hold an eight-column temple, in three-quarter view, between them; below it, a prize crown with five apples on a table.6 a) Berlin, Dressel (illus. pl. 36 fig. 189). Elagabalus stands opposite Apollo Kendrisos, patron god of Philippopolis.7 Together they hold a temple over an agonistic table and its prize crown. In the temple’s pediment is a shield with a spear diagonally behind it, the symbol of this Greco-Thracian Apollo.8 The temple also appears independently, as Co1

Halfmann 1986a, 230-231. Danov 1979, 245-267; Deininger 1965, 96-98. Another city in Thrace, Augusta Traiana, was misidentified as being neokoros for Geta after 209 by Gerasimov 1966; corrected by Schönert-Geiss 1991, 43 n. 6, 132 no. 495. See chapter 29, ‘Perinthos,’ n. 11. 3 Haensch 1997, 329-332; Velkov 1980. 4 Halfmann 1986a, 216-223. 5 Kienast 1996, 173-174. 6 Pick 1904, 11 nos. 7.2, 7.3, the latter with no table, only the prize crown below. 7 Kolev 1991. 8 Szubert 1978, 42-45. 2

rinthian and as octastyle at most, identified by the figure of the god within: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: AUT K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped bust of Elagabalus, l. with spear and shield. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU Six-column temple, shield with spear diagonally behind it in the pediment; Apollo with bow and laurel standing within. a) Vienna 32498 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 190). Thus Elagabalus and Philippopolis’ patron god probably shared cult in Philippopolis’ chief temple, just as they did in Nikomedia (q.v.). On one coin type Elagabalus himself is shown sacrificing to Apollo Kendrisos in front of the temple they shared, much as Caracalla sacrificed to his cult partner Asklepios on coins of Pergamon, or Severus Alexander to Asklepios at Aigeai (qq.v.).9 The table, prize crown, and apples on these coins represent the festival Kendreiseia Pythia, first mentioned on this series: COIN TYPE 3. Obv: AUT K M AURHL ANTVNEINO% %EB Laureate (radiate, b) cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. with aegis. Rev: KENDREI%EIA PUYIA EN FILIPPOPOLI NEVKORV Eight-column Corinthian temple, shield with spear diagonally behind it in pediment. a) Vienna 9047 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 191) b) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AUT K M AURHL(IO%, e) ANTVNEINO% %EB Radiate cuirassed bust of Elagabalus, r. Rev: KENDREI%EIA PUYIA EN FILIPPOPOLI NEVKORV Eight-column (Corinthian, f) temple in three-quarter view, disc in pediment. a) SNGRighetti 307 b) London 1905.1014-8 c) Paris 1352 d) Berlin, Löbbecke e) Berlin 851/1900 f) Berlin 57/1874 g) New York, Newell.

9 Kolev 1991, 513 no. 2. Only the reverse of the coin was illustrated, so the attribution to Elagabalus, though likely, cannot be confirmed.

244

part i – section ix. koinon of thrace

The emperor’s name does not appear, so perhaps the festival was associated with the god only.10 A Pythian festival had been celebrated at Philippopolis before Elagabalus, and Pythia and Kentreseia (sic) continued well into the mid-third century.11 That Philippopolis was neokoros for the emperor and not for the god, however, will be shown by the title’s disappearance shortly after Elagabalus’ death. The hilltop sanctuary of Apollo Kendrisos has been identified as Dzendemtepe in the modern Bulgarian city of Plovdiv; some votives and rooftiles have been found, but a Christian basilica took the temple’s presumed place on the summit.12 A coin of Caracalla shows a panoramic view of the temple and its accompanying temenos, with altar, statues, and perhaps a propylon, atop the wooded hill.13 As noted above, large-module coin types show the temple as Corinthian, at least eight-column, with the shieldand-spear motif in the pediment; smaller types are more summary: COIN TYPE 5. Obv: IOUL KORN PAULA %EB Diademed draped bust of Julia Paula, r. Rev: MHTROPOLEV% FILIPPOPOLEV% NEVKOROU Eight-column temple, disc in pediment. a) BMC 52 b) Paris 1355 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 192). The city goddess herself is also shown at this time holding the small temple, personifying the city as neokoros.14 The later fortunes of neokoros Philippopolis are hard to relate, as the city stopped minting coins soon after these issues. Four inscriptions refer to the city as neokoros; all date to the reign of Elagabalus’ cousin and successor Severus Alexander, but with Alexander’s name erased due to the condemnation of his memory after his death in 235. Inscriptions 1-3 are all milestones set up when Rutilius Pudens Crispinus was governing the province; no. 1 is the most complete, but all give the same formula: INSCRIPTION 1. IGBR 3.1.1373 (= IGRR 1:719). { lamprotãth t}w Yrak«n §parxe¤aw mhtrÒpoliw FilippÒpoliw nevkÒrow... As Rutilius later accompanied Severus Alexander on his eastern campaign and was with him at Palmyra, 10 11 12 13 14

Karl 1975, 75. Leschhorn 1998, 412-413; Vagalinski 1994. Frova 1976; Tsontchev 1938, 25-28, 147-148. Kolev 1991, 513 no. 1. Pick 1904, 10 no. 7.1.

he must have served as imperial legatus to Thrace no later than 232 C.E.15 Withdrawn: Severus Alexander No subsequent inscription calls Philippopolis neokoros, and it is likely that, like many other cities, Philippopolis lost the title due to the condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory in the early years of Severus Alexander’s reign.16 Though ultimately an argument from silence, it is the one alternative that explains Philippopolis’ frequent proclamation of the title for only that particular decade, but never before and never after, and also jibes with the evidence of rivalry from Perinthos (q.v.). Coins of the larger city may have subsumed two neokoriai under the simple title ‘neokoros’ until Elagabalus gave Philippopolis the title; after that, Perinthos’ title was always ‘twice neokoros,’ even after Philippopolis’ neokoria was lost. The events at Philippopolis show a noteworthy aspect of Roman administration. Though Thrace had been a Roman province since 45/46 C.E., with a koinon documented since the time of Antoninus Pius, the metropolis of that koinon may not have become neokoros until 219 C.E. Even then, if Elagabalus had chosen a more roundabout route to Rome, it is possible that Philippopolis never would have become neokoros. In that case Perinthos, the seat of the Roman governor, would have remained the only neokoros in the province. Contrast the province Macedonia: it too separated the functions of metropolis of the koinon (Beroia) from those of the center of Roman government (Thessalonike). But Beroia not only became neokoros first, it claimed exclusivity for that title from the time of Nerva up to Gordian III. Was there a difference in this practice between the koina of provinces whose governors were chosen by the emperor (Thrace, its center neokoros only late) and proconsular ones (Macedonia, its center neokoros early)? Yet Perge (q.v.) in the imperial province of Pamphylia had been neokoros ‘from Vespasian.’ The point is that the situation varies from province to province and koinon to koinon. The posi-

15 IGRR 3:1033; Thomasson 1984, 172 no. 51; Barbieri 1952, 227-228 no. 1147. 16 Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.

chapter

30

tion and title of neokoros was not conferred from above, but had to be requested from below. It was not automatically accorded to Philippopolis simply because it was the metropolis of its koinon. Indeed, the temple for which Philippopolis finally became neokoros was not even a temple to the imperial cult, but that of the city’s chief god. This makes it possible that despite the presence of Thracarchs and koinon festivals, Philippopolis had no provincial imperial temple as such even up to the third century; such temples were not handed out automatically to furnish every new koinon. Jordanes stated that Philippopolis was founded by the emperor Philip, but he plainly confused the Thracian city with the one of the same name in Arabia, that emperor’s place of origin.17 Though Kolendo proposed that the city in Thrace was refounded at that time instead, it would not need rebuilding until a few years later, under Trajan Decius, when Gothic armies invaded Thrace and besieged Philippopolis.18 Priscus, governor of Macedonia and imperial legate to Thrace, was trapped in the city and had to declare himself emperor and make a pact with the invaders.19 Despite that, the Goths destroyed Philippopolis and killed Trajan Decius in battle at Abrittus. The new emperor Trebonianus Gallus then allowed them to withdraw, 17

Kolendo 1992. Zosimus 1.24.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17; Bleckmann 1992, 161-162, 165-167, 174. 19 Aurelius Victor 29.2; Polemius Sylvius 39-40; Dexippus fr. 18; PIR2 I 489 (T. Julius Priscus); Kienast 1996, 208; Potter 1990, 280-281.

– philippopolis

245

carrying off the wealth, and many of the citizens, of Philippopolis. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Mihailov 1956-1961 (= IGBR) 3.1.1373 (= IGRR 1:719). Milestone from Tugugerum, twelve miles from Philippopolis, erected before 232, under Severus Alexander. See text above. Similar to nos. 2 and 3. 2. IGBR 3.1.897 (= IGRR 1:1471). Milestone similar to nos. 1 and 3. 3. IGBR 3.1.898 (= IGRR 1:1472). Milestone similar to nos. 1 and 2. 4. Botusarova 1972, 161-164 no. 2. Dedication to Severus Alexander by a Thracarch. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Elagabalus: BMC 43, 44, 46-51, 47a, 55 and Lydia volume, Philadelphia 92 (misattributed); SNGCop 784, 786; SNGRighetti 306, 307; SNGMil 569, 570 (both misidentified as Caracalla), 573, 574; Berlin (25 exx.), London (7 exx.), New York (2 exx.), Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (19 exx.), Plovdiv (4 exx.),20 Vienna (9 exx.). Julia Paula: BMC 52; Berlin, Paris, Vienna.

18

20

4.11.

Zaprjanov and Kolev 1971, 278-279 nos. 1.5, 1.6, 3.9,

246

part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia

SECTION X. KOINON OF CAPPADOCIA Chapter 31. Kaisareia: Koinon of Cappadocia Set in the heart of a rough and little-urbanized province, Kaisareia, under its former names Mazaka and Eusebeia, had been the capital of the kings of Cappadocia. In 17 C.E. its last king, Archelaos II, who had been called to Rome to stand trial before the Senate, died, and his realm became a Roman province.1 Kaisareia may have continued to function as the seat of government for the province and as the koinon center also, though little is known of the latter beyond the existence of a Cappadocarch at its head and a Koina festival as early as 25 C.E.2 Kaisareia’s bronze coins claim the title metropolis during the reign of Commodus and thereafter.3 From the time of the province’s absorption under Tiberius, Kaisareia served as an official Roman mint for the eastern provinces.4 As such it issued silver coins of a distinctly Roman style, early on with Latin legends, though later with Greek, and often dated by the emperor’s regnal year. Its high points of production can be associated with heightened activities on the eastern front, especially the Parthian conflicts.5 The city also issued its own municipal coinage in bronze with Greek legends, but this was only intended for local circulation. First Neokoria: Septimius Severus Kaisareia first appears as neokoros on coins of Septimius Severus and his family.6 By this time both silver and bronze coinages were being issued with

1 Tacitus, Annals 2.42; Cassius Dio 57.17. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:63, 97-98; Remy 1986, 30-33. 2 Haensch 1997, 272-276; Deininger 1965, 82; Moretti 1953, 164 no. 62. 3 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978 (= S/M with coin numbers) 145 nos. 345a and 346a, attributed to Marcus Aurelius, are reported from old sources and should be reexamined. 4 Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, 2-16, 139-140. 5 Kunisz 1986; Bar 1985. 6 S. Price 1984b, 269.

Greek legends and the name of the city on the reverse, so Kaisareia is the only city yet known to have issued coins with the title ‘neokoros’ in (alloyed) silver as well as bronze.7 This fact is not relevant to the current study, however, and the metals of the coins will not be distinguished here, especially since increased alloying during this period, coupled with conditions of the coins’ production and decay, makes accurate distinction between the metals by sight alone difficult. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K L %EP %EOUHRO Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: MHTROP KAI%ARI; ET ID; NEVKOROU the latter in central intercolumniation of two-column Corinthian temple, star in pediment (year 14 = 205/206 C.E.). a) Berlin 709/1914 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 193). The earliest coins of Septimius Severus that show the title ‘neokoros,’ like type 1, date to the fourteenth year of his rule, or from the end of 205 to the end of 206 C.E.8 Sydenham’s monograph on coins of Kaisareia may seem to contradict this fact, as it cites coins of Julia Domna and Caracalla that include the title and dates them to the second and fourth year of Severus’ reign, or as early as 193/194.9 The source of confusion becomes clear when it is noted that Sydenham’s type 480 (BMC 271), dated to 193/ 194, gives Caracalla the title Augustus, which he did not receive until autumn 197 at the earliest.10 In fact, Sydenham assumed that all regnal dates on these coins had to be Septimius Severus’, with the result that he dated no coins of either Caracalla or Julia 7 Butcher and Ponting 1997; Metcalf 1997. The separation of silver and bronze minting in earlier phases, noted by Metcalf 1996, 149-151, would not necessarily apply to this later period, but the question needs to be investigated. 8 Metcalf 1997, 177-178. 9 S/M 457, 480; also note Malloy’s misassignment of no. 396a, a coin of year 16, to year 12. 10 Kienast 1996, 162-165.

chapter Domna after 213, when Caracalla ruled alone. In fact these coins were minted in the second and fourth year of Caracalla’s own rule, after his father’s death, which would explain his titulature and the maturity of his portrait as well as the use of the title ‘neokoros.’11 The problems of Kaisareia’s chronology are not entirely solved by looking at the Cappadocian calendar, which probably had its new year on December 12.12 Severus’ first year, then, only lasted from his elevation to Augustus on April 9, 193 to December 12 of that year, but there are Kaisareian coins for him in what would have been his twentieth year, and for Julia Domna in the twenty-first, though he died in the nineteenth.13 Was the delay in communications between Britain, where he died, and Cappadocia that great? And/or did Kaisareia mint its new issues well in advance of the appropriate year? There are also coins of Geta’s third year; yet from his father’s death to his own was less than one year, with the Cappadocian new year’s occurrence shortly before his death giving a count of two years at most.14 It is likely that there was some overlap between reign counts, that is, that coins for Julia Domna continued to be issued with her husband’s regnal year even after his death; and that an independent count for new coins of both Caracalla and Geta harked back to origin points before their father’s death. If Geta’s count started in 209, when he was made Augustus, coins of Geta’s year three would date to 211, the year of his death; it was also the fourteenth year (according to Kaisareia’s count) of his co-ruler Caracalla, and some coins of Julia Domna show both dates simultaneously.15 On the other hand, it is plain that some coins of Caracalla were dated not from the time he was made Augustus, but from the time that his brother was; thus Sydenham’s coin type 480, mentioned above, is unlikely to be Caracalla’s year 2 as Augustus (199/ 200 C.E.) since the obverse of Caracalla is recognizably his fully mature portrait, and the neokoria it boasts would then be placed well earlier than it appears on any other coins.16 It is likely that as a 11 Metcalf 1997, 174; this is more likely than the hypothesis of Ziegler 1985, 35 n. 84, who would simply add an unseen iota (= 10) to each anomalous coin. 12 Bland 1991, 214-215. 13 Julia Domna, SNGCop 267. 14 Kienast 1996, 156-168. 15 Metcalf 1997, 179-181. 16 This is calculated by counting back from the previously

31

– kaisareia

247

celebration of the ‘brotherly love’ of the two men who were supposed to share the empire, the regnal clock was reset for Caracalla once he and his brother were both Augusti; then, after his brother was killed, the mint went back to Caracalla’s own regnal dates, as if Geta had never existed, and issued coins at least up to Caracalla’s year 20 (217/218), though he died in the East on April 8, 217, in Kaisareia’s year 19. It may appear that the problems in Kaisareia’s chronology have thus all been worked out: delays in recognizing the deaths of emperors, Caracalla’s dual regnal years, Julia Domna’s count from the reign of her husband and both of her sons. But the following coin type does not fit this pattern: COIN TYPE 2. Obv: A K M AURH ANTVNEINO Laureate head of Caracalla r., beardless. Rev: KAI%AREVN TVN PRO% TV ARGAIV NEVKOR ET IG (year 13 = 210/211? 204/205?) within pearled border.17 a) Paris 600 b) Berlin, Löbbecke (illus. pl. 37 fig. 194). If dated by Caracalla’s own regnal years, the beardless portrait on the obverse is far more youthful than other, mature portraits from that year; but if calculated by Septimius Severus’ regnal years, it documents the neokoria a year earlier than any of Severus’ own coins. In deciding whether coins of Caracalla as Augustus used his father’s regnal year count, it is useful to look at agonistic types: the same year(s) that saw the first use of ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins also were first to prominently feature festivals. Coins of the Severan family show Mt. Argaios, the genius, site, and symbol of Kaisareia, between two prize crowns, and name contests as Severeios, Philadelphios, koinos of Cappadocia, and ‘sacred.’18 Thus the festival or series of festivals included contests in honor of Severus himself, the supposed fraternal devotion between Caracalla and Geta, and the long-standing provincial festival of Cappadocia, and it is very likely that at least one of these was connected with the grant of neokoria. Like the issues with the title ‘neokoros,’ where dates are clear the agonistic issues mentioned coins of Julia Domna that equate Geta’s year 3 with Caracalla’s 14; it equates Caracalla’s year 1 with Severus’ year seven, which is as much as a year later than Caracalla’s actual elevation; see Kienast 1996, 162-165. 17 S/M 483. 18 Weiss 1998, 63; Karl 1975, 78, 126, 132. Also note Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1528, which mentions a festival Antonea Severeia in Cappadocia.

248

part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia

with obverses of Septimius Severus are dated to the year 14.19 Issues of Julia Domna, however, appear for both years 13 and 14,20 and there is an issue of Geta Caesar for year 13.21 Thus when similar issues for Caracalla, youthful and beardless, are dated to the years 13 and 14,22 it seems more likely that the whole family is using Severus’ regnal years and that the festivals fell during the years 204/205-205/206 rather than moving Caracalla’s issues alone to create a repeat of the Severeios and Philadelphios in 210/ 211-211/212. It is plain that for this complicated chronology to be fully understood, all of the Kaisareian coinage, both silver and bronze, needs to be restudied in terms of metrology, die linkage, and portraiture. The Corinthian shrine on coin type 1 surely represents the temple for which Kaisareia was neokoros, as that title is wedged into its central intercolumniation. More elaborate variants of the same temple are shown on types 3 and 4 (the title appears on the lowest step of the latter). COIN TYPE 3. Obv: [...%]EPTI %EOUHRO% Laureate head of Septimius Severus r. Rev: MHTR [...] KAI%A NEVK Six-column temple with broken pediment (eagle? within), on tall podium, staircase at front. a) Private collection, Foss.23 COIN TYPE 4. Obv: AU KAI M AURH ANTVNINO% Laureate head of Caracalla r. Rev: MHTROP KAI%ARI(A, b); NEVKOR; ET ID (year 14 = 211/212). Six-column temple on three-step podium, eagle in pediment, columns garlanded. a) Paris 59124 b) Paris 602 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 195) c) London 1974.4-6-1. Both are hexastyle structures with an eagle shown in the pediment, but the former (unfortunately a very worn example) gives more particular details. Its temple appears to be set on a high podium and approached by a central staircase, much like the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (q.v.). 19

S/M 435a (= SNGvA 6461). SNGvA 6454, dated to year 2, shows a beta in high relief after a blank space, so is perhaps recut; its obverse die is the same as that of S/M 436, the date of which is worn away; I have not seen a coin in New York, S/M 436.1, also dated to year 2. 20 S/M 458 (year 13), 464a (year 14). 21 S/M 501b (= SNGvA 6491). 22 S/M 491a (=SNGvA 6485), 491-494 (year 13), 495 (year 14). 23 My thanks to Clive Foss for showing me this coin. 24 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 378.

Though the entablature of the facade is continuous, the pediment appears broken (though at that point the relief is quite faint) and the two central columns seem either thinner or farther away than the other four. Whether types 1, 3, and 4 represent the same structure or not, the sudden appearance of temples, imperial and provincial contests of sacred status, and the title ‘neokoros’ on Kaisareian coins of 205/206 (possibly even 204/205) raises the question, was this a new neokoria? The thought of a province like Cappadocia going without a provincial temple and neokoria for so long seemed impossible to Buechner.25 He posited that, like Ankyra (q.v.) in Galatia, Kaisareia had had a provincial imperial cult temple since the foundation of the province, but did not see fit to publicize it on the coins until many years later. It is dangerous to assume conditions in one province using evidence from another, however. And there is a counterexample to Ankyra: Philippopolis in Thrace (q.v.), though metropolis of its koinon, apparently only got its first neokoria in the third century, and then housed it in its temple of Apollo, rather than an independent provincial temple to the emperors. Certainly there must have already been some accommodation for the practice of the provincial imperial cult at Kaisareia, but we have no way of knowing what it was. Kaisareia’s temple may have been old or new, and it is possible that the title ‘neokoros’ was newly granted. This is certainly the title’s first appearance in Cappadocia, for though Nikopolis in Armenia Minor (q.v.) may have been part of the same province administratively, it was part of a different koinon.26 An inscription from Ankyra documented an athlete who won at a contest celebrated for Commodus at Kaisareia; from this, Mitchell hypothesized that Kaisareia’s neokoria was for Commodus.27 Though this is again just possible, like Buechner’s restoration of likely cults to Rome and Augustus, it is in no way necessary. Festivals in Commodus’ name were celebrated in at least six other cities, but only two (Laodikeia and Tarsos) are known to have been neokoros for that emperor’s cult. Moreover, at Miletos, the right to celebrate the long-standing Didymeia with the name of Commodus added was actu25 26 27

Buechner 1888, 96. Remy 1986, 30, 53; Deininger 1965, 32, 82 n. 10. S. Mitchell 1993, 1:218, 221.

chapter ally requested from the Senate in the lifetime of Marcus Aurelius, and had nothing to do with a neokoria for Commodus.28 Though there was likely some earlier provincial imperial cult at Kaisareia, the coincidence of title, temple, and Severeia Philadelphia Koina from the year(s) 204?-206 on indicates that Kaisareia was probably neokoros for Septimius Severus, with honors for his sons, now designated Augustus and Caesar, included within the cult.29 The emperor fought two Parthian wars, and he and his family spent a good deal of time in the East. Road construction projects that he had instituted in Cappadocia continued after his eastern wars, lasting to 208 and later; he obviously recognized the importance of the region.30 Severus is at least known to have visited Tyana in the southern part of Cappadocia, probably on his way back to Rome for his decennalia in 202.31 A coin type of Kaisareia that shows three figures (perhaps Severus, Caracalla, and Geta) saluting the god of Mt. Argaios on the holy mountain itself may not prove an actual imperial visit to Kaisareia, but implies honors granted to the city and its deity, perhaps from nearby.32 There was no bond of early alliance between Severus and Kaisareia: as mentioned above, the imperial mint had issued coins for his rival, Pescennius Niger.33 The longer his reign remained unchallenged, however, the more Severus seemed willing to forgive and give benefits even to cities that had earlier been hostile to his cause: for example, Nikaia (q.v.) received an imperial visit and a Severeia Philadelphia festival. Kaisareia’s eventual loyalty (perhaps accompanied by a tribute of crown gold for imperial victory), or its gratitude for favors or forgiveness, is expressed by a coin also dated precisely to Severus’ year thirteen: its legend is the (missspelled) acclamation EIS EVNA TOUS KURIOUS, “the emperors for28

S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220; Miranda 1992-1993; Karl 1975, 80-81. 29 Ziegler 1985, 35, concentrating only on the Philadelphia aspect of the festival, would attribute the cult solely to Caracalla and Geta. 30 Magie 1950, 676-677, 1545-1546. 31 Halfmann 1986a, 216-223; Cassius Dio 76 (75).15.4. 32 Weiss 1985, 33-34 nos. 26, 46-47, pl. 12. Metcalf 1997, 178 postulated that the type means that Severus, Caracalla, and Geta’s cult (for which the city was neokoros) moved into the temple of the god on Argaios; but the type in question shows no temple, and Metcalf was reasoning solely from the silver, without the more various bronze types of temples and games. 33 Bastien 1972; Nony 1971.

31

– kaisareia

249

ever!”34 Embassies to the Senate for confirmation, administrative details, or even construction of a temple if one did not already exist, could explain the delay in appearance of the title neokoros, (and festivals possibly allied with it) until 204 or 205, but Kaisareia as neokoros is most likely to have begun with the interaction between Severus’ presence and interest in the province during his eastern wars, and Kaisareia’s reciprocal expressions of loyalty and good feeling. Second Neokoria: Severus Alexander Kaisareia apparently demonstrated its close ties to another Severan, Severus Alexander, even before the city documented its second neokoria on coins. COIN TYPE 5. Obv: AU K %EOUH ALEJAND Laureate cuirassed (with aegis) bust of Severus Alexander r. with sceptre. Rev: MHTROPO KAI%ARIA% NEVKOR ET G (year 3 = 223/224 C.E.) Togate emperor holding Mt. Argaios and sceptre rides in quadriga. a) BMC 30235 b) Oxford 23.35 c) Berlin, Löbbecke. COIN TYPE 6. Obv: [AU K %]EOUHRO% ALEJANDRO% %EB Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: MHTROPOLE KAI%ARIA% NEVKOROU ET Z; ALEJAN (year 7 = 227/228 C.E.) Mount Argaios flanked by conical simulacra. a) BMC 326.36 Coin type 5 does not necessarily indicate an otherwise unknown and inexplicable imperial visit to Cappadocia in that year; Mt. Argaios can appear almost anywhere on Kaisareia’s coinage.37 On type 6 either the city or a festival (more likely the former) has acquired the name Alexandreia after the emperor. Type 7 proclaims the new title ‘twice neokoros’: COIN TYPE 7. Obv: AU K %EOU ALEJAN Radiate draped cuirassed bust of Severus Alexander r. Rev: A M K G PON K AR MHTROP KAI%ARIA DI% NE ET (E, ab; ̣, c) (year 5 = 225/226 C.E., year 6 = 226/227 C.E.) in plain border.38 a)

34

J. Nollé 1998, 342. S/M 546, incorrect transcription. 36 S/M 579. 37 Weiss 1985; Börker-Klähn 1989, 242-255 would have avoided many errors had she seen Weiss’ work. 38 S/M 597 from year 9, 230 C.E. 35

250

part i – section x. koinon of cappadocia

Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer (illus. pl. 37 fig. 196) b) Berlin 1623/1892 c) Warsaw 55017. Type 7 celebrates Kaisareia’s entire titulature, and though it uses only a plain border and no pictorial type, there is still not enough room to spell it out totally. So Kaisareia used an acronym similar to that used by Cilician cities like Tarsos and Anazarbos (qq.v.) at the same time, to call itself A' (pr\th) M(eg¤sth) K(all¤sth t«n) G' (§parxei«n) PÒn(tou) K(appadok¤aw) ÉAr(men¤aw) mhtrÒp(oliw) Kaisar¤a d‹w ne(vkÒrow): “first, greatest, most beautiful of the three eparchies Pontus, Cappadocia, Armenia; metropolis Kaisareia twice neokoros.” Kaisareia’s second neokoria presents a chronological problem, however. Though the title is only known to have been declared on type 7, that type was issued in the fifth, sixth, and ninth years of Severus Alexander’s reign. But other issues of his sixth, seventh, and eighth regnal years give some version of ‘neokoros’ with no indication of ‘twice.’ If the second neokoria was given in 226, why were coins that call the city only neokoros minted from 227 to 229? As mentioned previously, the design of type 7 indicates a special effort made to include all the city’s titles. The other coins abbreviate less and spell the individual words out more fully in the limited space available. These coins most likely omitted the enumeration ‘twice’ although the city was entitled to use it. If so, for how long had that been happening? Had the city been twice neokoros since Septimius Severus, for example, as Perinthos was? And why omit what could be expressed with a single letter? We can document this titular vacillation at Kaisareia because the city issued dated coins. The same procedure could have occurred at other cities, like Perinthos and perhaps Kyzikos (qq.v.). It seems, however, that in provinces where there were many cities and intense rivalry over titles and privileges, the cities were more likely consistently to proclaim the maximum number of neokoriai to which they were entitled.39 Cappadocia was not an urbanized province like Asia; Kaisareia was not just its chief city but almost its only major city.40 In the absence of rivals, it could afford to be casual in expressing its titulature without enumeration. So the answer must be that we cannot be certain whether Kaisa39 40

Nonetheless, see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ n. 26. Magie 1950, 200-201.

reia’s second neokoria was granted earlier, only that it was granted by the time of Severus Alexander’s reign. As Kaisareia did not issue coins using the title ‘neokoros’ under Maximinus, we cannot tell whether its second neokoria was endangered by the shortlived condemnation of Severus Alexander’s memory.41 Afterwards, in any case, Kaisareia named itself twice neokoros more consistently, though abbreviatedly (B N or B NE), on coins of the time of Gordian III down to 244; these were the last issues of the Kaisareia mint.42 Two coins that are documented as giving the title without enumeration may simply indicate that Kaisareia reverted once or twice to its old habit.43 Kaisareia’s later history was unfortunate. When the Sassanian king Shapur captured the emperor Valerian in 260, Persian forces pushed their way deep into the Roman provinces, including Cappadocia; Kaisareia is named among the great cities that they sacked.44 No inscriptions of Kaisareia as neokoros are yet known. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Septimius Severus, year 14: SNGvA 6464; SNGRighetti 1786; Berlin (2 exx.), Oxford, Vienna. Year 15: SNGvA 6468;45 Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Year 16:46 Berlin (3 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw. Year 17: BMC 229; SNGvA 6469; Berlin (3 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).

41 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 believed that the condemnation was unofficial. 42 Bland 1991, 217 n. 14 incorrectly stated that Gordian granted the second neokoria. 43 S/M 605 and 613a; as they could not be directly inspected, they are not included in the lists of coins citing neokoria, below. 44 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; Potter 1990, 274-276. The sources are collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 57-65; also 51, allegedly an invasion of Kaisareia along with Tyana and Antioch as early as 253. 45 Malloy, in Sydenham rev. Malloy 1978, no. 401c, misdated. 46 S/M 396a, 401a.

chapter

31

– kaisareia

251

Year 18: BMC 230, 231; SNGCop 260; Ireland 2000, no. 1902 (date mistranscribed); Berlin (5 exx.), Oxford, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna. Year 19: BMC 232; Berlin. Unknown year: Private collection, Foss.

(4 exx.), Paris (5 exx.), Vienna (3 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Year 3: SNGCop 284; SNGvA 6502; Berlin, Warsaw. Year 4: SNGvA 6505. Uncertain year: Ireland 2000, nos. 1926, 1927.

Septimius Severus and Caracalla, year 15: BMC 237; Berlin.

Julia Maesa, Elagabalus’ year 2: BMC 295; SNGRighetti 1796; Berlin (4 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw.

Julia Domna, Severus’ year 14: BMC 253, 254; Berlin, London, Paris (2 exx.). Year 15: SNGCop 265; Berlin (2 exx.), London. Year 16: BMC 255; SNGvA 6478; Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna. Year 17: SNGCop 266; Berlin, London, Paris, Warsaw. Year 18: SNGvA 6479; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.). Year 19: BMC 257; SNGCop 268; Berlin, New York, Paris. Caracalla’s year 4(?): BMC 259.

Severus Alexander, year 1: SNGvA 6509; Berlin, Paris (3 exx.). Year 3: BMC 302, 307; SNGCop 288; SNGvA 6511; Berlin (6 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris, Warsaw. Year 4: Berlin. Year 6: Oxford, Paris, Warsaw. Year 7: BMC 326. Year 8: Berlin, Paris. Unknown year: Paris.

Caracalla: Severus’ year 13?:47 Berlin, Paris. Severus’? year 14: SNGCop 270, 273; Ireland 2000, no. 1902; Berlin (8 exx.), London, New York, Oxford, Paris (2 exx.). Caracalla’s year 8 (= Severus’ year 14?): Boston. Caracalla and Geta’s year 2: London, Paris (2 exx.). Year 4?: Boston. Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 15: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, Warsaw. Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 16: SNGCop 271; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris, Warsaw. Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 17: Ireland 2000, no. 1914; Berlin (4 exx.), London, Paris (4 exx.), Warsaw (3 exx.). Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 18: Berlin (3 exx.). Caracalla’s (or Severus’?) year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Vienna. Year obscure: Ireland 2000, nos. 1910, 1911. Geta Caesar: Severus’ year 14: Paris. Year 16: Berlin, Paris. Year 17: Berlin (2 exx.). Geta Augustus: Severus’ year 18: Berlin, Paris, Vienna. Severus’ year 19: Berlin (2 exx.), Paris. Caracalla and Geta’s year 3: Adana 228;48 BMC 277, 278; SNGCop 276; SNGvA 6494; Berlin, Paris. Macrinus, year 2: BMC 281; SNGvA 6496; Berlin (2 exx.), Paris, Warsaw. Macrinus and Diadumenian Caesar, year 2: BMC 282284; SNGvA 6498; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston (2 exx.), Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.). Diadumenian Caesar, Macrinus’ year 2: Berlin.

Twice neokoros: Severus Alexander, year 5: Berlin (2 exx.). Year 6: Warsaw. Year 9: S/M 597. Gordian III, year 3: BMC 340; SNGCop 303; SNGvA 6523; Berlin (9 exx.), London, Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.).50 Year 4: BMC 341-344; Adana 231; SNGCop 304-306, 308; SNGvA 6524, 6526-6530; SNGRighetti 1804-1806; Ireland 2000, no. 1942; Berlin (35 exx.), Boston, London (4 exx.), New York, Oxford (5 exx.), Paris (13 exx.), Vienna (6 exx.), Warsaw (18 exx.).51 Year 5: Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (2 exx.).52 Year 6: SNGCop 310; SNGLewis 1724; Berlin (3 exx.), London, Oxford, Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (3 exx.).53 Year 7: BMC 346-349; SNGCop 311; SNGvA 6531; SNGLewis 1725; Berlin (9 exx.), New York (6 exx.), Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (4 exx.), Vienna, Warsaw (11 exx.).54 Year unknown: SNGvA 6525; Berlin (6 exx.), London, Paris, Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw. Tranquillina, Gordian’s year 4: SNGvA 6532; Berlin, London, New York, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw (2 exx.).55 Year 6: SNGCop 312; SNGRighetti 1807, 1808; Berlin, Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Vienna.56 Year 7: BMC 350; SNGCop 313; SNGvA 6534; Berlin (3 exx.), Boston, New York, Oxford (2 exx.), Paris (3 exx.), Vienna (2 exx.), Warsaw.57 Year unknown: Warsaw. 50

Elagabalus, year 2: BMC 289; BMC 27149; SNGvA 6499; SNGRighetti 1795; Berlin (9 exx.), London, Oxford 47

S/M 483. Cox 1941, 228. 49 Catalogued as Caracalla; Weiss 1985, 34 identified this as a reworked coin of Elagabalus. 48

Bland 1991, 232-235 nos. 1-18, 244 no. 72. Ibid., 235-241 nos. 19-57, 245 nos. 73-75, 77. 52 Ibid., 242-243 nos. 61-68. 53 Ibid., 246-247 nos. 85, 88, 89. 54 Ibid., 247 nos. 91, 92. 55 Ibid., 241-242 nos. 58-60, 245 nos. 76, 78. Also coins of year 5 and year 4 or 5, 243-244 nos. 69-71. 56 Ibid., 247 no. 87. 57 Ibid., 247-248 nos. 90, 93, 94. 51

252

part i – section xi. koinon of phoenicia

SECTION XI. KOINON OF PHOENICIA Chapter 32. Tripolis: Koinon of Phoenicia First Neokoria: Elagabalus? Tripolis is the only city in Phoenicia yet known to have been called neokoros. The evidence, moreover, is scanty: a single coin from a private collection, unillustrated, in an old publication.1 An identical coin was described earlier by Mionnet, and there is always a chance that another example will surface.2 But there is also the possibility of misreading where the coin itself could not be checked. COIN TYPE 1. Obv: AU K M AU ANTVNINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Elagabalus r. Rev: TRIPOLIT NAUARX NEVK ALF Ship sailing l. a) Private collection (Dr. P. Schroeder, Beirut). The coin is dated to 219 C.E. (531 of the Seleucid era) and claims the titles nauarchis (‘mistress of ships’) as well as neok(oros). The former, at least, is well known on coins of Tripolis, which was one of the major harbors of the Phoenician coast.3 Tripolis had at one time been the seat of the common council of Phoenicians, but not since the fourth century B.C.E.4 When Septimius Severus split Phoenicia off as a province separate from the rest of Syria, he favored Tyre, which had been so firmly on his side early in his reign that it had been burned by Pescennius Niger’s troops for its partisanship.5 Tyre was made a colony and issued coins for the koinon of Phoenicia which showed a large seven-(!) or eight-columned temple, probably for the provincial imperial cult.6 1

Rouvier 1903, 43 no. 1754. Mionnet 1806-1808, 5:406 no. 454. 3 Adams 1984. Note that though this title appears on coins only intermittently, Tripolis had claimed it since the earlier second century: see the honorific inscription from the Athenian Akropolis, IG II/III2 4210, after 128/129 C.E. 4 Diodorus Siculus 16.41.1. 5 Herodian 3.3.3-5. 6 Millar 1990, 31-32, 34-37; Kindler 1982-1983; Deininger 1965, 88. Coins showing the temple, Greek inscriptions, Melqart 2

Under Elagabalus, however, Tyre may have fallen under a cloud. The titles ‘metropolis’ and ‘colony’ disappear from its coins, which read simply ‘of the Tyrians,’ though still in the Latin proper to a colony.7 At the same time Elagabalus gave these titles to nearby Sidon.8 Tyre apparently had shown itself in favor of Macrinus, for whom it issued coins. Did Elagabalus do what Septimius Severus had done before him by not only abasing the cities that opposed him, but elevating their rivals in their stead? This would depend on an argument from silence, and would also be an atypical action for that emperor, who is better known for granting titles than for withdrawing them; the Tyrians may instead have altered their coinage by their own choice. It is still barely possible that Tripolis was made neokoros as part of the process of abasing Tyre, or simply because Elagabalus favored it. Of the Phoenician cities it is one of the closest to his home city Emesa, which was also named metropolis at this time. As the evidence for Tripolis as neokoros for Elagabalus is based on only one unexamined coin, we cannot draw conclusions from the cessation of the evidence. If Tripolis was indeed given the neokoria by Elagabalus, like all the other cities that received the title from Elagabalus, it lost it after his death. No inscriptions of Tripolis as neokoros are yet known. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Elagabalus: Private collection (see above).

obverse: BMC 361-366; Latin, under Caracalla: BMC 376; Latin, under Macrinus: BMC 381, Chehab 1977, 59 no. 1595. 7 Head 1911, 801. 8 Millar 1993, 285-295; 1990, 50-51.

chapter

33

– patara: koinon/ethnos of lycia

253

SECTION XII. KOINON/ETHNOS OF LYCIA Chapter 33. Patara: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia Though initially a league of free cities, Lycia was annexed by Claudius in 43 C.E. because of internal strife and the deaths of Roman citizens.1 It was previously thought that under Claudius, and after a short interval again by 74 C.E., the territory was administered jointly with Pamphylia, which was detached from Galatia for that purpose.2 The discovery that at the foundation of the province the roads were measured from Patara has led some to see Lycia as possibly a distinct province at the time of Claudius, with Patara likely the seat of its governor.3 Lycia and Pamphylia each had its own separate koinon association, but this was not uncommon, and does not rule out their being administered within a single province. The structure of the Lycian koinon (also known as the ethnos of the Lycians) differed from those of other imperial koina discussed in this work.4 For one thing, it had functioned as a strong and independent association as early as the Hellenistic era. Also, despite the internal strife that led Claudius to annex Lycia, the individual cities appear to have formed more institutional bonds among themselves than other koina of Anatolia and its environs did. The koinon had lawcourts and an assembly as well as a council, and prominent men could hold citizenship of their home city plus that of another Lycian city, several cities, or even all of them.5 The cities voted in and contributed to their koinon differentially, in proportion to their size; the largest cities had three votes, the mid-size two, and the smallest one.6 Koinon meetings were held wherever the 1

Suetonius, Claudius 25.3; Cassius Dio 60.17.3. Balland 1981 (= FdXL), 1-8; Remy 1986, 34-35; Kolb and Kupke 1992, 25-27. 3 ”ahin 1994; Haensch 1997, 290, 293-297. 4 Deininger 1965, 8-9, 69-81; Jameson 1980; Troxell 1982, 1-13. 5 FdXL 177-180. 6 In 190 C.E. the koinon voted (and Commodus approved) that Bubon should get three votes rather than two, in view of 2

delegates chose. There was an eponymous chief priest of the Augusti, who may or may not have been different from the Lyciarch; if so, the same person was often chief priest in one year and Lyciarch in the next.7 Occasionally a chief priestess is mentioned as well.8 But in no known case were these officials called ‘chief priest (or chief priestess or Lyciarch) of temples’ in Lycia or in any city therein. First and Second Neokoria: by third century? By the mid-second century C.E. at least thirty-six cities were members of the Lycian koinon, with several calling themselves metropolis. Strabo, following Artemidoros of Ephesos, recorded that there were six leading cities that cast three votes in the koinon.9 This pre-Roman situation likely corresponds with the group of later metropoleis, among them Xanthos, which presided over the koinon’s sanctuary at the nearby Letoön; Patara, site of the oracle of Apollo and of the koinon archive; Myra, Telmessos, and Tlos. Limyra may be added to make up six.10 The earliest known appearance of the title metropolis at Lycia, an addition to Xanthos’ titulature on a base of Nerva, inclined Balland to attribute a systematization of Lycia’s provincial imperial cult to the time of that emperor, and specifically to the governor of Lycia/Pamphylia from 96 to 99, L. Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex.11 The timing that city’s success in suppressing bandits: Schindler 1972, no. 2. 7 FdXL 8-10. 8 Adak 1996, 134 and n. 13; FdXL 235-239 no. 71. 9 Strabo 14.3.3. 10 FdXL 53-55 no. 29, 176-177. 11 FdXL 132-136 no. 50, recording that the governor (re)organized a yearly panegyris, probably that allied with meetings of the koinon (but see also 231-235 nos. 69-70, 246-250 no. 78). FdXL no. 50 dates early in the reign of Trajan, however, so the author’s specification of Nerva’s reign for the governor’s action is no more firmly founded.

254

part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia

recalls Nerva’s confirmion of Beroia as the sole neokoros of Macedonia (q.v.), but that does not necessarily imply that Nerva undertook some grand trans-provincial reorganization. Balland’s argument that Xanthos’ titulature on this base could only have been augmented in Nerva’s reign is not watertight; Akalissos (q.v.) apparently had ‘neokoros’ added to an inscription at some distance of time. In any case, Xanthos was certainly metropolis by 102 C.E.12 Known documents for the other cities are later, but this does not eliminate the possibility that Xanthos was not the only city to become metropolis around the turn of the first and second centuries C.E. Patara declared itself metropolis of the Lycian ethnos on a triple arch that bore busts or small statues of Mettius Modestus, governor of Lycia and Pamphylia, and his family. This is the governor of 99-102 C.E., C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus.13 Bowersock tried to redate this monument to the time of Hadrian, since he believed that Hadrian was the first to allow metropolis status to more than one city per province.14 That situation may have been true for Syria, but a blanket case should not be applied to other provinces, least of all to atypical Lycia. Moreover, Bowersock’s hypothesis requires that a different Mettius Modestus, not otherwise documented, was governor of the same province very shortly after the first one, ca. 130 C.E.15 Though gates to welcome Hadrian were built elsewhere in the East, most notably in nearby Phaselis for a visit ca. 131, there is no overt indication that the triple arch in Patara acclaimed that imperial visitor.16 In fact, the triple arch is not a gate built to honor an emperor, but the end of an aqueduct; and subsequent excavations have found an inscription honoring Trajan, not Hadrian, nearby.17 The prominence of the busts/statuettes that punctuated both sides of the monument emphasized the primary

importance of the governor for the dedication.18 Thus it is likely that the Trajanic governor Mettius Modestus was responsible for the construction or extension of an aqueduct to Patara, and he and his family (father, mother, uncle of the same name, and perhaps other relatives) were honored for it by the koinon and by Patara, which was already named metropolis by 102 C.E. Later, as proconsul of Asia in 119/120, Modestus would undertake similar benefactions for an Asian city, Thyateira, which would honor him with an inscription on the Athenian akropolis.19 The Lycians had established a cult of the city of Rome in the Hellenistic period, and when Gaius Caesar, Augustus’ grandson and heir, died at Limyra, a magnificent cenotaph was built there for him.20 Tiberius and perhaps Germanicus and Drusus were worshipped by the Lycian koinon before it became a Roman province.21 There was also a koinon cult of the ancestral god Apollo (IGRR 3:473), and a panegyris in Patara associated his cult with that of the emperor.22 Festivals specified as provincial were the Rhomaia Letoa at Xanthos,23 possibly an isopythian contest dedicated to Rome and Augustus,24 and possibly the great isolympic Vespasianeia, though there is no evidence for a Lycian neokoria for Domitian, subsequently devoted to Vespasian, which Dräger restored from the name of the latter festival.25 Koinon festivals were also celebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Telmessos, and there was even a great Kasseia festival for a governor of the province.26 Aside from league issues, the only emperor under whom each Lycian city struck its own coinage was Gordian III, so it is not unexpected that ‘neokoros’ has not been noted on the few Pataran coins

18

12

FdXL 55-56 no. 30. 13 PIR2 M 568; Remy 1989, 291-293 no. 238; idem 1991, 174 nos. 112-113; FdXL 136-140 no. 51. 14 Bowersock 1985, 82-86. 15 Following Bowersock, Eck 1983, 169-171 n. 415; Thomasson 1984, 280 no. 25; Wörrle 1988, 43; Letta 1994a, 229. C. Jones 1999a, 4-5 found further evidence for the original Modestus, rather than a later one, in the later Hadrianic period, though he did not dispute Bowersock. 16 J. Schäfer 1981, 88-89, 141, 151-154; Halfmann 1986a, 130-131, 194, 208 (accepting Bowersock). 17 Excavations led by F. IâÌk since 1988: for the arch in particular, see IâÌk and YÌlmaz 1989, 7-8; IâÌk 1990, 33-35; 1991, 40; 2000, 81-82.

Pekáry 1978, 740, and 1985, 93. C. Jones 1999a, 4-5. 20 Fayer 1976, 12, 37-40, 133-134, 171; IGRR 3:474, 490, 563; FdXL 37-40 no. 18; R. Jakobek and Dinstl 1990, 33-34, 85-92, 96; J. Borchhardt and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer 1992, 108-110. 21 IGRR 3:474, 680; TAM 2.2.420; Haensch 1997, 296 n. 197. 22 FdXL 191 nos. 125-127. 23 Fayer 1976, 40; Wörrle 1988, 238-239. 24 FdXL 37-39 no. 18. 25 IGRR 3:487; Dräger 1993, 246-249, whose use of the term ‘Neokoriekult’ for all types of provincial imperial cult begs the question. 26 TAM 2.2.428; Remy 1991, 176; Wörrle 1988, 238-239. 19

chapter known.27 The sole evidence for Patara as neokoros is the following inscription: INSCRIPTION 1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5 (SEG 44 [1994] no. 1210). Statue base of a prominent citizen. Patar°vn { lamprå ka‹ ¶ndojow pÒliw, { mhtrÒpoliw, { érxiprof}tiw ka‹ d‹w nevkÒrow toË Luk¤vn ¶ynouw... Though Marek placed the inscription in the first to second centuries C.E., Bresson dated it in the third century.28 The latter is perhaps preferable, as the third century was a time when neokoriai proliferated elsewhere, but it cannot be assured without further data. On other inscriptions, Patara was generally content to call itself simply polis and metropolis of the Lycian ethnos.29 On inscription 1, the three provincial titles are grouped: as well as being metropolis, Patara is ‘chief prophet’ and ‘twice neokoros’ of the Lycian ethnos. Regarding ‘chief prophet,’ the Lycian philanthropist Opramoas gave twenty thousand denarii to the Patarans “for Apollo, the god of their ancestors, whose oracle after a long silence has once more begun its prophecy” in time for the panegyris over which Opramoas presided, in or shortly after 139 C.E.30 From the evidence available, there is no way of knowing for what emperors or deities Patara was twice neokoros. One possibility is Apollo, though the inscription does not specify the name of the deity; the sanctuary of Apollo Patroos at Patara was a koinon sanctuary, and the god’s festival, as has been seen, was celebrated for the emperor as well. The same applied to the sanctuary of Leto at Xanthos,

27

Von Aulock 1974. A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique (1994) no. 1729. 29 E.g. Marek 1993a, 98 no. 6 (= SEG 44 [1994] no. 1211). 30 FdXL 191-192; Parke 1985, 185-193; Zimmermann 1994, 109-111. For Opramoas, see Letta 1994a, with bibliography. 28

33

– patara

255

which also held the ethnikon Kaisareion.31 Here again the Lycian koinon shows itself different from the other koina which organized themselves around worship of the emperor; it kept its sanctuaries to ancestral Lycian gods, and brought the imperial cult into association with them. On the other hand, other cities that were neokoroi of gods—Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Magnesia, all in Asia—generally made that fact clear on their inscriptions and coins. We simply cannot say what the situation was in Lycia without further information. Incidentally, if Patara was twice neokoros, it is probable that Xanthos, as administrator of provincial cult at the Letoön, and other major cities were as well.32 Documents attesting this status may yet be found. But it is possible that the interconnected and less rivalrous structure of the Lycian koinon made the individual cities less likely to boast of their varied titles, and that that is why so few such documents have appeared. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. Marek 1993a, 97-98 no. 5 (SEG 44 [1994] no. 1210; A. Bresson, L’Année épigraphique [1994] no. 1729). Statue base of a citizen, not securely dated. See text above. No coins of Patara as neokoros are yet known. 31 FdXL 25-28 no. 11, 185-191 no. 67, 270-272; S. Price 1984b, 263. That Claudius donated a hall in the north stoa of the Letoön, and that later a statue of Matidia stood therein, does not make it the ethnikon Kaisareion that Opramoas spent thirty thousand denarii on; nor is Balland’s alternate suggestion (FdXL 60 n. 130) that the Kaisareion was the nymphaeum that featured a statue of Hadrian erected in 131 (Letta 1994a, 220-221, 242) more satisfactory. IGRR 3:482 refers to a temple of Caesar (and its peribolos) at Xanthos, though not specified as provincial or at the Letoön: Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 197. 32 FdXL 237-238.

256

part i – section xii. koinon/ethnos of lycia

Chapter 34. Akalissos: Koinon/Ethnos of Lycia Akalissos, whose site has been described as “somewhat inaccessible,” was not among Lycia’s major cities, though it headed a small local sympolity.1 Until an inscription naming Patara neokoros appeared (q.v.), Akalissos was the sole neokoros city known in Lycia, and even the relationship between the title and the provincial imperial cult was doubted.2 Finds of further inscriptions may show that despite their comparative reticence in flaunting titles, Lycian cities of the late second and third centuries could boast of neokoriai as much as Asian cities could. First Neokoria: after Commodus Akalissos, like most other cities of Lycia, is only known to have issued its own coins under Gordian III; the title ‘neokoros’ has not been noted on the few examples known.3 The sole evidence for Akalissos as neokoros is the following: 1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of Commodus, final two words of different letter forms and ligatures, probably added in the third century. [ÉAkaliss°vn { boul]Ø ka‹ ~ d}mow t}w nevkÒrou. The emperor’s name was erased from this stone after his death and the (short-lived) condemnation of his memory, 193-195 C.E.4 Also missing is the name of the city whose council and people dedicated the statue, though the restoration is reasonable: the base was found in Akalissos itself. Dedications with similar wording (without additions or loss of the city’s name) were found at Korydalla (IGRR 3:743) and Olympos (IGRR 3:747). On some occasions, the city did not even need to state its name, as it was obvious by the 1 2 3 4

Bean 1976a. Broughton 1938, 742-743; FdXL 237. Von Aulock 1974. Kienast 1996, 147-150.

dedication’s placement whose council and people were in question (IGRR 3:762, for Phaselis).5 The base’s top surface had holes for the feet of two statues, and Keil posited that Crispina was originally to stand with her husband Commodus. But there is no mention of her on what is preserved of the stone, and it is also possible that the second figure was either a personification of the city itself or of some other deity who crowned or interacted with Commodus. The last and crucial two words, ‘of the neokoros’ (city), were inscribed in letter forms considerably different from and later than those of the dedication to Commodus. Perhaps Akalissos was so proud of gaining the title that the city added it even to earlier inscriptions. It is not known for whose cult, or when, Akalissos was made neokoros. But with the discovery of Patara as twice neokoros, Akalissos fits more comfortably into the pattern of a city of middle rank that was first made neokoros in the third century, after its superiors had achieved that honor at least twice. A parallel in Asia might be Philadelphia, Tralles, or Hierapolis. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. TAM 2.3.879 (IGRR 3:656). Statue base of Commodus, with the title added later, probably in the third century. See text above. No coins of Akalissos as neokoros are yet known.

5 In one case where the cities of Akalissos and Korydalla set up dedications in Phaselis, it was for a special occasion, a visit of Hadrian, for which many smaller and more remote cities must have sent representatives and set up altars: TAM 2.3.11921193 (= IGRR 3:756-757); FdXL 70-71; Halfmann 1986a, 130131, 194, 208.

chapter

35

– herakleia: koinon of the cities of pontus

257

SECTION XIII. KOINON OF THE CITIES OF (WEST-CENTRAL) PONTUS Chapter 35. Herakleia: Koinon of the Cities of (West-Central) Pontus With a Note on the Synod of Theatrical Artists

The ancient city of Herakleia (modern Eregli) on the Black Sea’s southern shore was a foundation of Megara and retained until Roman times its motherland’s Doric dialect on coins and inscriptions.1 It became a free ally of Rome early in the second century B.C.E., and a temple of the goddess Rome is shown later on its imperial coins that boast the title ‘neokoros.’ First Neokoria: Philip COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M IOULIO% FILIPPO% AUG Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Philip r. Rev: HRAKLHA% NEVKORVN A T POLIVN; YEA RVMA Six-column temple with arched entablature, the goddess Rome enthroned within.2 a) London 1970.9-9-32. This coin should not be taken to mean that Herakleia was neokoros for its temple of Rome; the wording of the legend shows that ‘goddess Rome’ is in the exergue to identify the temple, not to modify ‘neokoros’; the legend therefore reads “of Herakleia, first of the neokoroi cities.”3 Administratively, Herakleia was included in the province of Bithynia-Pontus, but it belonged to a koinon of Pontic cities within that province rather than to the koinon of Bithynia dominated by Nikomedia; occasionally, however, the same person served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch.4 Though Hera1 Jonnes 1994, 1, 7, 51-54; Ameling 1994, 118-119. For the earlier history and literature, Bittner 1998, 1-6. On the literary sources, Ehrhardt 1995, 35-41, 46. Still useful is Magie 1950, 307-310, 967 n. 89, 1191-1192 n. 23, 1194 n. 31. 2 M. Price and Trell 1977, fig. 7; Fayer 1976, 178. 3 Pace S. Price 1984b, 266. 4 Marek 1993b, 34-36, 73, 75, 77 and n. 534, 78-81; Remy 1986, 19-21.

kleia is so far the only neokoros known within its koinon, others may yet appear, as the presence of Pontarchs is attested elsewhere, notably in Amastris, which also claimed the title of metropolis and was probably also a seat of the koinon.5 The city celebrated an isaktian festival called the Hadrianeon Herakleion, but Hadrian allowed many such festivals in all sorts of cities, so the existence of this festival does not indicate that Herakleia was necessarily neokoros for Hadrian.6 In any case, Herakleia only began to proclaim itself neokoros with regularity on coins in the reign of Philip and thereafter. Additional evidence is given by inscriptions, but their testimony regarding neokoria is difficult to interpret, and their use of the term ‘neokoros’ may not refer to Herakleia at all. Synod of Theatrical Artists Neokoros? Inscription 1 was a statue base erected in 130 C.E., in the consulate of Q. Fabius Catullinus and M. Flavius Aper.7 On the other side was a decree of the synod of theatrical artists (technitai) sent to the home city of one Marcius Xenokrates; another inscription from Herakleia identifies Marcius Xenokrates as a physician, and it was probably for his professional services that the theatrical artists honored him.8 Thus, though the name of the city is not spelled out on inscription 1, the fact that the stone was found at Herakleia, that a Marcius Xenokrates is known there, and that the eponymous magistrate basileus mentioned has also been found in other inscriptions at Herakleia, safely indicate its previously doubted 5 6 7 8

Deininger 1965, 61-62, 64-66. Moretti 1953, 235-237 no. 80. PIR2 F 25, 208. Jonnes 1994, 9 no. 7.

258

part i – section xiii. koinon of the cities of (west-central) pontus

provenience.9 Unfortunately, the stone was copied hurriedly before being broken up for use in construction, so its likely misreadings cannot be checked. INSCRIPTION 1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR 3:81). ¶dojen tª |erò {m«n ÑAdrianª ANT.EI peri[poli]stikª [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl_ nevkÒrƒ §p‹ ÑR\mh{w} sunÒdƒ . . . If this reading is correct, the synod of theatrical artists at Rome calls itself neokoros. But is it correct? There are several stubborn mistranscriptions in the text as reported, some of which have not been satisfactorily interpreted. For example, Mordtmann restored the epithet ‘Antonine’ after ‘Hadrianic,’ but there is not enough room for all the letters, and an abbreviation of the later epithet seems odd when the earlier one was spelled out in full.10 The same applies to Le Guen-Pollet’s restoration of the epithet as naming Antinoös, Hadrian’s beloved, who died in 130.11 The latter was an attempt to solve another problem, that of the consular date of the inscription on the other side of the stone; if the Xenokrates inscription is contemporary with it, both antedate any Antonine emperor by at least eight years. This is the only occasion that a body outside the structure of a city calls itself neokoros. Elsewhere the title is occasionally attributed to the council, more often to the people or to the city as a whole. Is this application of the title a unique occurrence, or is it an artifact of the hurried copying of the inscription? A study of other inscriptions of the synod of theatrical artists may shed some light. The association of theatrical artists, whose patron god was Dionysos, extended throughout the Greco-Roman world, with members traveling from city to city to participate in various festivals.12 As early as the third century B.C.E. their association could make decrees and receive ambassadors, much as a city would.13 Later they corresponded with, and sent embassies to, the emperors as cities did, though their main concern seems to have been preservation of their members’

9

Jonnes 1994, nos. 1 and 4, where both magistrates were women. 10 Mordtmann 1889, 316. 11 Le Guen-Pollet 1990. There was a dedication to Antinoös (assimilated to Hermes) set up by the Hadrianic synod at Rome: IGUrbRom 1:124-125. 12 Roueché 1993, 50-57, 223-237; Pickard-Cambridge 1988, 279-321; Poland 1934, 2517-2519. 13 Rigsby 1996, 245-247.

rights of immunity from taxation and liturgies.14 They also associated worship of the emperor(s) with that of their patron, Dionysos; for instance, during the reign of Septimius Severus, an inscription was set up by their chief priest of Dionysos Kathegemon, who was also the chief priest of Caracalla as ‘new Dionysos.’15 A long, informative inscription from Nysa probably dates to ca. 141 C.E. and gives the best details of the organization and its titulature just after the time of Herakleia inscription 1: its lines 74-75 announce a decree t}w |erçw ÑAdrian}w ÉAntvne¤n[hw] yumelik}w perip[o]listik}w megãl[hw] ne[vkÒrou?] §p‹ ÑR\mhw sunÒdou.16 With some small changes (yumelik}w and perip[o]listik}w reversed, ‘Antonine’ spelled out in full), it echoes Herakleia inscription 1, which is perhaps why Kourouniotes restored neokorou here from a mere nu and the upper part of an epsilon at the end of a line. The synod of the association had as its headquarters a |erÚn §p‹ ÑR\mhw t°menow, which is presumably the sacred space that may have made the synod neokoros. Also mentioned in the same inscription is a particular reverence on the part of the artists at Rome for the god Hadrian, on whose birthday there was an annual distribution. Hadrian may have granted the artists their temenos in Rome, as he also granted headquarters in Rome to the worldwide association of athletes;17 if the synod of theatrical artists was neokoros at all, it was more than likely neokoros for a temenos to Hadrian at Rome. Le Guen-Pollet believed that the Xenokrates of inscription 1 himself obtained the neokoria from Hadrian; but the modesty of the honors decreed to him there, perhaps statue(s) erected in his home city, does not accord with so great a benefaction.18 About a decade later, the honoree of the Nysa decree got statues in all the temples of the emperors in Asia because he paid for celebrations and donated some books and land to the technitai; how much greater should the honors have been for one who, like Pole-

14

Millar 1977, 458-462. Merkelbach 1985. 16 The inscription also refers to the neokoria of Ephesos, and is cited above as Ephesos inscription 42. Clerc 1885; title ‘neokoros’ restored by Kourouniotes 1921-22, 83-85, fig. 67. 17 Pleket 1973, 210-211, 225-226. 18 Le Guen-Pollet 1990, 676-678; with several misunderstandings. The Nysa decree mentions a chief priesthood, but it is not specified as ‘of the Augusti.’ 15

chapter mon of Smyrna, obtained a neokoria for his organization. We may hesitate before declaring the synod of theatrical artists indubitably neokoros, however. Hirschfeld, the original editor, did not believe that the word ‘neokoros’ featured in inscription 1 at all: he restored the crucial line as [y]u[m]e[l]ikª megãl_ [épÚ o¸]ko[um°n]h[w?] sunÒdƒ.19 If true, his restoration would throw doubt on the restoration of neokoros from a letter and a half in the Nysa inscription as well, as it is based on inscription 1. Certainly a recently-published inscription of the synod of theatrical artists under Antoninus Pius shows no sign of the title ‘neokoros.’20 There is another inscription that associates Herakleia with neokoria, but again, the epithet appears to be misapplied. INSCRIPTION 2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev 1890, 2 no. 44; IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). ... ? ÉIoÊl]iow Telese›no[w ÑHrak]l[e\]thw toË PÒn[tou k]a‹ nevkÒrou... This text was inscribed on a statue base from Kertsch (Pantikapeion) dated to 547 of the Bosporan era (250 C.E.); on it, this citizen of Herakleia calls Rhescuporis (V), king of Bosporus, his benefactor.21 But if the restoration is correct, neokoros modifies not Herakleia, but the territory of Pontus! Perhaps the mistake may be attributed to the confusion of the stonemason; though citizens of other cities frequently honored the Bosporan kings with dedications at Pantikapeion, the formulation of this inscription, with the individual’s name, citizenship, and additional title, is rather unusual. If the neokoria mentioned on inscription 2 was actually Herakleia’s, as seems likely, it confirms what the city’s intermittent coinage could not: that the title survived the death of Philip and the occasional

19

Hirschfeld 1893, 11 n. 1 (on no. 794). YÌldÌz and Corsten 1997, 50-51. 21 For the difficult chronology of the Bosporan kings, see Frolova 1983, 1-4 and Gajdukevic 1971, 358, 460-461. For the citizen Teleseinos, see Ameling 1994, 162. 20

35

– herakleia

259

condemnation of his memory.22 Neapolis in Samaria (q.v.) also declared itself neokoros first on coins under Philip, and there too the title seems to have survived his death. But little else is known of the precise object and origin of the cult that made Herakleia neokoros. As to whether the synod of Dionysiac artists was truly neokoros, more and better-preserved evidence is desirable. In any case, the coins assure us that the city Herakleia was neokoros from the reign of Philip on. INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: 1. Jonnes 1994, 4-6 no. 2 (IGRR 3:81). Honors to a Herakleian, with the synod of Dionysiac artists as neokoros. See text above. 2. Struve 1965 no. 59 (Latyschev 1890, 2 no. 44; IGRR 1:890 [incorrect]). From Kertsch (Pantikapeion). Herakleia (actually Pontus!) as neokoros in 250 C.E. See text above. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Philip: SNGvA 6964; Berlin (2 exx.), London, Paris. Otacilia: SNGvA 446, 447. Philip Caesar: SNGvA 444, 445, 6965; Boston. Gallienus: BMC 59; SNGvA 448-460, 6966, 6967; Amasra 7123; Berlin (9 exx.), London (2 exx.), New York, Oxford, Paris (5 exx.). Salonina: BMC 60; SNGvA 462, 6968; Berlin (5 exx.), Boston, Paris (2 exx.), Warsaw. Valerianus Caesar: Paris. Saloninus: SNGvA 463, 464; Cologne24; Boston. Macrianus: SNGvA 465.25 Non-imperial obverse: New York.

22

Kienast 1996, 198-199; Varner 1993, 484-487. Ireland with Atesogullari 1996. 24 Corsten 1996, no. 32. 25 Kienast 1996, 224-225. Herakleia was one of the few cities to mint for this contender for the Empire, 260-261 C.E. 23

260

part i – section xiv. syria palaestina

SECTION XIV. SYRIA PALAESTINA Chapter 36. Neapolis: in Samaria, Syria Palaestina Neapolis is the only neokoros yet known in Syria Palaestina, an area not known to have had a koinon.1 Yet the city did possess a famous shrine. The mountain above Neapolis, Mt. Gerizim, had been sacred to the Samaritans before the city itself was founded.2 Shechem (now identified as Tell Balatah) was the name of the city at the mountain’s foot in 332 B.C.E., when, according to Josephus, Alexander the Great allowed Sanballat and his fellow Samaritans to build a temple atop Gerizim to rival the temple in Jerusalem.3 Josephus is hardly an unbiased observer; as a Jew of priestly family, he despised the Samaritans for being apostates, who in times of Seleucid hostility to Jewish worship claimed that their nameless sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim was not the temple of the Greatest God (as worshipped by the Jews), but of Zeus Hellenios, or in one variant Zeus Xenios.4 When the Jewish priest-king John Hyrcanus captured Shechem and Mt. Gerizim after 129 B.C.E., he destroyed the temple that had dared to imitate that in Jerusalem.5 Despite the destruction of their temple, rebellious Samaritans made Mt. Gerizim their refuge and stronghold both before and during the first Jewish Revolt.6 This is perhaps why as early as 72 C.E., after the Jerusalem temple had itself been destroyed and the revolt all but extinguished, Vespasian founded a city, Flavia Neapolis, formed on the Greek

model, west of the old site of Shechem.7 The new name has been passed down to the current day as Nablus. The second Jewish Revolt broke out in the reign of Hadrian, and his name is also associated with cult on Mt. Gerizim. The sources are Samaritan, the Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath and the ‘Adler Chronicle.’ Both treat the emperor as rather a folktale figure who visits the temple in Jerusalem (destroyed fifty years before), argues with the High Priest, and burns the city.8 Here Hadrian is at first beneficent to the Samaritans, and builds a great temple for them, the ‘Safis’ or ‘temple of Sospes,’ on which he hangs the copper doors from the temple in Jerusalem.9 The temple is on Gerizim, or on the mountain next to it (perhaps Tell er-Ras?) according to the Kitab; but it is later burned, and the doors stolen, to the great anger of Hadrian. In 193-194 C.E. Neapolis chose to support Pescennius Niger as emperor rather than Septimius Severus. When Severus came to power he revoked the city’s rights, according to the Historia Augusta.10 It is likely that he was not satisfied with that penalty alone, however, but intensified Neapolis’ punishment by exalting its neighbor and probable rival, the city of Sebaste. Such was his policy with many other pairs of rivals: Perinthos (q.v.) profited at the fall of Byzantion, Nikomedia triumphed over Nikaia (qq.v.), Tyre over Berytos, and Laodikeia in Syria over Antioch.11 In this case, Sebaste received either

1

Haensch 1997, 237. Kippenberg 1971. 3 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.321-325, 340-347; for a critique of the source, P. Schäfer 1995, 2-5. See Mor 1989a for a persuasive interpretation of the politics involved. 4 Letter to Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.257-264 (167/166 B.C.E.). Xenios: 2 Maccabees 6.2. Note the interpretation of Eusebius, Hieronymi Chronicon (R. Helm, ed., Eusebius Werke 7 [Berlin 1956] 140), that in 167 B.C.E., acceding to the request of the Samaritans themselves, Antiochus built a temple to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ on the peak of Mt. Gerizim. 5 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.254-256. 6 Josephus, Jewish War 3.4, 32, 307-315; Jewish Antiquities 18.85-89. 2

7

Millar 1993, 368-369. Zangenberg 1994, 219 sec. 5.4.6; Mor 1989b, 25-29; Stenhouse 1985, 156-162. On Hadrian’s visit to Judaea, and on Talmudic stories regarding him, Birley 1997, 231-234. Bull 1997, 408 has conflated this account concerning Hadrian with Marinus of Neapolis and Zeus Hypsistos, discussed below. 9 ‘Safis’ may transliterate to Sospes, ‘safe;’ Sospes or Sispes may also be an obscure aspect of Jupiter, as his consort Juno was worshipped as Sospita in Italy; but the connection is fairly tenuous. 10 Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5. 11 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and 3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. See Ziegler 1978, who ob8

chapter all or a part of Neapolis’ territory; even into late antiquity, Sebaste held the land of Akrabattene, even though it was cut off from Sebaste’s contiguous territory by Neapolis itself.12 Some years afterward, however, Septimius Severus is said to have revoked the punishment he had inflicted on ‘the Palestinians’ for supporting Niger, a statement that almost certainly refers to the citizens of Neapolis in particular.13 Again, this resembles the emperor’s actions toward Nikaia, where he probably allowed Caracalla to gain public approval by ‘winning him over’ to the cause of a former enemy city.14 As a compensation for its loss of Neapolis’ territory (with the possible exception of Akrabattene), Sebaste likely received the status of a Roman colony, under the name Lucia Septimia Sebaste, after 201/ 202.15 This pattern of punishment and reward, reconciliation and compensation, is peculiar to Septimius Severus, and is discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ in Part II. First Neokoria: Philip Coins with the portraits of the emperor Philip and his family proclaim Neapolis both neokoros and colony. Of the two honors, the coloniate is named more often. Neapolis celebrated its new status by using Latin instead of Greek for its coin legends, becoming ‘colonia Iulia Flavia Sergia Neapolis’; the Julian name came from Philip, the Flavian from Vespasian the original founder, and the Sergian possibly from the colony’s tribal affiliation.16 The reverses of Neapolis’ coins celebrated Roman colonial symbols: the Forum statue of Marsyas, the wolf and twins, and the foundation ritual (a togate fig-

served that at first, the enemy city’s territory (Antioch) was given to its rival (Laodikeia in Syria) to help restore losses suffered in war; when later (ca. 198) Antioch was restored to civic status, Laodikeia was compensated by becoming a colony. It would be dangerous to extrapolate from the particular timing in this case to other rival cities in other provinces, but it does seem to apply to Neapolis and Sebaste. Also see Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155. 12 A. Jones 1977, 276-279. 13 Historia Augusta, Severus 14.6. 14 Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1. 15 Isaac 1992, 359-360; note SNGANS 1080, a coin of Julia Domna for that year: the obverse has the Latin legends of the subsequent colonial coinage, but the reverse is still in Greek, with no colonial title. 16 Harl 1984 (= Harl, with catalogue number) nos. 27 (incorrect for SNGANS 1019), 54; Galsterer-Kröll 1972, 84, 140.

36

– neapolis

261

ure plowing with yoked ox and cow).17 The only temple shown is that on one of the peaks of Mt. Gerizim, and as Mt. Gerizim appears on many coin types of Neapolis, and had since the time of Antoninus Pius, there is no telling whether this was the temple for which Neapolis was made neokoros; the question will be dealt with below.18 The holy mountain also appears in the background of several reverse types showing the imperial family, as if illustrating an imperial visit. Again, Gerizim is there not to set the locale, but because it is almost omnipresent on Neapolis’ coins (as Mt. Argaios was on those of Kaisareia, q.v.). These reverses can range from standard type scenes of imperial victory,19 adventus,20 or of Philip and his son sacrificing,21 to unusual scenes such as that showing three figures (probably Philip, his wife Otacilia, and their son Philip) advancing in a chariot: COIN TYPE 1. Obv: M OT SEVERAE AVG M C Draped diademed bust of Otacilia on crescent r. Rev: NEAPOLI NEOCORO; COL Facing quadriga with three figures (two males, a female at the right), all raising their right hands and holding scepters in the left; above, Mt. Gerizim.22 a) BMC 138 (illus. pl. 37 fig. 197). There is no record of the imperial family having come to Neapolis, and coins showing imperial processions or arrivals do not necessarily indicate that the emperor visited the city in question.23 On the other hand, this emperor came from the neighboring province Arabia, on the other side of the Jordan, and may have been in the vicinity for the naming of Philippopolis, likely his birthplace, in his honor.24 His presence is implied by Aurelius Victor: “with eastern affairs settled, and when the town of Philippopolis in Arabia had been founded, (Philip and his son) went to Rome.”25 The emperor is known to have taken the sea route west, and the harbors most convenient to Philippopolis could be 17 Harl 10, 12, 18, 19, 24-26, 32, 35, 36, 40-42, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 66, 75, 75a, 76, 78-80, 94, 95, 98, 99. 18 Meshorer 1993, 141-142; M. Price and Trell 1977, 173175. 19 Harl 62. 20 Harl 63, 64, 93. 21 Harl 5, 30, 31, 56, 65. 22 Harl 57; the same reverse with an obverse of the younger Philip is Harl 77. 23 Halfmann 1986a, 234-235; Peachin 1991 was overoptimistic. 24 Freyberger 1992; Kienast 1996, 198-201. 25 Aurelius Victor, Caesares 28.

262

part i – section xiv. syria palaestina

reached either by crossing Syria Palaestina itself (via Bostra to Caesarea Maritima or Akko/Ptolemais) or through Syria and Phoenicia (via Damascus to Tyre or Berytus).26 A recent re-analysis of sources for Philip’s first year has shown that he did not necessarily reach Rome as early as late July 244, as had previously been thought.27 On the other hand, the coins of Neapolis as colony and neokoros were apparently issued later in Philip’s reign, when his son had already been named as Augustus in summer 247; the coins’ reverses may refer to the previous imperial presence in the area, or may simply be celebrating Philip’s triumph in Rome in that year.28 In favor of the notion that Philip directed some attention toward Syria Palaestina, if not proof of his passage through it, the Kitab al-Tarikh records a Samaritan uprising that set Syria Palaestina in an uproar around the time of a Persian war (either Caracalla’s or Alexander Severus’); the Samaritan reformer and military leader Baba Rabbah took advantage of the situation to build up a Samaritan army and hold back taxes to the Roman state.29 Though the account is highly anachronistic, Gordian III is also said to have acted against the Samaritans, and Baba Rabbah was later enticed to ‘Constantinople’ and held in custody by ‘Philip’ himself.30 Certainly Philip’s personal attention to some Samaritan unrest after his Persian settlement is not out of the question. The Hellenized city of Neapolis, though not directly on either of the routes from Philippopolis, may have appeared as a bulwark of loyalty in Samaria, and its reward could have included honors like the coloniate and the neokoria. On the other hand, Philip granted many privileges in the area, especially in Arabia: Philippopolis and Damascus were also made colonies, and Bostra, already a colony, was made metropolis of Arabia. In the end, the specific reasons for Neapolis’ honors, including the neokoria, remain uncertain. The status of colony, granted to non-Roman and non-Latin towns since the reign of Claudius, had been given with increasing frequency from the second century, especially under Septimius Severus, who often gave colonial status as a reward without implying any change in the composition of the city’s 26 Peachin 1991 preferred Bostra, but then led Philip along an unnecessarily circuitous land route. 27 Trout 1989. 28 Kienast 1996, 198-201. 29 Stenhouse 1985, 186-205; Crown 1989, 54-56, 62. 30 Hall 1989, 52-54.

population.31 As a known trouble spot, Syria Palaestina and its surroundings already had some actual military colonies, such as Berytus (founded in 15 B.C.E.), Akko/Ptolemais (since Claudius), Caesarea (since Vespasian) and Aelia Capitolina (Hadrian’s refoundation of Jerusalem).32 As mentioned above, it is likely that Septimius Severus granted colonial status to Sebaste in order to exalt it when he dishonored Neapolis; he also made colonies of Tyre in Phoenicia and Heliopolis in Coelesyria, probably from a similar animus against Berytus. Later, coins issued under Elagabalus named the city Tiberias a colony, as were Sidon and Arka-Caesarea in Phoenicia, and Petra in Arabia.33 Bostra, chief city of Arabia, got that title under Severus Alexander, and as already mentioned, Philip exalted it further with the title metropolis, as well as making colonies of Neapolis, Damascus, and Philippopolis. Gerasa, Askelon, and Gaza were also made colonies sometime in the third century. The only evidence for a military presence in Neapolis is later than Philip, when coin types issued under Trebonianus Gallus indicate that two legions, the X Fretensis (stationed in Jerusalem) and the III Cyrenaica (stationed at Bostra), had probably detached some troops to the city.34 Was there a conflict between Roman colonial status and the emperor worship that is implied by the title ‘neokoros’? If we return to the origins of the provincial imperial cult, as portrayed by Cassius Dio 51.20.7-8, Augustus had meant for a gulf to be fixed between the xenoi (= peregrini), who were to worship the living emperor, and Romans, who only worshipped the deified dead. Yet even in the early empire, the eminent provincials who became chief priests of their koinon were also Roman citizens.35 Septimius Severus’ wholesale grants of colonial status, not to mention Caracalla’s grant of Roman citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire, further blurred an already fuzzy distinction. Neapolis 31 J. Nollé 1995; Salmon 1969, 154-157. On the economic implications of colonial status, Bernhardt 1982. The following discussion will focus on colonies in the area around Syria Palaestina, Arabia, and Phoenicia, without discussing those further off in Syria or Mesopotamia. 32 Millar 1990, 53; Kindler 1982-1983; A. Jones 1977, 276288. 33 Meshorer 1985, 12 (incorrect re. Akko), 20, 34-35, 44, 49-51 (incorrect re. neokoros), 60-61, 70, 88, 106. 34 Kindler 1980, 56-58. 35 Quass 1993, 149-151; Deininger 1965, 151-153; pace White 1998.

chapter had a precedent as neokoros and colony, the city of Nikopolis in Armenia Minor, and would be followed by Thessalonike in Macedonia (qq.v.). There is also the question of what relationship the neokoros city could have to provincial imperial cult in this case, as there is no record of a koinon of Samaria or of Syria Palaestina—the nearest were those of Syria, centered on Antioch, and Phoenicia, centered on Tyre.36 Nonetheless the chief city of Syria Palaestina, Caesarea Maritima, already a colony, was named metropolis under Severus Alexander; this may imply a leadership position among other cities of the province, though it may also have been purely honorific.37 One city, Antipatris, in a short-lived coinage for Elagabalus, minted what appears to be a twice-neokoros coin type, of two tetrastyle temples facing one another; but this image may only be intended to represent the city’s sacred spring between the two shrines.38 Not only do we know nothing about how these cities related to one another, we cannot even be certain for what sort of temple Neapolis was neokoros. The coin legends never state whether it is neokoros of the emperors or of a deity. The latter was generally specified, as at Aizanoi and Magnesia (qq.v.). On Ephesos’ coins the neokoria for Artemis was generally counted in with the others during this period, but Ephesos was a special case, neokoros both of emperors and of Artemis, and counted the three together on coins where space to specify was limited. Once it was made a colony, Neapolis celebrated its additional Romanness by using the Latin language on its coins, but transliterated its Greek title (neocorus) instead of translating it to something like aedituus. The grammatical form was also left as Greek, with two terminations, and no attempt at a Latinized form (*neocora?) to agree with colonia. There are parallels from such cities as Tyre, Sidon, and Laodikeia in Syria, whose coinage as early as the Severan period, as well as under Philip, used Roman letters to call each city metropolis as well as colonia.39 The reverse is also true, and many a third century colony called itself KOLVNIA on coins and/ or inscriptions. In fact, Neapolis’ coins would go back to Greek legends and titles within only a few years, 36 37 38 39

Haensch 1997, 254-261; Deininger 1965, 87-88. Lehmann and Holum 2000, 1, 45-47, 84-86. Meshorer 1985, 54 no. 150. Millar 1990, 32, 35, 50.

36

– neapolis

263

but the return probably reflects misfortune for the city. Harl’s detailed study showed that in all likelihood Neapolis lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius; the reason was less likely the city’s loyalty to its benefactor Philip than a resulting lack of respect for his successor Decius.40 Though some of Philip’s inscriptions were erased after his death, no official condemnation of his memory or his acts has been documented.41 Herakleia (q.v.) also declared itself neokoros on coins first under Philip, and there too the title seems to have survived his death. Neapolis apparently coined nothing in Decius’ reign; subsequently, coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus use Greek legends and occasionally the title ‘neokoros,’ but never ‘colonia.’42 It was only later in Gallus’ reign that a renewal of Latin-legend coinage boasted the return of colonial status to Neapolis. The significance of these facts should not be missed: apparently Neapolis was allowed to retain its neokoria even when the title colonia had been stripped from it; it is less likely that both were removed but that the neokoria was returned first. Perhaps the city’s sins were minor enough so that the removal of only its greatest honor was considered sufficient. Or perhaps Neapolis was not neokoros for the imperial cult, specifically for that of Philip, but for a temple whose cult remained even after Philip’s would have fallen into abeyance. And the shrine for which Neapolis was most famous was on Mt. Gerizim. Archaeological excavations conducted by I. Magen in Neapolis from 1979 to 1988 and on Mt. Gerizim from 1983 to 1990 have uncovered several new facts.43 On the higher ridge of the mountain, Magen found a Hellenistic city about 100 acres in area, which flourished from ca. 200 B.C.E. to the time of John Hyrcanus; the latest coins date to ca. 111 B.C.E. Above, at the very summit of Gerizim, was a sacred precinct of about five acres, where dedications on sections of wall (in Aramaic) and priestly inscriptions (in Hebrew, using both the ‘Jewish’ script and the palaeo-Hebrew that later became 40

Harl 67-73. Varner 1993, 484-487. 42 Harl 103, a unique coin of Hostilian, could have been issued after his father Trajan Decius’ death, as he was adopted and made Augustus by Trebonianus Gallus in June 251, and survived about a month longer; Kienast 1996, 207-208. If this is true, it is a good indication that Neapolis’ Greek coinage was indeed issued early in Gallus’ reign. 43 Magen 1993 (with bibliography). 41

264

part i – section xiv. syria palaestina

‘Samaritan’) were found.44 The summit sanctuary’s identification as the place sacred to the Samaritans is strengthened by the fact that a fortified octagonal church was later built on top of it. This is probably the church of Mary Mother of God, which the emperor Zeno built on the site of the Samaritan ‘synagogue’ to punish them for their uprising against the Christians in Neapolis.45 Below the summit and the Hellenistic city is Tell er-Ras, an artifically raised mound ca. 80 x 120 m. and 10 m. high that directly overlooks Neapolis from the north slope of Gerizim. The four-column temple atop it sits on a prominence to the left of the summit as viewed from the city, and was reached by a long staircase that started at a monumental propylon at the mountain’s foot, just as Neapolis’ coins illustrate.46 The temple’s original date is problematic. Bull used the Samaritan chronicles to attribute it to Hadrian, and believed that it was set on top of Sanballat’s temple. Magen noted that what Bull identified as an earlier temple was in fact the monumental substructure that retained the earth for the temple temenos (a walled plaza ca. 44 x 64 m., actually an irregular oblong with its long axis running northsouth), but dated its construction to Antoninus Pius’ reign based on its first appearance on the city’s coins. Both temple and plaza were apparently enlarged to the north sometime in the third century, but the extension probably collapsed sometime after the reign of Julian the Apostate (360-363 C.E.). Set in the center of a stone-paved plaza, the temple (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12) was apparently tetrastyle prostyle, its exterior facing of limestone, and had attached columns on its exterior walls (pseudoperipteral). It was about 14 x 21 m., stood on a threestepped krepis, but was apparently approached by a frontal staircase of at least eleven steps. Its facade columns were Corinthian, possibly with shafts of red Aswan granite. The interior was arranged as a pronaos and naos, and at least part of its floor was paved with marble. From inscriptions on a limestone column fragment and on a copper ex voto from a well, the temple was

44

Naveh 1998, 93-94. Johannes Malalas, Chronicle 15.8; Procopius, Buildings 5.7.1-17; Chronicon Paschale 603.19-604.13; Zangenberg 1994, 275-278, 316-318. 46 The account is that of Bull 1997, on his earlier excavation, modified by that of Magen 1993. Neither is without its problems, however, and full and final publication is still needed 45

dedicated to Zeus Olympios, an aspect of the god especially popular in the Hellenic world from the time of Hadrian on, and one with whom that emperor himself was identified after 128 C.E. The name recalls other eponyms of Zeus probably associated with the shrine on the higher summit of Gerizim, and noted above: Hellenios according to Josephus and Xenios in Maccabees (probably translated to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus’ by Eusebius). Also, a fifth-century-C.E. neoplatonist from Neapolis, Marinus, referred to a most sacred shrine of Zeus Hypsistos on Gerizim, where “Abraham the ancestor of the Hebrews was consecrated.”47 This may refer to a Samaritan tradition that Abraham led Isaac to sacrifice on Gerizim; the scene may actually have been illustrated on a coin of Neapolis.48 It is all very syncretistic, but it seems that a ‘most high’ god always found some place on Gerizim; when the summit was made empty or difficult to approach, a more conventional substitute was erected below. The latter was the chief sanctuary of Hellenized Neapolis; but the Samaritans apparently never lost their dedication to the summit sanctuary, as they continued to try to take it back even after Zeno built his church on top of it.49 Through comparisons with the coins’ portrayals of Mt. Gerizim, it seems sure that the Tell er-Ras temple of Zeus Olympios was a chief temple of Neapolis. Its date may have been Hadrianic, as Hadrian’s propagation of that cult carried it throughout the Greek world.50 This date would not conflict with the temple’s first appearance on coins under Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius. It may even have been dedicated to Hadrian as well as Zeus Olympios, though there is no direct evidence for this. Though the reading of the Samaritan chronicles regarding Hadrian is unclear, at least the Kitab al-

for both. For the image of the temple on coins, see above, n. 18. 47 Damaskios’ life of Isidoros, no. 242 preserved in Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. I. Bekker (Berlin 1824) 345b ll. 18-28; Marinus, however, is berated by the author for being a Hellenizer. Zangenberg 1994, 178. Hypsistos is an epithet for Yahweh in the Septuagint (e.g. Genesis 14.18, Deuteronomy 32.8), though it was also applied to Zeus and other non-Jewish gods: de Hoz 1991. See S. Mitchell 1999, esp. 93-94 (a theatral place of prayer outside Neapolis). 48 Meshorer 1989, 175-177, no. 3; also pointing out the syncretism between Zeus and Yahweh (El Elyon). 49 Procopius, Buildings 5.7.1-17. 50 See discussions in chapters 2, ‘Smyrna’; 4, ‘Ephesos’; and 5, ‘Kyzikos.’

chapter Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath places the ‘Safis’ he built on the mountain next to Gerizim, which may be Tell er-Ras; but what connection ‘Safis’ had to Zeus Olympios is uncertain. Finally, whether this was also the temple that made Neapolis neokoros cannot be assured. No inscriptions of Neapolis as neokoros have yet been found. COINS CITING NEOKORIA: Neokoros: Philip: BMC 123 (Harl 21) 51; SNGBraun 1473; Rosenberger 82, 8352 (Harl 21, 19); London (Harl 11); Vienna (Harl 20); Berlin. 51 Harl 1984 (= Harl with catalogue number). Individual examples on which the word for neokoros is completely obscure (e.g. BMC 120, 122) will not be listed here. 52 Rosenberger 1977 (= Rosenberger with catalogue number).

36

– neapolis

265

Philip and Philip the Younger Augustus: BMC 130-134 (Harl 38, 37, 42, 44, 45); SNGANS 1020, 1021 (Harl 38, 44); Rosenberger 88, 91, 92 (Harl 45, 40, 44); Oxford (Harl 46);53 Paris (3 exx., Harl 35, 37, 45); Berlin. Otacilia: BMC 138 (Harl 57); SNGANS 1023 (Harl 59); Jerusalem, Franciscan Biblical School;54 Israel Museum (Rosenberger 96, Harl 60);55 Paris (Harl 60); Berlin (2 exx.). Philip the Younger Augustus: AUB 5056 (Harl 61); Rosenberger 74 (misattributed), 100, 105, 108 (Harl 74, 62, 76, 75a); London (Harl 76); Paris (3 exx., Harl 77-79); Berlin. Trebonianus Gallus: BMC 153, 154 (Harl 112, 111); SNGANS 1036; Rosenberger 111, 128 (misattributed) (Harl 119, 111) Paris (2 exx., Harl 112, 118); Berlin. Volusian: BMC 164 (Harl 141); AUB 56 (misattributed), 61 (Harl 137); Rosenberger 127 (Harl 137); Paris (2 exx., Harl 137); Oxford. 53 54 55 56

Milne 1947, 60-61; Meshorer 1989, 176-177 no. 3. Meshorer 1985, 52 no. 146. Meshorer 1989, 175-176 no. 2. Baramki 1974 (= AUB with catalogue number), 27-29.

266

part i – section xv. pisidia

SECTION XV. PISIDIA Chapter 37. Sagalassos: in Pisidia Sagalassos lay in Pisidia, a rich but remote and mountainous region of Anatolia, separated from the sea by the Pamphylian plain.1 The Pisidians were best known as warriors, and the Sagalassians as the most warlike of the Pisidians, at least in the time of Alexander the Great, who had some difficulty in subduing the city.2 The relations between the various Pisidian cities do not appear to have been close, though there were occasional alliances as well as enmities, and perhaps even a small koinon in the Milyas area, between Pisidia and Lycia.3 No koinon of Pisidia is documented, though the existence of one has been posited.4 Sagalassos did call itself ‘first of Pisidia’ from at least the time of Commodus, but that boast does not necessarily indicate that the city was the center of a koinon, or that other cities in Pisidia agreed with the claim.5 Our understanding of the Roman administration of Pisidia is made more difficult because the area was moved from the aegis of one governor to that of another.6 Originally included in the Galatian realm of King Amyntas, it passed to Rome at his death in 25 B.C.E., and became part of the province Galatia. Galatia (including Pisidia) and Cappadocia occasionally merged to form one great province, in Nero’s and again in Vespasian’s time. In the later Flavian period, however, Pisidia may have been ceded for a brief time to the province Asia before it went back to Galatia and finally passed into LyciaPamphylia by ca. 144-147 C.E.7 How this instabil1

French 1992; Waelkens 1993. Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander 1.28. 3 Bracke 1993, 19, 23. 4 Deininger 1965, 68-69; Kornemann 1924, 932. 5 IGRR 3:350, 352, 353; Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 115116 no. 1; Haensch 1997, 279 n. 90. 6 Remy 1986, 21-22, 25, 39-40, 51-65, 73, 82-85. 7 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. The new datum is an inscription to a governor of Asia in 86 C.E.; note, however, that Pisidia was under a legatus of Cappadocia-Galatia in 82 and of Galatia in 113/114: Remy 1986, 64, 67. It is now 2

ity affected the development of a koinon among the cities of Pisidia is uncertain (see below). Certainly the only evidence for a Pisidian city being neokoros is extremely late, from the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century C.E. First and Second Neokoria: by 293-305 An inscription of the first Tetrarchy calls Sagalassos “sacred, illustrious and honored twice neokoros city, first of Pisidia, friend and ally of the Romans”: INSCRIPTION 1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21 (SEG 2 [1924] no. 735). To Diocletian and Maximian as Augusti and to Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Caesares, thus dated 293-305.8 { |erå k¢ lamprå k¢ ¶ndojow b' nevkÒro[w] Sagalass°vn pÒliw pr\(th) t}w Pisid¤aw f¤lh k¢ sÊmmaxow [ÑRv]m°vn Several milestones also reinforce the fact that Sagalassos was twice neokoros under Diocletian. There are other milestones, however, from as late as Claudius Gothicus and even under the first Tetrarchy, that do not mention ‘neokoros’ among the city’s titles.9 Nor does the city’s coinage, which goes down to the reign of Claudius Gothicus, cite it.10 One should not argue from silence, though, and it is certainly possible that Sagalassos was (twice) neokoros before the end of the third century, but saw no need to proclaim it explicitly, especially if it had no close rivals for the title. Sagalassos’ chief importance in the third century was likely as a source of grain supplies for the Roman armies in the East; its coins often show a small uncertain which province the governor Proculus (named on the temple of Apollo Klarios) governed, and when. 8 Kienast 1996, 264. 9 French 1988, 113 no. 299, 105 no. 275; IGRR 3:336. 10 Weiss 1992, 159; also 155, stating that no Pisidian city was neokoros.

chapter

37

– sagalassos

267

wheat ear, once under the joined hands of the Romans and Sagalassians (under Claudius Gothicus).11 The city had been proud of its title ‘friend and ally of the Romans’ perhaps as early as the time of Antoninus Pius.12 But despite all this and long being ‘first of Pisidia,’ after the empire-wide provincial reorganization that occurred between 308 and 311, Pisidia’s chief city was the Roman colony Antioch, not Sagalassos.13 And though later inscriptions honoring Constantius II (dated from 346 to 361) accord Sagalassos the title metropolis, in the lists of bishoprics, Sagalassos still falls behind Antioch and Philomelion.14 If Pisidia only developed a koinon structure late, it is possible that a pair of local temples at Sagalassos were then adapted for koinon cult.15 Scholars have indeed associated two Sagalassian temples with the cult of Roman emperors. In neither case, however, can the theory that they were koinon temples, or that the neokoria was bestowed for them, be proved. The first is the temple of Apollo Klarios.16 It is prominently placed on a hill buttressed with terrace walls, overlooking the west side of the city’s (lower) agora, from which an axial propylon, Doric without and Ionic within, led into the temenos. Another propylon entered the precinct from the northwest. The excavators have depended mainly upon stylistic analysis of the architecture to date its phases, the first of which may have been Augustan. This early temple may have been destroyed in an earthquake, and the second phase, currently dated in the early second century, had six by eleven Ionic columns. The dedication on the architrave, discussed below, records the names of the chief donors: Titus Flavius Collega and various members of his family gave the peripteron, the revetment of the (interior) walls, and other features of the temple, which he apparently dedicated during his own chief priesthood. The temple itself was later completely dismantled and the

spolia used for a Christian basilical church on the same site, perhaps as early as the fifth century. Though the excavators occasionally state that the temple was ‘re-dedicated to the cult of the imperial family,’ the inscription on the architrave clearly reads: “To Apollo Klarios and to the gods Augusti and to the fatherland...”17 The formula is exactly comparable to that on the small streetside shrine at Ephesos (q.v.), which was long misnamed ‘the temple of Hadrian’ despite its actual dedication to Artemis, Hadrian, and the neokoros people of Ephesos; its actual object of cult is still uncertain. Also, many secular buildings had similar formulae of dedication, both at Ephesos and elsewhere. Another architrave found at Sagalassos switches the order of imperial and divine dedicatees, reading “to the gods Augusti and (gods) of the fatherland and to the people.”18 The purpose of the inscription of the temple at Sagalassos is not to name all the cults practiced therein, but is simply a formula of dedication, as it is in Ephesos and elsewhere. The decoration around the temple, including metopes of bows and arrows and of wreaths in the Doric frieze of the propyla, is well suited to a temple of Apollo. The festival Klareia is mentioned in local inscriptions from the mid-first to third century C.E., and it is never coupled with any imperial name.19 A better case for dedication to the imperial cult may be made for a temple in the southern extreme of Sagalassos. Again, the identification is based on an inscription from the architrave, but this is to the emperor Antoninus Pius and his house, with no mention of another dedicatee preserved.20 The temple was built up on a large terrace, where it could be seen by all who entered the gates. It was set axially in a broad temenos, 82.40 x 60.40 m., with porticoes on all four sides, entered from the west via a propylon, possibly with composite capitals (illus. pl. 5 fig. 20). The temple itself is on a similar scale to that of Apollo Klarios, with six by eleven columns,

11 Weiss 1992, 159-163; BMC 59; SNGvA 5208-5209, the latter’s reverse type surmounted by a wreath and what may be a bow (symbols of the Klareia? See below). 12 IGRR 3:348 (much restored), 350-353; Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 115-116 no. 1. 13 Waelkens 1993, 47. 14 Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 116-117 nos. 2-3; Belke and Mersich 1990, 368-369. 15 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 312. 16 S. Mitchell, Owens, and Waelkens 1989, 70-73; Waelkens, S. Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 185-190; Waelkens 1993, 46; Vandeput 1997, 50-57, 198-202.

17 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 295. Lanckoronski 18901892, 2 no. 200 (= IGRR 3:342). 18 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 205; found in the area of W, not of E, though IGRR 3:343 attributed it and 342 to the same monument. 19 Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 308-310; also note Devijver and Waelkens 1995, 119 no. 7. Other contests are the Rhodoneia and the Vareia (both named for private founders: Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 nos. 193 and 195) and the Kallipianeios Neikatoreios. 20 Lanckoronski 1890-1892, 2 no. 188 (= IGRR 3:348). Waelkens, Mitchell, and Owens 1990, 190-193; Waelkens 1993, 46; Vandeput 1997, 64-82, 203-207.

268

part i – section xv. pisidia

but is Corinthian, not Ionic, and faces west, not east (illus. pl. 2 fig. 8). Its pronaos, with two columns in antis, is almost as deep as its cella, at 8 m. and 9.3 m. respectively. This temple’s rich but delicate architectural decoration, featuring acanthus scrolls and palmettes with lotus, has led some of its excavators to date it in the Hadrianic period, despite the dedication to Antoninus Pius; they justify this date by positing a long building period, which necessarily implies that the temple was at first to be dedicated to Hadrian.21 But it is extremely unlikely that Antoninus, who was said to have been given the name Pius for his punctiliousness in honoring his adoptive father, would have allowed a temple originally for Hadrian to be rededicated to his own cult.22 It certainly did not happen at Kyzikos (q.v.), where despite a delay of over forty years the temple was still dedicated to the original object of cult, Hadrian. The schema of stylistic development that Vandeput has generated can only offer a relative chronology; indeed, its sole dose of absolute chronology comes from the same kind of inscriptional evidence that he here overrides. It is more likely, then, that the temple to Antoninus Pius was requested from, and granted by, Antoninus Pius, and that one Sagalassian stonecarving workshop continued to use a ‘Hadrianic’ style for a longer time than usual.23 In any case, the temple began to be dismantled in late antiquity, and parts of its frieze were reused in another basilical church to the west of the city in the fifth or early sixth century C.E.24 Sagalassos’ first chief priest of the Augusti, Titus Flavius Neon, probably was the first in his family to receive Roman citizenship, in the Flavian period.25 He was also agonothetes for life, though the name of the contest is not mentioned; and one of his descendants, Titus Flavius Severianus, was perpetual agonothetes, likely by endowment, as well. Neon’s office does imply an imperial cult temple in the Flavian period, before the temple of Apollo Klarios was reconstructed in the early second century. Nothing dictates that his chief priesthood was provincial rather than municipal. But it is just possible 21

Vandeput 1997, 75-77. Cassius Dio ep. 70.1-2; Historia Augusta, Hadrian 24, 27. There is, of course, the possibility that the emperor was not informed, but this seems unlikely for such a prominent temple in a major city, even if not a koinon temple. 23 Vandeput 1995, 131. 24 Vandeput 1993, 93. 25 Devijver 1993, 2.3, 3.3. 22

that an impetus for new developments in the provincial imperial cult in the late Flavian period could have been a brief incorporation of Pisidia into the province of Asia, with its well developed koinon focused on worship of the living emperor. A recent find from the lower agora of Sagalassos offers the latest known example of the title ‘neokoros’ in current use. The only securely dated later appearance was at Sardis (q.v.), and that was an anachronism, probably imitated from earlier inscriptions. The Sagalassian inscription is on a reeded column reused for a dedication to Constantine as Augustus and to Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans as Caesares, thus dated between 25 December 333 and Constantine’s death in May 337 C.E.26 The inscription was slightly altered between 340 and 350 when Constantius II and Constans were the sole remaining Augusti. The dedication to the rulers is in Latin. The city’s titulature follows in Greek, and though its first line was erased and recut, it was apparently not substantially changed. INSCRIPTION 4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 310-313 no. 6. Original dedication to Constantine and his three sons, 333-337 C.E; slightly altered under Constantius II and Constans, 340-350 C.E. First version: _{ |erå ka‹ lamprå´ ka‹ ¶ndojow b' nevk[Ò]row Sagalass°vn pÒ[liw] pr\th t}w Pisid¤a[w] f¤lh ka‹ sÊmma[x]ow ÑRvma¤vn It is noteworthy that the title ‘twice neokoros,’ proud mark of the city’s worship of the emperors, was still being used at Sagalassos while the Empire was ruled by Christian emperors. Yet Constantine does not seem to have taken direct action against pagan temples; indeed, if Zosimus can be trusted, he founded two in Constantinople itself, one of the Mother of the Gods, the other of the city goddess Rome.27 But even if the emperor did not generally support pagan shrines, he did believe in his own divine mission, and it is unlikely that he would have chosen the imperial cult as a target for disgrace.28 Whatever Constantine’s stance, the evidence for Sagalassos as neokoros, indeed for almost all the neokoroi, ends after this point. At least one of the temples for which the city may have been neokoros,

26

Kienast 1996, 298-303, 310-317. Zosimus, New History 2.31; the pagan Zosimus was no friend to Constantine. 28 MacMullen 1990, 107-116. 27

chapter that of Antoninus Pius, was dismantled about a century after inscription 4 was reengraved. Sagalassos appears to have had a vocal, and active, Christian community early on; a recently found dedication to the “pure goddesses who heed prayer” was first scratched with the rebuttal: “one God!” and then torn down to be reused as paving over a gutter.29 INSCRIPTIONS CITING NEOKORIA: Twice neokoros: 1. Pace 1916-1920, 38-39 no. 21. Dated 293-305 C.E., like inscriptions 2 and 3. See text above. 2. French 1988, 104 no. 273. Milestone originally 29

Waelkens et al. 1997, 147, fig. 67; see also 162.

37

– sagalassos

269

inscribed under the first Tetrarchy, same time as inscriptions 1 and 3; reinscribed in Constantinian times. 3. French 1988, 101 no. 264. Enumeration restored. Milestone originally inscribed under the first Tetrarchy (like inscriptions 1 and 2), reinscribed twice subsequently, once in 333-335 and again in 340-350 C.E. 4. Devijver and Waelkens 1997, 310-313 no. 6. See text above. First version of 333-337 C.E., parts recut 340-350. Uncertain, fragment: 5. Pace 1916-1920, 39 no. 22 (SEG 2 [1924] no. 736). No enumeration preserved. No coins of Sagalassos that cite the title ‘neokoros’ are yet known.

This page intentionally left blank

chapter

35

– herakleia

PART II. SUMMARY CHAPTERS

271

This page intentionally left blank

chapter

35

– herakleia

273

INTRODUCTION

The following chapters summarize the material that has been presented in the chapters on each neokoros city. Those who need a general and chronologically arranged picture of the development of the provincial imperial cult among all the neokoroi, instead of in one particular city or koinon, may begin here. This arrangement involves some repetition of material, but it allows the reader to get a broader picture of certain themes. Full discussion and citation of sources is not given here, however, but in each individual city chapter. Chapter 38 presents the historical development of koinon cult from 29 B.C.E., through the rise of

the title ‘neokoros’ in the later first century, to the last use of the title ‘neokoros’ in the fifth century C.E. Chapter 39 examines what we know of the temples themselves and of the images within them; it also discusses the coins issued by the neokoroi and how to interpret the evidence they offer. Chapter 40 focuses on the neokoroi cities and their operations, while 41 widens that focus to the koina to which those cities belonged. Finally, chapter 42 looks at the Roman side of the equation, the actions and attitudes of the emperors, the governors, and the Senate toward the koina, the neokoroi, and their temples.

This page intentionally left blank

chapter

38

– historical analysis

275

Chapter 38. Historical Analysis: the Development of Neokoria Augustus The koinon cult of the emperors started with the first emperor, Augustus, and thus antedated the use of ‘neokoros’ as an official title for a city by about a century.1 These earlier foundations will be found to have counted when the title became current and when total neokoriai were reckoned up, however. The few historical accounts regarding the origins of koinon cults also offer crucial information that other sources on later periods pass over in silence. Chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ has already provided an analysis of Cassius Dio’s account of events of 29 B.C.E., which was probably taken fairly literally from an official Roman document. The passage shows how the victor of Actium, later to be named Augustus, handled requests to establish the imperial cult in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia. 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 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

The emperor, who was still in Asia at the time, was not making these decisions out of thin air, but likely in response to petitions from the two provinces involved, specifically from the provincial organizations, the koina, that were to make the provincial imperial cult their main concern. Augustus was probably being offered cult in line with a long tradition of ruler worship by Greek cities and organizations, stretching through the Hellenistic period and including honors to Roman magistrates as well.2 But it is likely that he introduced modifications as he thought proper, modifications that would have played well before the Roman audience that was then his prime concern. These modifications will be examined more closely in chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers.’ Those whom Augustus called Hellenes, i.e. the koina of the Hellenes of Asia and of Bithynia, were to be allowed to worship Augustus himself, the Asians at Pergamon and the Bithynians at Nikomedia. Dio then appends his interpretation of the event: as a senator who could survey the history of two subsequent centuries, he saw a line of demarcation separating, not East from West, but Roman Italy, where people worshipped only the deified dead, from the non-Roman Empire, where people could worship a living ruler. Dio did not mention the fact that the goddess Rome shared cult not just in Caesar’s temple but in Augustus’ as well.3 Perhaps Dio omitted to name her because her presence would have obscured his point that Augustus’ was the model for subsequent imperial cult; as Dio knew, later emperors did not consider themselves obliged to honor Rome in the temples dedicated to them. Or it may be that the personification of Rome was introduced into cults of Augustus sometime after he accepted these two temples. Though Dio named Ephesos and his own city of Nikaia as preeminent in their provinces, the honor of being among the first neokoroi was to escape 2

1

Up-to-date bibliography is in Southern 1998.

3

The most comprehensive treatment is still Habicht 1970. Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3.

276

part ii – summary chapters

them. The temples of Rome and the hero Julius were designated for Romans, and did not serve as headquarters of the provincial imperial cult as the temples to Rome and Augustus would. Even the petitions of Pergamon and Nikomedia, both submitted and granted at the same level and by the same emperor, seem to have undergone significant differences in treatment. For one, Dio mentions that the Pergamenes received permission to hold a sacred contest in honor of Augustus’ temple. This request appears to have been an addendum, perhaps made by the city of Pergamon itself, to the larger petitions made by the two koina. Dio’s wording makes it clear that the festival was supplementary and established in honor of the temple, not an invariable result of its foundation. We must remember that a sacred contest was not the inevitable concomitant of a temple’s foundation when we turn to later periods, when such festivals would proliferate. The crucial passage of Cassius Dio, and Suetonius’ observation that Augustus only allowed his cult to be practiced along with that of the goddess Rome, show how he ‘reinvented’ the tradition of ruler cult as already practiced by the Hellenes, and made it accommodate his own purposes.4 Moreover, thanks to Augustus’ unrivaled authority and status, which his successor Tiberius would guard closely, this new tradition of granting to a koinon a single temple to the emperor and cult partner(s) continued to be honored (with certain exceptions, and chiefly in Asia) over a century later. As neither the temple at Pergamon nor that at Nikomedia has survived, only the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra is left to represent the temples of Augustus that would eventually gain the title ‘neokoros’ for their cities. The temple dates sometime between Galatia’s absorption as a Roman province in 25 B.C.E. and the point at which the list of priests of the province was inscribed on its left anta, 19/20 C.E. Further evidence for the temple’s function as an archive for the province is showed by the inscription of Augustus’ accomplishments, the res gestae, on its walls; the temple at Pergamon is known from epigraphic references to have fulfilled a similar function. A fuller discussion of the architectural

4 Hobsbawm 1983. For figures like Augustus as bricoleurs in Levi-Strauss’ sense, manipulators of extant traditions, see Boholm 1996, 190-191.

program of the temple at Ankyra will follow in chapter 39, ‘The Temples,’ below. Tiberius In 23 C.E., the Hellenes of Asia petitioned to build a second temple to a reigning emperor, Augustus’ successor Tiberius. The immediate motive was a series of Senatorial judgements favorable to the province, and as a consequence the Senate was to be honored along with the emperor. Also included in the honor was the emperor’s mother, the widow of Augustus, Livia (now known as Julia). It should be noted that Bithynia, which had previously acted in concert with Asia in requesting a temple to Augustus, took no part in the Tiberian petition. This was because Bithynia had no interest in the successful prosecutions of Asian governors which supplied the immediate motive for offering the temple. But the Asians’ petition also indicates a point at which the two provinces began to diverge. Bithynia offers little evidence, but its koinon may have been content with its one temple, that of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia, for the entire first century, whereas the koinon of Asia may have made some attempt to build a new provincial temple for each emperor. The temple would eventually be built in Smyrna, but not without a debate before the Roman Senate among the eleven cities that wanted it.5 Two aspects of this debate are especially noteworthy. The first is that instead of presenting an agreed-upon petition, as they likely did in offering a cult for Augustus at Pergamon in 29 B.C.E., the cities of Asia may have been deadlocked over which of them was to have the temple of Tiberius. Rivalry over the temples and their rights was only to increase over the coming centuries. The second aspect is that the Senate eliminated certain cities from competition, some because they weren’t of a status suitable to this high honor, others because they were already devoted to one particular and important cult. Among the latter were Ephesos (devoted to Artemis), Miletos (to Apollo), and Pergamon, which had been ‘honored enough’ by its temple to (Rome and) Augustus. Thus in the early days of the Empire the Senate equated a koinon temple with some of the greatest sanctuaries of the province, and judged it proper that a city have no more than one koinon temple. 5

Tacitus, Annals 4.55-56.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

Tiberius himself frowned on extending the imperial cult beyond the limits set by Augustus, which he interpreted rather strictly. In 25, a delegation from the province of Hispania Ulterior asked permission to build a shrine to Tiberius and his mother, using the temple he had granted to Asia as a precedent. This gave Tiberius an opportunity to state his opposition to divine honors for himself: he had only granted the temple to the Asians because Augustus had set the precedent of granting a temple to his own cult and Rome’s at Pergamon, but he (Tiberius) had been the more ready to follow that precedent because the cult of the Senate had been linked with his own.6 According to Tacitus, this speech, delivered before the Senate itself, was attributed by many to the worst motives, though some saw it in the way that Tiberius probably intended, as an act of (ostentatious) modesty. Tiberius was making a show of his refusal to go beyond the hallowed example of Augustus before a Roman audience. Gaius In contrast, Gaius, better known as Caligula, apparently chose the site of his own temple in Asia rather than leaving the choice to either the koinon or the Senate. Cassius Dio 59.28.1 states that Gaius “ordered that a precinct be set aside for his worship in Miletos in the province Asia.” In this passage, just as in Tacitus’ discussion of Tiberius’ temple, certain cities were excluded from consideration because they were ‘preempted’ by other gods (again, Artemis held Ephesos), including emperors (Augustus held Pergamon, Tiberius held Smyrna). Miletos itself had previously been cast out of the running for the temple to Tiberius because it was considered already to be dedicated to Apollo; but that fact would not be an obstruction to Gaius’ command, because the koinon cult of Gaius was to be established in Apollo’s own temple, the Didymaion. In choosing a particular city and temple for his cult, and the latter not only already consecrated to a god but one of the biggest buildings in the Greek world, Gaius went well beyond the example hallowed by his great-grandfather Augustus in several ways. That was not unusual for this emperor, whom the historians portray as eager to establish his own 6

Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38; Charlesworth 1939.

277

cult in all corners of the Empire.7 There is no record of whether Gaius was to share his temple with a god or personification, though it is possible that Apollo was accommodated at his side. As the Didymaion was to become a koinon temple, a board of neopoioi was established representing each judicial district of Asia, and work commenced on the building’s new incarnation. But it was to be short lived: the emperor’s murder and the condemnation of his memory meant that the Didymaion, no longer a koinon temple, was soon returned to Apollo. From Claudius to Vitellius Of the provincial imperial cults in the East, little specific information survives from the reigns of Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, or Vitellius. More generally, however, the second half of the first century is a fascinating time, as it produced several documents that allow us to trace the birth of ‘neokoros’ as a title for cities. As early as Gaius’ reign, Kyzikos was the first city known to use ‘neokoros’ to describe itself on an inscription, and that was for possession of a shrine dedicated to a member of the emperor’s family. Two further instances of the term occur in Ephesos. In Acts of the Apostles 19.35, during the riot of the silversmiths in the theater at Ephesos, the city’s secretary is said to have asked, “Who does not know that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?” Though this episode was likely set in writing a quarter century after it occurred, the terminology does fit the period of Paul’s visit to Ephesos in the early 50s. Then, in Nero’s reign, Ephesos became the first city to call itself neokoros on a coin. These coins, dated to 65/66 C.E., might represent the first use of ‘neokoros’ as a title for a city with a koinon temple. If so, Ephesos’ novel honor was to be plagued with uncertainty, as Nero, the likely object of cult, died in disgrace only a few years after the coins appeared. The Flavians: Vespasian, Titus, Domitian Apparently it was the last, successful emperor of the year 69, Vespasian, who gave Perge in Pamphylia 7

Barrett 1989, 140-153.

278

part ii – summary chapters

its first provincial imperial temple; at least, the city claimed to be ‘neokoros from Vespasian’ two centuries later. The closest sure connection that Vespasian had with Perge was his reorganization of Pamphylia, which he annexed to Lycia. Lycia had a long-standing koinon of its own. Pamphylia, on the other hand, formed an independent provincial organization, known from a few inscriptions as ‘the cities in Pamphylia,’ and directed by Pamphyliarchs. Perhaps in the reorganization by Vespasian, some attempt was made to regularize Pamphylia in the model of neighboring provinces. An important part of this reorganization could have been establishing a temple of the imperial cult, and the title ‘neokoros’ would either have been a recent innovation to signify possession of such a temple, or could later have become attached to it. But these possibilities are in fact extremely uncertain, and it is dangerous to generalize from province to province. Possibly as early as 85/86, but at least by 88/89, in the reign of Vespasian’s son Domitian, Ephesos had a koinon temple of the Augusti and was named neokoros on inscriptions as it had been on coins earlier. This is the time by which neokoros seems to have become a title that was solely applicable to possessors of koinon temples, not just a metaphor for the possession of any important temple. It is unfortunate that the documents only show the result, not the process. That process can no longer be attributed without question to Domitian. For one thing, it is becoming clearer that Ephesos may have already been neokoros for Nero, and the petition for reinstatement of a koinon temple for Ephesos could have been initiated as early as the time of Vespasian. The fact that the inscriptions around the temple were set up to honor Domitian may mean only that the project took a long time to complete. A construction period of over twenty years is about twice as long as those likely for some of the temple’s predecessors, e.g. the temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon or the temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna; on the other hand, the third koinon temple of Asia, the Didymaion as rededicated to Gaius, was never completed. Of course Ephesos’ temple of the Augusti, despite its massive vaulted platform, was no Didymaion. But as the time between the first appearance of ‘neokoros’ on coins of 65/66 and the honorifics around the temple in 88/89 may have included much negotiation in the koinon and several different embassies to Rome (not to mention the

interruptions caused by civil war and the deaths of rulers), such a lapse of time is not impossible to imagine. As founder of a new dynasty distinct from that of the Julio-Claudians, Vespasian thoroughly reorganized several provinces; in the process, he may have instituted the imperial cult, as we have already seen in the case of Perge in Pamphylia.8 He had made no objection to early rumors about his divine powers or imperial destiny, so long as they aided his progress toward imperial rule. Once that was accomplished, it was probably in his interest to strengthen his position by using the Augustan example of acceptance of his own worship by the Hellenes of the provinces, the same kind of ‘routinization of charisma’ that Bloch saw in the appropriation of royal healing outside dynastic or familial bounds.9 It was crucial to the founders of new dynasties to install themselves firmly in an already dominant tradition. Therefore it is rather odd that several scholars have attributed wide-ranging reforms of the ‘imperial cult’ (in all its aspects and across several provinces) not to Vespasian, but to Domitian, his younger son and second successor.10 After Domitian’s death his image and name were erased from many (though by no means all) monuments; and some scholars have assumed from this condemnation that when ancient texts attribute the initiation or modification of a cult to Vespasian or Nerva, they are covering up an initial attribution to Domitian. This is a faulty assumption, however: though the name of Domitian was often erased or passed over, there are no accounts of his acts being attributed to any other emperor.11 Specifically, the long history of misinterpretation of the remains of the first temple to make Ephesos neokoros (with the statue of Titus found there miscalled Domitian; its temple of the Augusti miscalled the temple of Domitian; and the city itself misnamed twice neokoros from falsified coins of Domitian’s time) has clouded the issue and made Domitian’s name loom larger than it perhaps should. Historians and litterateurs who wrote on Domitian emphasized his autocratic tendencies, his famous

8 Levick 1999, 134-151, 165-169 modified the picture presented by Garzetti 1974, 250-253. For Vespasian’s reorganization of the provincial imperial cult in various provinces of the West, Fishwick 1998, 107-112. 9 Bloch 1973, 21-27. 10 Dräger 1993, 238-256; Scherrer 1997. 11 Vittinghoff 1936, 19-20, 30, 98.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

wish to be called ‘lord and god,’ and his hatred for his brother and predecessor Titus.12 Of course, it is important to recognize that almost all the sources that survive were hostile to Domitian, and thus prone to interpret his actions for the worse.13 Domitian’s ‘autocracy’ has been re-interpreted as an increase in efficiency and centralization of administration, tending toward direct imperial control, in a number of spheres.14 But his interests seem to have been more focused on correction of specific cases than on the wide-ranging reorganization of some provinces, as Vespasian’s had been. Indeed, Domitian’s administration appears to have been rather legalistic and precise, except in the case of his edict against vinegrowing in Italy and the provinces, which was soon rescinded anyway. Moreover, frequent dedications to Domitian do not mean that the projects were funded by or even known to him.15 In general, emperors made very few blanket decisions that were to be applicable to all provinces. Though the emperor always stood at its center, administration of the provinces was not a homogeneous and overarching organization, but was handled according to varying laws and traditions in each province, by a scanty bureaucracy that changed frequently and had considerable power of decision.16 The emperor’s role in most cases was responsive rather than proactive, and always subject to what information he received by personal contact or by letter.17 Though the formation of a koinon and the practice of the imperial cult could be encouraged by the emperors, these actions were not enforced by empire-wide decree.18 Instead, cult honors were generally offered to, and perhaps then modified by, an emperor himself.19 The exception was Gaius, but even Domitian was no Gaius. In sum, it is very unlikely that the exact form of provincial cult established in diverse provinces like Asia, Macedonia, Pamphylia, or Achaea were on the same pattern, or originated out of the expressed desires of Domitian. As for Domitian’s reputed hatred for Titus, such an emotion in a person long dead is unlikely ever 12

Suetonius, Domitian 13.2. Southern 1997, 34-59. 14 Garzetti 1974, 265-268. 15 Levick 1982; Devreker 1982, 510; pace 513, the start of a coinage does not necessarily indicate a new grant of civic status. B. Jones 1992, 109-112 accepted Devreker uncritically. 16 Eck 1997a, 107-145, 167-185. 17 Millar 1977, 379, 392; the latter on the edict on vines. 18 Deininger 1965, 35. 19 S. Price 1984b, 65-77. 13

279

to be proved or disproved. But it is important to recognize that Titus’ eventual deification and the construction of his long-delayed triumphal arch in the Roman Forum indicate that Domitian did give his brother prominent posthumous honors. Thus when evaluating the colossal statue of Titus found at Ephesos, we cannot use alleged personal hatred to rule out the possibility that the statue was carved and set up by the Ephesians and the province of Asia under Domitian. That the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos was completed during Domitian’s reign is indubitable. Ephesos then began to call itself neokoros for that koinon temple, and inscriptions of Smyrna name that city neokoros at this time as well. Smyrna also became the first to show its city goddess as neokoros, holding a small model of its temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate, on coins of Domitian’s reign. Nerva During his brief reign, the emperor Nerva agreed to a petition by Beroia for the right to keep the titles ‘metropolis’ and ‘neokoros’ strictly to itself within the province Macedonia. This implies that the title ‘neokoros’ was not only already current, but that there was a rival for it in that province, probably Thessalonike. It was also under Nerva that a Lycian city was first called metropolis, though the title ‘neokoros’ would appear in that province (perhaps first at Patara) only at a subsequent time. Trajan So far as is known, Trajan only allowed one provincial temple to his cult to the koinon of Asia. He followed Augustus’ example not only in this way, but in sharing his temple with a cult partner (in this case Zeus Philios), in allowing a contest in honor of the temple to be established, and in giving that contest the same status and privileges that the games for Rome and Augustus had. But in granting this temple to Pergamon, the same city that Augustus himself had so honored, Trajan set a new and important precedent. The historians’ accounts agree that in previous competitions for provincial temples, cities could be ruled out if they already had one other major shrine; thus Pergamon itself was held to have

280

part ii – summary chapters

acquired enough honor through its temple to (Rome and) Augustus to be ruled out of consideration first for a temple to Tiberius, and then for one to Gaius. Trajan, however, allowed Pergamon a second koinon temple, and thus it became the first city known to be twice neokoros, as its inscriptions quickly proclaimed. Trajan’s action certainly appears to have broken the ice, and thereafter many of the larger and more important cities of Asia would strive to attain multiple neokoriai. Pergamon’s achievement of a second neokoria must have opened the floodgates to similar demands from the other neokoroi, like Smyrna and Ephesos, as well as from cities that had not yet become neokoroi. One can imagine the acrimonious discussion in meetings of the koinon, with the argument centering round the question of whether the largest cities should hold a virtual monopoly on neokoria, or whether the title should be allowed to descend to the next lower rank. How the cities were represented within the koinon of Asia is uncertain, though it is likely that the larger and more important cities cast more votes than the smaller ones.20 In the case of the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate, even smaller cities (Hypaipa, Tralles, Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion) had competed for the honor, but when the decision was left to the Roman Senate, it chose Smyrna, one of the greatest cities, reflecting the magnitude of the honor to be conferred upon it. The largest cities must have been quick to agree with this criterion, but that cannot have stopped the smaller ones from advancing their claims. In their favor was the previously mentioned tendency toward exclusivity which had favored cities that were not already ‘occupied’ by other cults. Thus the Senate had passed over Pergamon, Ephesos, and Miletos to choose Smyrna for the temple to Tiberius, and later the emperor Gaius passed over Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, appropriating Miletos’ Didymaion for his own cult. Had this tendency continued it would have led to neokoriai for progressively smaller or less important cities as the larger ones became ‘occupied.’ But whether by preference of Rome, machinations of the larger cities, or both, this movement downward was checked, at least temporarily. First there were the provincial imperial temples built in cities with famous local cults, such as Gaius’ takeover of Miletos’ temple 20

See chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ below.

of Apollo, and the establishment of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos despite that city’s famous temple to Artemis. But the definitive step was Trajan’s grant of a second provincial temple to Pergamon. It ensured that no city could be disqualified by having a previous koinon temple when it came to choosing the site of a new koinon temple. A unique coin of Trajan may indicate that Neokaisareia was the first neokoros known in a koinon of Pontus. Trajan had some role in reorganizing Pontus, as late in his reign the province Galatia/ Cappadocia was broken up, and both Pontus Polemoniacus (with Neokaisareia as its metropolis) and Pontus Galaticus (with Amaseia at its head) went with Cappadocia. Documents of a unified koinon of Pontus first appear at this time, and it is possible that its headquarters were established at Neokaisareia, which also was allowed to call itself neokoros. It is difficult to isolate any overriding policy practiced by Trajan as regards the provincial imperial cult, except an emulation of Augustus.21 The choice of Zeus Philios in particular as a cult partner may have been appropriate to Trajan’s own propaganda: Dio Chrysostomos named that aspect of the deity in his first oration on kingship, and praised friendship’s benefits to kings in his third oration, both perhaps delivered before the emperor himself.22 Trajan’s allowing a new provincial temple to his cult in Asia could be connected with his presence in the East for war with Parthia (114-117), and a reorganization of the Pontic provinces may have been the occasion for Neokaisareia’s first use of the title ‘neokoros.’ The question remains: why choose Pergamon, which was already once neokoros, over the many cities that had no koinon temple at all? No special connection or specific visit of Trajan to Pergamon is known. Was Pergamon’s good fortune due to the influence of the Pergamene C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus, Trajan’s ‘most illustrious friend’? Or how otherwise did the Pergamenes convince Trajan to overstep the precedent of allowing only one temple per city per province?

21 Bennett 1997, 208-209, a trifle harsh on Trajan’s propaganda (“the Roman people had been the victim of a wellmanaged confidence trick”); Trajan’s cult with Zeus Philios at Pergamon was not unusual for Asia, except as discussed below. 22 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 1.37-41 (echoed in the Olympian oration, 12.75-76), Oration 3.86-132.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

Perhaps a narrow interpretation of that precedent is incorrect. When Cassius Dio discussed Augustus’ original grant of precincts for Rome and the hero Julius in 29 B.C.E., he stated as reasons for choosing Ephesos and Nikaia that “these cities were foremost in Asia and in Bithynia at that time.” This could have been Augustus’ own expressed motive, or Dio’s rationalization of it; Pergamon and Nikomedia were rivals to Ephesos and Nikaia, not poor second choices, and their ultimate destiny was to become yet greater by their possession of Augustus’ own cult. In any case, Dio expresses Augustus’ choice as based on positive attributes rather than negative ones. Tacitus’ presentation of the Senatorial debate over Tiberius’ temple shows a reversed approach. Faced with eleven candidates, the Senate went through a process of elimination, either by reason of insignificance or for being already devoted to a particular deity (Ephesos to Artemis, Miletos to Apollo). Though not specifically in the latter group, Pergamon was held to have been honored enough by the temple of (Rome and) Augustus. According to the epitome of Dio, when Gaius made his choice of Miletos, sanctuaries of gods and emperors were disqualified in the same category: Artemis preempted Ephesos, Augustus Pergamon, and Tiberius Smyrna. How far this process of elimination could go was the problem. Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos are known to have been furnished with koinon temples by Trajan’s time. Sardis, a finalist for Tiberius’ temple, may have had one as well: its first neokoria cannot yet be firmly dated. Were provincial imperial temples to go to progressively more insignificant cities? The answer must have been ‘yes’ on the smaller cities’ part, ‘no’ for the larger cities. The deciding factor was probably the emperor’s preference (or, more likely, what the koinon interpreted his preference to be). Rather than descend to putting provincial temples in cities whose age was greater than their population, the honor was for a time preserved for the largest and wealthiest. In fact, Trajan’s allowing a second koinon temple at Pergamon could be interpreted as following Augustus’ precedent in several ways: in making a positive choice for preeminence, in sharing his cult with another deity, in giving the festival associated with the temple all the rights and privileges of that celebrated for Rome and Augustus, and in placing the temple in the same city in which Augustus had placed his.

281

Hadrian If cities that were already neokoroi were no longer to be ruled out for further honors, there was probably a clamor among the greatest cities of Asia to build a temple for Trajan’s successor, Hadrian. They were to succeed and to accomplish more than they perhaps at first intended, for Hadrian not only granted second neokoriai, but allowed the Asians to build more than one temple to his cult within the same province. Hadrian thus let go of a prime aspect of the previous tradition; and there is no evidence that he shared his temples with cult partners either. It is difficult to discern the exact chronology of Hadrian’s benefactions, simply because he passed through the East so often and gave so much. Perhaps his earliest grants of neokoria were to Kyzikos and to Nikaia, both affected by earthquake, in 123/ 124. Smyrna was also made neokoros in 124, by the good offices of the orator Polemon. Ephesos and perhaps Tarsos became neokoroi later in Hadrian’s reign, Ephesos sometime between 130 and 132, Tarsos on coins honoring the dead Antinoös, probably by the mid-130s. It is also possible that Hadrian’s attention toward the reorganized sanctuary of Zeus at Aizanoi led to that city’s becoming neokoros of Zeus, though the honor is only documented later, in the reign of Commodus. Neokoria for Nikopolis in Armenia Minor is only tentatively Hadrianic, and the title on an inscription of the synod of Dionysiac artists at Herakleia in the koinon of Pontos in Bithynia is dated to 130, but questions cloud its interpretation. It may be that Pergamon’s having two koinon temples increased the demand for that honor among the greater cities of Asia, which could be one reason why Hadrian extended the honor to more than one city in that province. The emperor’s own policy of fostering cities provided another.23 As Cassius Dio stated (69.5.2-3), “he assisted the cities, both allied and subject, most generously. For he had even seen many of them, more than any other emperor, and he aided almost all: giving a water supply to some, harbors to others; and grain, and public works, and money, and other kinds of presents to others.” Dio’s statement brings up another point: Hadrian likely allowed more neokoriai because Hadrian was 23

Boatwright 2000.

282

part ii – summary chapters

on the spot, on his famous travels throughout the Empire. These travels, indeed, may have been part of a cogent policy of fostering civic life in the provinces, as implied by Dio.24 Not only was access to him easier, but the provincials’ enthusiastic reception would have made it more likely for him to grant them privileges in return. The reciprocal bond between petitioning city and generous emperor was strengthened by the immediacy of the action and by the emperor’s presence as if in epiphany. Indeed the effect was a proliferation of all scales of imperial cult, not only provincial but municipal and personal, as is shown by the hundreds of small altars dedicated to Hadrian, perhaps for household sacrifices along his processional route.25 The presence of the emperor, in itself a source of prestige, also opened the possibility of increased access to him for requests, and perhaps the opportunity to bypass provincial officials and go straight to the top.26 Gifts, honors, titles, altars, or statues do not necessarily mean that the emperor visited a city in person, however. Embassies from over a wide area followed along his route or went to meet him on his way. For example, the Termessians sent three ambassadors from north Lycia to call upon Hadrian during his visit to Ephesos in 124, where he gave them permission for the foundation of a festival.27 The emperor was in fact followed on his travels by petitioners from all across the Empire. Logically this should mean that the only real advantage for local residents (apart from the remote chance of catching the emperor’s attention while his mules were being shod)28 was the ease of approach: one didn’t have to send an expensive embassy halfway around the world, but just stand at the roadside and wait. Yet it seems that requests from cities and residents from the area through which the emperor traveled were either more frequent or more frequently granted. ‘More frequent’ would be the result of ease of access and the ability to make small and self-seeking petitions as well as great, important ones. ‘More frequently granted’ cannot be even remotely quantified, as we do not know how many requests were made in the first place. But it is no24 Halfmann 1986a, 40-44, 110-142. On the connection between Hadrian’s travels and his gifts of buildings, Schorndorfer 1997, 22-30. 25 Price 1984b, 112, 216. 26 Millar 1977, 36-38. 27 Wörrle 1988. 28 Suetonius, Vespasian 23.2.

table that the failure of an emperor to grant a request made on the spot by residents of the area is extremely rare, perhaps unique in the literature. In 70 Titus refused to expel the Jews or cancel their civic privileges at the petition of the citizens of Antioch.29 In this case, the negative decision was probably the result of Titus’ unwillingness to allow his presence to be the cause of distress to anyone in the city as much as the palpable injustice of the request. Visits of emperors (or emperors’ sons) to their dominions were supposed to be scenes of rejoicing, not of despair. An imperial visit was thus an exercise in reciprocity: the emperor conferred the honor of his presence (a recognized benefit) while the citizens housed, fed, and entertained him, his entourage, and if they were really unlucky, his army.30 If the imperial tourist cared to linger, the options widened to include elaborate rituals and sacrifices, tours of notable monuments, oratorical displays, gladiatorial combats, hunts, and festivals, generally put on at the expense of wealthy local citizens. Certainly such demonstrations of loyalty would have put any ruler into a mood to grant favors. In addition, part of the ideal of imperial liberality was to give great gifts after accepting small ones: in this the emperor was the ultimate patron, the world his client. Even ambassadors—at least the successful ones—could expect gifts from the emperor as a matter of course.31 In the same way, cities that received the emperor could also anticipate his generosity. As late as 310 an orator from Autun, urging Constantine to visit that city, visualized him granting gifts (or shows) and privileges, repairing temples and public places, and generally bringing the city back up to its former glory.32 Of course the extent of the gifts could vary depending on the emperor’s generosity, the lavishness or enthusiasm of his welcome, the nature of the privileges requested, and the persuasiveness of the advocate. Titus, who refused the Antiochenes’ petition against the Jews, is also portrayed as being badgered by Apollonius of Tyana into granting privileges asked by the Tarsians.33 Among the gifts an emperor could give to cities were privileges/titles, new public buildings/repair 29 30 31 32 33

Josephus, Jewish War 7.5.2. Millar 1977, 28-40. E.g. Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.21. Panegyrics 7(6).22.3-4. Philostratos, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 6.34.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

of old ones, and contests/festivals. A grant of neokoria of the emperors necessarily involved the former two, and could include the latter as well. The title ‘neokoros’ had its attractions on both sides: it reified a reciprocal bond between city and emperor, gave the city higher standing among its peers, and if the emperor so chose, could involve no further expense on his part. Moreover, after Trajan granted a second koinon temple to Pergamon, ‘neokoros’ became open to multiplication in a way that titles such as ‘first,’ ‘metropolis,’ and ‘greatest’ could never be: if a city’s rivals became neokoroi, that city could strive to be twice neokoros. As for expenses, the koinon of Asia bore at least some of the burden for building Hadrian’s temple at Kyzikos, and Hadrian himself was notably generous. At Smyrna he gave money that may have been for the temple as well as other projects. He also funded festivals at many of the cities he visited, which could have included those established for the new neokoroi.34 Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and Tarsos, along with many other cities that were not neokoroi for Hadrian, celebrated Hadrianeia and/or Hadrianeia Olympia in his honor. The connection between Hadrian’s visits to Asia Minor and a proliferation of neokoriai, especially in the province Asia where the demand was likely greatest, thus seems clear. Cities of the eastern provinces were also drawn into Hadrian’s later plans centered in Athens: indeed, one of the first inscriptions known to call Ephesos twice neokoros was its statue base of the emperor in Athens’ temple of Zeus Olympios, whose precinct Hadrian had completed in 131/132. These dedications, perhaps known to the Athenians as apoikoi poleis, ‘colony cities,’ could have been associated with the Panhellenic council, also fostered by Hadrian.35 Unfortunately, these later events have led to some syncretism in recent scholarship: an assumption that Hadrian was worshipped only with, or as, Zeus Olympios, in every temple throughout the East; a tendency to call all Hadrianeia festivals Olympia, and vice versa, without direct proof; and a concentration on the Athenian program of his later reign, making his

34 Cassius Dio 69.10.1: “He established both theaters and contests while traveling about the cities.” 35 Ephesos inscription 37; Willers 1990, 52; C. Jones 1996; Birley 1997, 266; Boatwright 2000, 147-153. Spawforth 1999, on the other hand, believed in a very limited membership for the panhellenic council.

283

benefactions an outgrowth of that, rather than seeing his panhellenism as an aspect of his efforts to foster cities.36 On the contrary, in none of the temples that made their cities neokoroi was Hadrian explicitly worshipped with Zeus or as Zeus. The temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna were granted ca. 123-124, well before Hadrian took on the completion of the Athenian Olympieion or was hailed as Zeus, Olympios, or Panhellenios: in 125 the emperor was still thinking of making Delphoi’s Amphiktyony the panhellenic council.37 Indeed, the temple built at Kyzikos was called in all pre-Renaissance sources the ‘temple of the god Hadrian,’ while Smyrna had ‘hymnodoi of the god Hadrian,’ not of Zeus and Hadrian. Even Ephesos, which did receive its neokoria from the emperor after 128, when he had begun to be called Olympios, only called its temple ‘the temple of the god Hadrian’ or ‘temple of the lord Hadrian Caesar.’ As for occurrences of Hadrianeia Olympia, names of festivals are often ephemeral, and this one may only indicate isolympic status. As chapter 40 on the cities and their festivals shows, these contests cannot be taken to indicate the objects of cult in the temples of the neokoroi. Several of the temples of the neokoroi for Hadrian appear to have been large, with eight or more columns on their facades. More explicit comparisons will follow in chapter 39, ‘The Temples.’ Here let us observe that the temple at Kyzikos is known from both archaeology and historical sources as being of huge size and prominent placement, visible from far across the sea. In fact it may have resembled Ephesos’ Artemision not only in being numbered among the wonders of the world, but in being dipteral. Though the ruins of Hadrian’s temple at Smyrna have not yet been located, ancient descriptions noted the same features of great size, prominent placement, and visibility from afar. What has been identified as the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos also has a large foundation and was set in an enormous temenos, while the first koinon temple at Tarsos in Cilicia, whether Hadrianic or before, was at least decastyle. So many massive and expensive dedications would be more of an argument for the provinces’ great devotion to Hadrian than for the emperor’s own modesty.38 36

Schorndorfer 1997, 53-57, 72-82; Boatwright 2000, 160. Spawforth 1999, 341-342; Birley 1997, 186-187, 218-220; Willers 1990, 99-100. 38 Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62. 37

284

part ii – summary chapters

There is a corollary to Hadrian’s generosity toward the cities, however. In granting so many temples directly to cities he favored, whether because of the eloquence of an orator, as earthquake relief, or for any other reason, he probably began an insidious process of looking to the city rather than the koinon in granting neokoria. Certainly Asia became almost overloaded with huge koinon temples. Now there were five cities over whose temples the koinon’s chief priests, priestesses, and Asiarchs would preside: Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, and Kyzikos (the latter Hadrian’s grant). But after Hadrian, the Asian koinon apparently stopped assigning its chief priests to temples in new neokoroi (see below). This too would add to the creeping ‘municipalization’ of what had previously been a title tied to provincial imperial cult. The Antonines The period of Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus at first seems to have been a breathing space in the history of the neokoria. Even Commodus, who delighted in comparing himself to Hercules, is only known to have made one city per koinon neokoros: Nikomedia for Bithynia (and that was soon withdrawn), Tarsos for Cilicia, and Laodikeia for Asia. The neokoria of Zeus at Aizanoi in Asia may stand outside the count, as it was established for the cult of a deity rather than that of the emperor, and takes Commodus’ reign only as the point by which it had been given. After the profusion offered by Hadrian, the Antonine neokoriai seem scanty. Though this is partly due to a lack of evidence, it may also indicate a move towards containing certain koinon cults, notably Asia’s, within more reasonable bounds. The trouble and expense imposed on a province by more and more imperial temples, each with its chief priest, its functionaries and administrators, its possible festivals and definite upkeep, must have been considerable. Certainly in these prosperous times there were wealthy men (and women) available who would pay for the privilege of being provincial chief priests, chief priestesses, and agonothetai, but were there enough to go around?39 This would have been of concern not only to the provincials (among many of whom eagerness for the 39

Millar 1983.

honors outweighed consideration of their expense), but to careful emperors and their administrators, who were familiar with the problems of cities that overreached their resources.40 Another reason for fewer grants of neokoria may have been imperial interests and preferences. Antoninus Pius was familiar with the eastern provinces and Asia in particular, whose proconsul he had been only a few years before his accession. After it, however, he refrained from both travel and war.41 His care for the well-being of the provinces was scrupulous, and he certainly ruled on the titulature of at least one Asian city, and likely more (see below); but we know of only one city, Sardis, that was neokoros for his cult. Though Marcus Aurelius’ reign included a Parthian war and a Syrian revolt, his eastern travels do not seem to have resulted in any neokoriai. Perhaps his philosophic convictions discouraged any types of cult beyond the most time honored. Such speculation is, however, unverifiable; neither in his Meditations nor in his letters did Marcus Aurelius express thoughts about the imperial cult specifically.42 Lucius Verus fought his Parthian war, followed Marcus Aurelius’ decisions in administration, and died young. As for Commodus, his interests (chariot races, hunting, and gladiatorial combat) seem to have centered on Rome, leaving provincial affairs (including the neokoria of Nikomedia) to his favorite-of-the-moment. His identification with Hercules may have promoted the interests of Tarsos, which was the cult center of a deity syncretized with that hero. He certainly allowed his name to festivals for Herakles at Thebes and at Tyre, but also to contests honoring Asklepios at Pergamon, Dionysos at Thebes, Apollo at Didyma, Zeus at Laodikeia, Hadrian at Ephesos and Smyrna, and even Artemis at Ephesos (again, see chapter 40, ‘The Cities’). Many of these must have been in response to requests from the cities for an imperial imprimatur on their festivals, not from Commodus’ individual preferences.

40 Cassius Dio 52.30.3, 52.35.4, 52.37.9-10 (written from a third-century ideal); Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.23, 24, 3740, 43, 44 (a unique and invaluable dossier, though earlier than the period in question and written under special circumstances); also see Liebenam 1900, 133-134. 41 Most of the sources for Antoninus’ life are collected by Walentowski 1998. The arguments of Ziegler 1993b, 97-103 for an eastern trip in the 150s are unconvincing. See also Syme 1983. 42 Bowersock 1973, 186; Oliver 1970, no. 4 IV.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

285

Under the Antonines more and more neokoroi began to proclaim their honors on more and more coin issues.43 Though ‘neokoros’ had been an official title at least since the reign of Domitian and likely before, only four cities (Ephesos and probably Pergamon in Asia, Neokaisareia in Pontus, and Tarsos in Cilicia) are known to have put that title on their coins up to the reign of Hadrian. Even those were extraordinary issues, with the majority of coins not mentioning the neokoria. Then under Antoninus Pius the cities of Nikomedia and Kyzikos, both neokoroi on the Propontis (though the former in the province of Bithynia and the latter in Asia), began to announce that status on a significant proportion of their coin issues, though ‘neokoros’ was not a new title for them. At the same time Ephesos began to proclaim itself twice neokoros on its coins more regularly. By the time of Marcus Aurelius, Amaseia in Pontus had joined in, with its first issues as neokoros appearing in significant numbers, while Neokaisareia in Pontus met Amaseia’s issues in the same year with more frequent issues of its own. Also, Pergamon began to boast the title more consistently, and on datable issues. This trend would increase as time went on, until for cities like Perinthos, Nikomedia, Kyzikos, Ephesos, Sardis, Smyrna, and later Perge and Side, coinage that did not mention neokoria would be the exception to the rule. It is unlikely that any decision from above forced these cities’ proclamations of neokoria. The bronze coins of the eastern cities were technically autonomous, issued under the authority of the city itself, not the Roman government. The obverses, of course, showed the emperor’s official portrait and titulature, and could be shared among a group of cities.44 The fact that several cities were producing their coins by means of the same minters indicates one way (aside from some intercity circulation) in which city officials could be made aware of what other cities were putting on their coins. But the reverses proclaimed the city’s name, its proudest titles, its chief gods and temples; and though similar to other cities’ in style and composition, they were customized to be unique to each city. The coins, in fact, were a city’s means of demonstrating its pride and patriotism.45

Previous discussion has focused on the forces that continued, modified, limited, or expanded neokoria in Rome’s eastern provinces. The question of why more and more cities chose to include ‘neokoros’ in their coin legends is related to the topic of expansion: the more the title was boasted of, the more cities wished to boast of it. We have seen how Trajan made Pergamon in Asia the first twice neokoros, and how Hadrian’s presence was connected with more cities in Asia obtaining neokoriai, while the honor was also granted in other provinces. Though actual expansion seems to have slowed in Antonine times, the cities’ interest in the title did not, as their coin legends show. Once a city had established its association with the Roman emperor through neokoria, why did it choose to proclaim that fact more and more widely, and why did it do so on inscriptions and coins that few Roman officials, much less the emperor himself, were likely to see? The answer must lie in a factor that is expanded upon in chapter 40: city rivalry, which had its main outlet in disputes over titulature. Antoninus Pius himself had to smooth over a complaint from the Ephesians that the Pergamenes and Smyrnaians had omitted Ephesos’ full and proper titulature (as decided by Antoninus himself) in a letter and a decree about a common sacrifice.46 The Pergamenes were judged not guilty, while the emperor explained Smyrna’s omission as a chance lapse and urged the parties to be more punctilious in future. The Ephesians were clearly pleased at the result, since they set up at least two copies of the emperor’s reply. It was probably to celebrate this imperial reconciliation that Ephesos issued coins claiming ‘concord’ among the three cities: the reverse shows Ephesos’ Artemis in the place of honor, the center, flanked by Pergamon’s patron Asklepios and a Nemesis of Smyrna.47 But even with emperors and orators like Aelius Aristides (Oration 23) urging them toward it, the only long-lasting concord the Ephesians were to achieve with their rivals was this word on the back of a coin. Probably shortly after Antoninus’ letter to the Ephesians, Polemon the sophist had to go on an embassy to that emperor to defend Smyrna’s temples and their rights, i.e.,

43 The following estimates, of course, are simply from coins known to the author and reflect accidents of preservation, collection, and publication rather than actual numbers of coins originally issued. 44 Kraft 1972. 45 Harl 1987.

46 IvE 1489, 1489A, 1490; Oliver 1989, 293-295 no. 135 a-b; L. Robert 1977b, 21-22. The documents are dated to 140144, and perhaps this sacrifice itself was shown on coins of Ephesos under Antoninus Pius: Hecht 1968, 28 no. 1. 47 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 1:38-39 nos. 305-316; Kampmann 1996, 29-34 (but see chapter 2, ‘Smyrna’).

286

part ii – summary chapters

probably its two neokoriai, one of which he himself had garnered from Hadrian. Though Polemon died before he could complete his mission, Antoninus was persuaded by a reading of the speech he had composed, and Smyrna “came away having won first place.”48 Such missions are also well known from inscriptions, such as honorifics given to ambassadors who won their cases, or edicts of emperors laying out their decisions.49 The possession and number of neokoriai was a potent cause for dispute. As has been mentioned, ‘neokoros’ had a unique advantage over other titles. A city could be called ‘first,’ but if its rivals in the province then also won that title, as they often did, it could not become ‘more first.’ The same disadvantage operated for ‘metropolis,’ for superlatives like ‘greatest’ and ‘most beautiful,’ and for imperial eponyms like ‘Augustan,’ ‘Hadrianic,’ or ‘Commodan.’ After the time of Trajan, however, the title ‘neokoros’ could be multiplied. If a neokoros city’s rival also became neokoros, the first city could reestablish its preeminence by becoming twice neokoros. Then its rival could campaign for the same honor, promoting a gradual but effective inflation in number of neokoriai. Inflation and devaluation, however, are two sides of the same coin. Under Augustus and Tiberius, only the first rank of cities were seriously considered as sites for provincial imperial temples. As discussed above, the inevitable passage of time and emperors filled up the first rank with neokoriai, so some received the honor a second time. That meant that to be simply neokoros was no longer a symbol of the highest status among cities. The first rank now strove to be twice neokoros, and if the rivalry among them was fierce (as it certainly was in Asia), less eminent cities could likely extract concessions as the price of their support in the koinon council.50 The neokoria, now less exclusive an honor, could have been among those concessions. 48

Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540). L. Robert 1969b, 286-288. 50 As in the Bithynian koinon; Dio Chrysostom, Oration 38.3435, urging cooperation between Nikomedia and Nikaia: “By joining forces you will dominate all the cities; and the governors too, should they ever want to do an injustice, will be hesitant and even afraid before you. But as it is now, the other cities are overjoyed by the quarrel between you; for you seem to need them, in fact you really do need them, because of your contest with each other. . . the result is, while you [two] fight over first place, chances are that those whom you’re lobbying have first place.” 49

Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta At the death of Commodus, the Empire was fumbled from the hands of various contenders until it reached Septimius Severus, who held it tenaciously. The prize was not uncontested, however, and one of his first tasks was to crush a rival, Pescennius Niger, governor of Syria. When Severus went East, it was not only to do battle with that counterclaimant to the Empire but to enforce and consolidate his rule in provinces that were essentially enemy territory.51 It was not a minor task, and he gave the scene of the contest, which stretched from Perinthos in Thrace to Antioch in Syria, his closest attention. The cities of this area had been little troubled by civil war since Augustus’ victory founded the Empire. In the year 69 it had been Vespasian, the candidate who came from a command in the East, who had triumphed, and his progress west toward Rome had been peaceful. Now the cities generally supported the eastern candidate again, but this time they ended up with a war on their doorstep and were forced to take sides in earnest. Perinthos, Septimius Severus’ headquarters in Thrace, was just down the Propontis from Byzantion, a bastion for Niger, which held firm through a siege of over two years.52 In Bithynia, Nikomedia changed sides as soon as news of Niger’s first serious defeat came out. While that city sent ambassadors welcoming Severus’ army, its neighbor Nikaia chose to do the contrary and receive Niger’s forces, not through any abstract feeling of loyalty but through sheer hatred for its rival Nikomedia.53 Similarly Tyre in Phoenicia turned to Severus through rivalry with Berytos, Sebaste and Neapolis in Samaria probably did the same, and even in Niger’s own province of Syria, Laodikeia broke away from him because of its hatred for the seat of the governors, Antioch.54 When Niger was able he punished the turncoats, but his time was not long. He and his armies were defeated at Issos early in 194, and he was killed while fleeing from Antioch. The victor was left to mete out rewards and punishments as he wished. Some of his decisions were fundamentally practical: in need of funds to pay his soldiers, he exacted from both cities and individuals four times whatever amount they had (vol51 52 53 54

Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155. Birley 1988, 108-120. Herodian 3.2.7-9; L. Robert 1977b, 22-25. Herodian 3.3.3-5; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.5.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

untarily or not) given to Niger. But he also used the rivalries that had driven the cities into opposite camps both to reward his partisans and punish his opponents.55 Antioch, which had offered resistance after Issos, was captured and deprived of civic status. Its privileges, plus the ius Italicum, were given to its rival Laodikeia, which had supported Severus. As Byzantion’s crimes of revolt and defiance were of similar magnitude and still more prolonged than Antioch’s, its punishment upon capitulation was of the same type, though much more severe. All soldiers and magistrates were put to death, the city’s walls were torn down, and citizens’ property was confiscated. Here again, Severus turned an opposition city’s loss into its rival’s gain: he deprived Byzantion of its freedom and civic status, made it tributary, and handed it and its territory over to his own allies the Perinthians. In addition, Perinthos was given the right to build a temple to Severus and to call itself neokoros, the first neokoros city known in Thrace. The Bithynian rivals Nikaia and Nikomedia got the same treatment: Nikaia, Niger’s ally, was stripped of its titles, losing the right to be called metropolis, first, or neokoros; Nikomedia gained these titles uncontestedly, and as it was already neokoros for its temple of Rome and Augustus, gained an additional, second neokoria for the cult of Severus himself. It is possible that something similar, though without the involvement of neokoria, happened to another of Niger’s allies, Neapolis, which lost its civic rights, and at least some of its territory, to its neighbor Sebaste. Thus Septimius Severus used neokoria, like other titles, privileges, and possessions, as part of the reward for his partisans, while its removal was a powerful symbol of the defeat of his opponents. For the cities, the reward or the punishment was twofold: as rivalry had been part of the reasoning behind the choosing of sides in the first place, a Severan city could gain double triumph in seeing, and sometimes in profiting by, its rival’s abasement. Around 197 Septimius Severus elevated his son Antoninus, better known by his nickname Caracalla, to the rank of Augustus, while his younger son Geta 55 Cassius Dio 75.8.3-4 and 75.14.1-4; Herodian 3.4.7 and 3.6.9; Historia Augusta, Severus 9.4-8. J. Nollé 1998, 347-351; Ziegler 1978 took the practical view that Severus reduced hostile cities to chattel in order to bolster the drained economies of his allies, their rivals; this does not account for cases where the emperor seems to have stripped the city of rank but not of land or goods, as in the case of Nikaia.

287

received the title of Caesar. It was after this time that Severus began to abate his hostility toward the cities he had punished. He visited Nikaia; Antioch was rehabilitated, and in 202 C.E. he and Caracalla entered their joint consulate there; Neapolis was likely also forgiven. Some of this must have been in view of assuring a favorable reception for his successor, whose role in healing wounds and pleading the cause of former enemies was played up for that purpose.56 Additional favors were granted to friends as well: Perinthos likely, and Anazarbos definitely by or before 204/205, received second neokoriai from Septimius Severus, the same emperor who had granted their first. For each, the second honor was probably for the joint cult of the ‘loving brothers’ Caracalla and Geta. In many cases, Severus seems to have given additional titles or privileges to his staunch allies to make up for the fact that he was forgiving and restoring their rivals, his former enemies. So where he had previously treated pairs of rivals with joint punishment and reward, now he turned to reconciliation with one city, compensation for the other. When Geta reached the age of twenty in 209, he too was made Augustus. Caracalla and he were perhaps too close in age for Severus to preserve a strict primogeniture, as Vespasian had for Titus and Domitian. In addition, Marcus Aurelius, who had chosen to share the empire with his younger adopted brother Lucius Verus, had since provided a model for the joint rule of imperial colleagues. The literary sources make much of Severus’ plans and anxieties for his sons, most of them probably apocryphal, but the fact remains that on his death in 211 he left them co-Augusti, to share the rule in some fashion.57 As it turned out, the joint rule of natural brothers did not work half so well as that of adoptive ones. Enemies even before their father’s death, Caracalla and Geta became yet more estranged afterward. They divided up the imperial household and were even said to be planning to divide up the Empire.58 The story of their probable rivalry over the neokoria of Ephesos is told in chapter 4: the city apparently was to be neokoros both for Geta and for Caracalla, but the latter diverted the honor from his 56

Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1. Herodian 3.10.4, 3.13.3-6, 3.15.5-7; Cassius Dio ep. 77.14; Historia Augusta, Severus 20.1-3, 23.5-7. 58 Herodian 4.1.5, 4.3.5-9. 57

288

part ii – summary chapters

cult to that of Artemis. Ephesos’ delight at thus getting two neokoriai where it had only sought one was shortlived. Geta was killed, probably before the end of 211, leaving Caracalla sole emperor.59 Geta’s name and honors were then erased all over the empire, an action from which Ephesos’ neokoria suffered, as will be seen. The years of rule by Septimius Severus and the year of his sons’ joint rule thus saw further expansion of neokoriai. More cities began to use the title on their coinage, many from the moment of a new grant (Perinthos and perhaps Anazarbos and Kaisareia, under Septimius Severus). Perinthos is almost invariably neokoros on its coins, though it did not need to give its likely title of twice neokoros in full until it gained a rival for neokoria in its own province (below). Many cities use the title on coins more frequently than they omit it, and are prompt to reflect an increase (e.g. Pergamon, Ephesos, Smyrna, perhaps Philadelphia). Intermittent or infrequent uses, like those at Antandros or Tralles, are rare. For Septimius Severus, there is particularly good evidence for two factors already noted as promoting neokoria: the imperial presence and city rivalry. In fact, the grants he made in the wake of the war with Pescennius Niger combine the two. On the one hand, the contest over the eastern provinces only emphasized their importance to the emperor, who had to be on the spot to direct the war. His presence itself within the city was an honor, assuming he won; if not, a danger. At the successful conclusion of his visit, he could make the honor of association with him permanent by grants of neokoria, with not only a title but all the reciprocity of worship offered and received assured for the future. On the other hand, we have already seen how Septimius Severus used the rivalry between cities not only to bind his allies to him but to punish his enemies in the same action, and how he used neokoria as one of his tools. Indeed, Severus seems to have been very direct in his choice of cities as neokoroi. Thrace and Bithynia were crucial in the war against Niger, and we have already discussed the two neokoroi, Perinthos and Nikomedia, there. Both the later neokoroi were farther east, in the area affected by his second Parthian War. Anazarbos may have been made neokoros during the actual campaign; Kaisareia’s 59

Halfmann 1982, 229-230 n. 49.

announcement came later, but is notable as the first known neokoros in Cappadocia, just as Perinthos had been the first in Thrace. In all, Severus may have made four cities neokoroi, one in Thrace, one in Bithynia, one in Cilicia, and one in Cappadocia. Asia, the province with the most neokoriai thus far, is not known to have received any from Septimius Severus, though an inscription first calls Miletos neokoros at about this time. As has been seen, many cities that Severus had honored with neokoriai seem to have been further honored. Perinthos and Anazarbos apparently became twice neokoros for the sons after being neokoros for the father. Ephesos’ fortunes suffered from the discord between Caracalla and Geta as co-emperors. Its proposal to become three times neokoros of the emperors was at first accepted, but then Caracalla diverted his part in it to the cult of Artemis, leaving Geta to appear hubristic merely for accepting koinon cult. The happy Ephesians were thus preparing to take an unprecedented fourth neokoria when Geta was killed, and even their neokoria for Artemis fell under the cloud of imperial displeasure. It was eventually restored, but it is possible that by that time Caracalla had already begun to make Ephesos’ rivals Pergamon and Smyrna rise to equal its status. Caracalla During his sole rule, Caracalla’s actions with regard to making neokoroi could be called the opposite of his father’s. Of the neokoriai he may have granted, with the exception of a possible neokoria of Ankyra, every one was in the province Asia, which Severus had eschewed completely. What is more, where his father had initially made only one city per province neokoros, Caracalla seems to have made as many as eight in Asia: Ephesos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Tralles, Laodikeia, and possibly Kyzikos and Antandros. What can explain this change in policy? As Caracalla spent his latter years in the East fighting a Parthian war, it is natural to attempt to tie in the neokoroi with his presence there, and even to trace his path by connecting the dots between cities where he granted honors or was honored.60 60

Levick 1969, 426-446.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

There are certain problems with this procedure, however. First, the evidence used and the honors given would have to be datable to the period of the Parthian War.61 Of the neokoroi in Asia, at least two (Ephesos and Laodikeia) likely antedate Caracalla’s journey to that province. Second, there should be good independent evidence that Caracalla was in fact in the city, or at least in the area. Such evidence is scarce, and of the remaining six Asian neokoroi only Pergamon is known to have received an imperial visit.62 Any assumption that equates an honor such as the neokoria granted to a city with the actual presence of the emperor within that city is not sufficiently nuanced. Caracalla spent the entire winter at Nikomedia, yet the city that was neokoros for his father did not change its titulature for the son. Certainly the emperor’s presence within an area made it more likely that the cities would receive benefits. But the emperor did not have to be in the city itself to give it gifts or to make it neokoros, as we have already noted.63 Beyond his activities at Ilion and Pergamon, all we know of Caracalla’s journey in Asia is Herodian’s bare statement that “he traveled through the rest of Asia and Bithynia and the rest of the provinces, making necessary administrative decisions.”64 Kyzikos, Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Tralles need not have been on his route to have won privileges from him. The one case where one is tempted to use Caracalla’s presence as an explanation for neokoria is Antandros, which seems to have had little else to recommend it.65 Imperial visits, however, are not the sole factor in the proliferation of neokoriai. The rivalry among the cities of Asia that Antoninus Pius had had to mediate had not gone away. The Digest preserves a rescript of Caracalla to the koinon of Asia on this topic.66 Apparently the largest cities were quarreling over which of them should have the honor of first receiving the proconsul on his entry into the province of Asia. The koinon was unable to settle 61

Johnston 1983. Halfmann 1986a, 223-230. 63 Millar 1977, 38-39. 64 Herodian 4.8.6. 65 L. Robert 1967, 57-58 n. 8 used the same reasoning for Juliopolis before its neokoria was discovered to be based on a false coin (see ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ and Revue des études grecques 95 [1982] 323 no. 12). 66 Digest 1.16.4.5. 62

289

the contest, and so referred it to Caracalla, who decided for Ephesos. The proconsul’s landing point is unlikely to have been the only bone of contention. In Asia, the chief contenders for primacy, and to become first three times neokoros, were Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna. Their rivalry probably meant that almost any question could lead to a threeway deadlock in the koinon. The problem of the proconsul’s landing was sent to the emperor. It is likely that he had to deal with the would-be neokoroi as well. By the end of Caracalla’s reign all three of the top contestants had been put on a level as regards neokoria. Ephesos, of course, had already almost flown as high as four times neokoros, but was in fact held to three; its involvement in the rivalry between Caracalla and Geta probably did not earn it the survivor’s love, but at least it retained its neokoria for Artemis. Afterwards Ephesian coin legends simply call the city three times neokoros. Pergamon and Smyrna, however, issued coins under Caracalla whose legends and types read like challenges to one another. Both issued types that showed their three imperial temples, each carefully identified with letters in the pediment; Pergamon was ‘first three times neokoros,’ while Smyrna was ‘first (of Asia) three times neokoros of the Augusti’ (Pergamon types 22 and 23, Smyrna types 7 and 8). They even issued coins whose reverses were devoted entirely to titles that seem like challenges across the centuries: Pergamon: Obv: AUT KRAT K MARKO% AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: [EPI %TR] IOUL ANYIMOU H PRVTH TH[% A]%IA% KAI MH[TRO]POLI% PRV[TH KAI] TRI% NEVKORO% PRVTH TVN %EBA%TVN PERGAMHNVN POLI% Wreath. a) BMC 318 (‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1, coin type 25). Smyrna: Obv: A K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla r. Rev: %MURNAIVN PRVTVN A%IA% G NEVKORVN TVN %EBA%TVN KALLEI KAI MEGEYI EPI %TRATH TIBERIOU KL KRHTARIOU Wreath. a) BMC 405 b) BMC 406 c) Berlin 619/1914. If Smyrna was to be ‘first of Asia three times neokoros of the emperors, (first) in beauty and greatness,’ Pergamon could claim that it was ‘first of Asia and first metropolis and first three times neokoros of the emperors.’ It may also be significant that after this time Smyrna issued a coin to commemorate the ‘concord’ between the two cities, and its reverse was

290

part ii – summary chapters

In fact, none of the new three-times-neokoroi seems to have built a new temple, as Ephesos’ third temple was the Artemision. The early third century should have been fairly prosperous for the cities of Asia, with the province relatively peaceful and money and donors not lacking. On the other hand, the presence of the imperial armies was a drain on private and public resources, especially those of cities that the emperor honored with his presence, and Caracalla certainly did not consider expense when it came to his army or his expeditions.68 Perhaps the koinon was also unwilling—or unable—to extend itself to building three new provincial temples in cities that already had two each. Before Caracalla, Asia’s neokoroi had been Ephesos, Pergamon, Smyrna, Sardis (all twice); among the single honors were Kyzikos, Miletos, Aizanoi (of Zeus), and Laodikeia (which fell into abeyance after Commodus). All except the latter two were arguably within the first rank, and Laodikeia had been trying for a provincial imperial temple since the time of Tiberius. With the reign of Caracalla, however, the granting of neokoriai definitively stepped down past the first rank of cities, and possibly even past the second: Laodikeia became unquestionably neokoros, uniquely for two emperors. Tralles, which had also tried for the temple of Tiberius, became neokoros as well. Philadelphia’s citizen Aurelius may have pulled strings to get the honor from Caracalla; and we have already discussed the problematic case of Antandros. As has been noted, inflation in numbers of neokoriai meant depreciation in the honor

of neokoria. Also, deadlock among the most powerful cities meant that crucial decisions depended on the votes of the other koinon members, hence lesser cities could extract favors (possibly including support for their own neokoriai) as the price of their cooperation. It is more likely, then, that the proliferation of neokoriai in Asia during the reign of Caracalla was not so much a result of Caracalla’s own needs or policy as of city rivalry. The emperor’s role was not to distribute neokoria as a reward to whatever city he visited, but simply to accede to petitions, which were only made more difficult to refuse when he himself visited the area. Probably more of these petitions were for the title ‘neokoros’ than had been the case before. The most crucial question arising from this is whether or not ‘neokoros’ was still a provincial title.69 In order to answer it, we must clarify our ideas on what ‘provincial’ means. All authorities, I believe, would agree that the koinon temples established by permission of Augustus and his successors later made the cities that owned them neokoroi. They were administered by the koinon and presided over by its chief priest. Perhaps by the time of Nero, or at latest that of Domitian, the cities that possessed them received the name neokoroi. Then the title began to proliferate. The temple that made Pergamon twice neokoros, that of Zeus Philios and Trajan, was designed to be the equal of that of Rome and Augustus, right down to the presence of a cult partner and the provincial standing of its games. The duplication of temples in one city, therefore, did not alter the fact that thus far all koinon temples made their cities neokoroi, and that all neokoriai so far were for koinon temples. The only adaptation needed was that the koinon’s leaders become chief priests of the temples at Pergamon, and then at Smyrna, Ephesos, etc. The same personnel could be in charge of several koinon temples in the city. Hadrian soon expanded the honor, so that more than one city in a province could become neokoros for the cult of the same emperor. Also, his grants appear to have been due to his direct contact with the city, rather than negotiated by the koinon. Yet

67 Franke and M. Nollé 1997, 210 nos. 2133-2144; Kampmann 1996, 44, 121 nos. 136, 137. Klose 1987 (= MvS), 70-71 placed the strategos Geminus after Kretarios. 68 Cassius Dio 78.9.4-7.

69 The old debate between municipal (ranging from Monceaux 1885 to Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography) and provincial (Robert 1967, 46-50) has, I hope, closed, with opinions generally on the latter’s side.

the multiple-temple type that usually symbolized neokoria for a city.67 It may be that the two temples in this case represent the temples of Caracalla in both cities, though both reused extant buildings for that cult (Smyrna the temple of Rome, Pergamon the temple of Asklepios). Smyrna: Obv: AU K M AUR ANTVNEINO% Laureate draped cuirassed bust of Caracalla, r. Rev: %MURNAIVN PERGAMHNVN OMONOIA EP %TR GEMINOU Two four-column temples turned toward one another. a) BMC 509 b) BMC 510 c) Paris 2814 d) Paris 2694 e) Vienna 30395 f) SNGvA 2248 (= MvS 339-340 nos. 3, 4).

chapter

38

– historical analysis

he still kept to the great cities, in Asia Kyzikos, Ephesos, and Smyrna, two of which already were neokoroi. It would take little adaptation to fit these cities into the standing procedure of provincial imperial cult: another temple, another chief priest of Asia for Kyzikos, perhaps more festivals in the calendar. What makes the term ‘provincial’ seem out of place for the neokoroi really occurs in Asia during the reign of Caracalla: many cities well beyond the first rank of eminence begin to claim the title. We have no record of chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs for the temples that made Laodikeia, Philadelphia, or Tralles, much less Antandros, neokoroi. Indeed, the only cities for which we have documents of koinon officials for their temples are Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Kyzikos, and Sardis.70 It is likely that these are ‘the five metropoleis’ in which a chief priest could serve, as mentioned in an inscription of later third-century Ephesos.71 The connection of offices to koinon temples in these cities is clear, in that Asiarchs and chief priests and priestesses of Asia were occasionally designated ‘of the temple(s)’ in one of the five cities; when a new provincial temple was added to that city, the enumeration of the inscription reflected it. In looking into their chronology, we see that the first three cities possessed the earliest koinon temples in Asia: Pergamon from Augustus, Smyrna from Tiberius, and Ephesos from at latest the time of Domitian. The first imperial temple of Sardis is not yet datable, and that of Kyzikos was probably the great temple of Hadrian. So the five metropoleis in which the chief koinon officials served were also likely the first five possessors of provincial imperial temples, and later became neokoroi for those and for any additional temples. Cities that received their first neokoria afterwards (as, for example, Laodikeia under Commodus), however, may not have had provincial chief priests assigned. So the college seems to have been limited to the five sometime after Hadrian (who gave Kyzikos’ first temple) and before Commodus. By the time of Caracalla, ‘neokoros,’ previously a title signifying possession of such a temple, spread beyond those five. We do not have the documents to prove precisely what the status of these new 70

Rossner 1974, 109-111. FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), lines 23-27, dated ca. 270. On multiple metropoleis within a province, see Bowersock 1985. For further details, see chapter 41 in Part II, on the koina and their officials. 71

291

neokoroi was, or what officials served them. It may be that as neokoria proliferated, it lost some of the features of provinciality, or at least, the features that would have made its functions within the koinon impracticable. At a time when the wealthy were becoming more hesitant to take on the mammoth expenditure of provincial chief priesthood, it would have been difficult to suggest that there be ten or more chief priests of Asia instead of five, or that three new koinon temples be built all at once. We have no evidence of what arrangements the koinon of Asia may have made to accommodate these changes. Still, there were certain basic and established functions of the koinon that still tied it to the neokoria. The chief ceremonial function of the koinon was the imperial cult; that cult was carried on in the temples of the neokoroi. The koinon represented its member cities on embassies; embassies were often necessary for obtaining the neokoria or certifying it before the Senate. We have extensive proof that the koinon did take part in the grant and administration of temples that made their cities neokoroi in the first and early second centuries. Even Caracalla wrote to the koinon of Asia, not to Ephesos, to make Ephesos neokoros of Artemis. It is likely, then, that despite the fact that neokoria resulted from the emperor’s personal favor to a city (say, Philadelphia), or even a citizen (Aurelius M...), custom and precedent probably insured that there still be a formal petition from the koinon, agreement from the emperor, and approval by the Roman Senate. In fact, it is just at this period that several cities’ inscriptions, and then coins, begin to emphasize that they are neokoroi by decree of the Senate. What we are seeing in the proliferation of neokoriai in the third century is a cheapening of the title, not a change in its basic nature. This was a time when Asia had five metropoleis and almost as many ‘first cities’ (none second or third, Magnesia notably seventh); yet out of the fabled five hundred cities, only fourteen that we know of ever called themselves neokoroi. If any city could claim the title for a local shrine, why did so few? Perhaps the neokoria did mean less when Caracalla, and after him Elagabalus, granted it so indiscriminately. Often the cult of the emperors was moved into extant temples, perhaps to avoid the ruinous cost of building new ones. But these considerations did not alter the basic machinery by which neokoria was bestowed. To acquire it still required the good will of the emperor, the permis-

292

part ii – summary chapters

sion of the Senate, and the backing, perhaps even the aid or the administration, of the koinon. In this sense, little had changed. Macrinus In 217, in the midst of his campaign in Mesopotamia, Caracalla was assassinated and his praetorian prefect, M. Opellius Macrinus, succeeded him.72 Macrinus was only to rule a little over a year, after which his memory was condemned. Therefore documents dating to his reign are proportionately scarce.73 Though over fifty eastern cities issued coins with his portrait (or that of his son Diadumenian), there are at least as many cities for which no such coins have been found. This lack need not be a sign of disaffection, as many cities only minted intermittently; perhaps their intervals of coinage simply did not fall within Macrinus’ short reign. But it adds to the difficulty of tracing the history of the neokoroi; almost any argument would be either from silence or from very little evidence. With that caveat stated, we may note that of sixteen cities that had claimed to be neokoroi on earlier coins, only six proclaim themselves neokoroi on coins of Macrinus or Diadumenian: Nikomedia, Kyzikos, Sardis, Anazarbos (which also put its title on one of the rare surviving dedications to Macrinus), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. One city, Beroia, neokoros since the time of Nerva, begins to place that title on coinage with imperial portrait obverses. Five whose coins had often claimed neokoria, however, now cease to boast it: Amaseia, Ephesos (except for one, probably recut, coin), Pergamon, Smyrna, Philadelphia, and Laodikeia; Perinthos and Smyrna, both stalwart declarers of neokoria, and whose corpora of coins have been published, probably issued no coins under Macrinus at all. For five more cities we have found none, but their coins only claimed neokoria intermittently anyway: Neokaisareia, Antandros, Aizanoi, Tralles, and Ankyra (the latter probably neokoros since Augustus, but not claiming the title until the time of Valerian). Though all his brief reign was spent in the East, Macrinus is not known to have created any neokoroi.

Indeed, his relationship with at least one and probably more of the cities of Asia appears to have been stormy. Cassius Dio records that the Pergamenes, having been deprived of privileges they had received from Caracalla, insulted Macrinus in some blatant fashion and for it were publicly dishonored by him. Dio would have known the facts well, as Macrinus put him in charge of Pergamon and Smyrna.74 It is noteworthy that, aside from being especially honored by Caracalla’s visit, Pergamon had become neokoros for his cult. Removal of that third neokoria may have prompted the Pergamenes’ insults; or, if the removal was not part of Macrinus’ original action, their behavior may have prompted him to abrogate it and probably the rest of their titles. In Asia alone, of the eight cities that had become neokoroi for Caracalla, only Sardis now issued coins with its claim for neokoria unchanged. Six issued no coinage asserting that title: Ephesos (previously ‘neokoros’ on almost all its coins, now replacing that title with ‘first of Asia’), Pergamon, Smyrna (no coins issued at all), Laodikeia, Philadelphia, Tralles, and Antandros (the latter two only occasional anyway). The eighth city, Kyzikos, went from being ‘twice neokoros’ to simply ‘neokoros’ on coins of Macrinus, though unlike the other cities’ this second neokoria was not restored even after Macrinus’ death. Ephesos’ emphasis on being ‘first of Asia’ ties in with an inscription in honor of an Ephesian advocate who went before Macrinus to defend ‘primacy and the rest of the rights’ of the city, and won his case.75 If Ephesos and Pergamon and perhaps Smyrna were once again bickering over titles, and Macrinus ruled that Ephesos was to have more exclusive right to the term ‘first’ than had been practiced under Caracalla (when all three cities were ‘first’), that decision might have been the occasion for the disappointed Pergamenes’ conspicuous insults, followed by Macrinus’ punishment. On the other hand, as Keil pointed out, one of Ephesos’ chief claims to primacy was that it was three times neokoros. Despite the fact that Ephesos had technically been the first to hold that honor, during its lapse after the death of Geta, Pergamon had won its third neokoria, and under Caracalla, Pergamene coins proclaim that city ‘first three times neokoros’ or, more fully, ‘first of Asia and first metropolis and first-three-times-

72

Cassius Dio ep. 79.4-6; Herodian 4.12.13. The best summary is Cavuoto 1983, 34-49. More recently, Baharal 1996, a revision of a dissertation chapter; and Baharal 1999, the same, with neither covering the situation in the provinces. 73

74 75

Cassius Dio ep. 79.20.4, 80.7.4; Habicht 1969, 18-19. IvE 802; J. Keil 1956.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

neokoros-of-the-emperors city of the Pergamenes.’ It seems that Ephesos and Pergamon could not only fight about who was first, but about who was first to be neokoros. But under Macrinus apparently all the neokoroi were threatened, and it may be that they were not acting in rivalry, but were united in defending their ‘rights’ against the emperor’s (possible) cancellation of neokoriai granted by Caracalla. It was perhaps at this time that mention of even Ephesos’ neokoria for Artemis, also granted by Caracalla, was erased from its inscriptions. The latter case indicates that the cities did not lose their neokoriai due to a condemnation of the memory of Caracalla, which would not have threatened the honor for Artemis. What remains of Cassius Dio’s history, which appears to have quoted Macrinus’ actual letters to the Senate, states that no decree against Caracalla was ever passed, and that even Macrinus did not call him either ‘deified’ or a ‘public enemy,’ but only ‘Emperor.’76 This did not stop informal vilifications in the Senate and the destruction of certain statues in Rome, some of gold and silver, others representing Caracalla and his hero Alexander, which were allegedly thrown down at Macrinus’ instigation.77 The attitude Dio attributed to Macrinus was that he did not dare to condemn Caracalla for fear of offending the soldiers, but would have welcomed that action on the part of the Senate and people of Rome. This attitude, however, is not the same as formal condemnation of memory. In the course of discussing extraordinary expenditures by the treasury and by some communities at Caracalla’s command, the epitomes of Dio mention that Caracalla’s enactments were abolished.78 This probably means only those concerned with the extraordinary expenditures, but the neokoria could certainly have involved extraordinary expenditures by the cities, especially when eight had been conferred in the same koinon. One of the major themes of Macrinus’ short reign was reducing public expenditure, though his approval of work on such practicalities as the road network is documented by milestones throughout the Empire.79 Of course, at least three of the temples for which Caracalla made cities neokoroi were already standing: Ephesos’ for 76 77 78 79

Cassius Dio ep. 79.9.2, 79.17.2-79.19.4. Varner 1993, 397-399. Cassius Dio ep. 79.18.5. Cavuoto 1983, 34-49.

293

Artemis, Pergamon’s for Asklepios, and Smyrna’s for Rome. But that still left four or possibly five temples for Asia and its cities to build, at Philadelphia, Laodikeia, Kyzikos, Tralles, and perhaps even Antandros. Caracalla only granted neokoriai in Asia, but during his father’s reign two cities in other provinces had been made twice neokoros, probably for a joint cult of Caracalla and Geta, and later likely for Caracalla alone. Do they show the same pattern as the Asian cities that were neokoroi? Anazarbos in Cilicia actually minted coinage under Macrinus, and it kept the title ‘twice (neokoros)’ that it had had since 204/205. Perinthos in Thrace is more doubtful; it did not yet declare its full number of neokoriai on its coins, and in any case minted none under Macrinus. Still, there is no sign that the other provinces were in danger of losing neokoriai for Caracalla as Asia seems to have been. But perhaps this was because these honors were in fact granted in the reign of Septimius Severus, well before Caracalla’s sole rule. The evidence is building that the Asian cities that were made neokoroi by Caracalla lost that honor under Macrinus. Ephesos apparently won its case for being ‘first,’ but may have lost its third neokoria even though that was for the temple of Artemis. Kyzikos went from twice neokoros to simply neokoros, though again, Kyzikos may be a special case. Smyrna and Pergamon were in a state of unrest, and Pergamon went so far as to sling insults at the emperor; whether this was a cause or a result of the loss of neokoria is uncertain. The discontent of these major cities may have been shared by the province as a whole: Macrinus brought C. Julius Asper out of exile because it was thought that he could restore order in Asia, though he soon sent him back, replacing him with Q. Anicius Faustus, whose term there was extended.80 In any case, the problem soon came to a conclusion: all the cities but Kyzikos once again minted coins with undiminished titles after Macrinus’ death and the condemnation of his memory.

80 Cassius Dio ep. 79.22.3-4; Thomasson 1984, 234 nos. 180, 181. J. Keil 1956 associated the advocate’s latest mission with the unrest in Asia, but attributed that mission to his advocacy for the koinon; it is more likely to have been for Ephesos. Note the caution of Deininger 1965, 50 n. 4.

294

part ii – summary chapters

Elagabalus and Severus Alexander Macrinus had been overthrown by his own armies’ rebellion in favor of a fourteen-year-old cousin (and putative son) of Caracalla. The new emperor adopted the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus after his supposed father, but is better known as Elagabalus, which is properly the name of the god whom he worshipped.81 It is natural that he would have restored any neokoriai granted by Caracalla if they were imperiled by the usurper Macrinus. Elagabalus’ chief contact with the eastern provinces was at the start of his reign. He was discovered at his home city, Emesa in Syria, by the soldiers stationed nearby. His grandmother Julia Maesa, sister of the former empress Julia Domna, issued the gossip and the gold that persuaded them to declare him emperor. After his troops’ victory over Macrinus, he spent some months in Antioch before proceeding via Cilicia and Cappadocia to Bithynia. He spent the winter of 218/219 in Nikomedia, then journeyed on to Rome through Thrace, Moesia, and Pannonia. He never returned to the East.82 Elagabalus appears to have granted about as many neokoriai as Caracalla had. There was a possible neokoria for Tripolis, the first known in Phoenicia; one in Bithynia (Nikomedia), one in Thrace (Philippopolis), one in Macedonia (Beroia), and four in Asia (Ephesos, Miletos, Sardis, and Hierapolis). Why did he choose these cities, or what did they do to be chosen? At least two neokoriai, and possibly three, are likely to date from Elagabalus’ earliest days of rule, his journey from the East to Rome.83 Tripolis was the port closest to his home city, Emesa, where he was first declared emperor, though there is no data in the sources to show why it should have been singled out as neokoros. Nikomedia served as Elagabalus’ winter quarters in 218/219, and Philippopolis was directly on his route across Thrace and Moesia to Rome. All these cities, and Ephesos, issued coins declaring their new neokoriai for Elagabalus early: Tripolis its unique coin type with the title, dated to 219, the others for Elagabalus’ first

wife Julia Paula, indicating that the grant predated news of her divorce in 220.84 If we accept Dio’s account of Elagabalus’ gloating over Macrinus’ dead body (ep. 79.40.2), however, his route to Bithynia was directly through Cappadocia, avoiding the province of Asia completely. Though the cities off his route may have sent embassies to meet him, there is no proof that he ever visited them, not even Ephesos. Three of the off-route cities declared themselves neokoroi later in Elagabalus’ reign. Hierapolis as neokoros issued coins for Aquilia Severa and Annia Faustina, each of whom was empress in 221, and Miletos and Sardis for Severus Alexander as Caesar, in 221-222.85 Of this later group, Sardis issued its initial coins for Elagabalus with the same count of neokoriai it had had in previous reigns, indicating that this honor did not date as early as his journey from the East. Not much is known of the timing of Beroia’s neokoria, and it lies off his route. In Nikomedia and Philippopolis the new cult of the emperor was moved into previously existing temples, in each case that of the city’s chief deity, Demeter and Apollo Kendrisos respectively. But no data from Beroia, Ephesos, Sardis, Miletos, or Hierapolis indicate that the emperor shared his temple with any other deity. The sources (mainly the tatters of Cassius Dio, Herodian, and, for what it’s worth, the Historia Augusta) make almost as much of Elagabalus’ religious interests as of his sexual ones. Recent attempts to explain the parcel of scandals that these sources have left us have concentrated on seeking religious explanations where earlier scholars sought sexual or psychological ones: Elagabalus is no longer a pampered mama’s boy or misunderstood transsexual, but an Emesene priest carrying out a considered policy of importing various Syrian/Aramaic/Phoenician gods and religious practices into Rome.86 In this line, Johnston has also sought religious motives for the various grants of neokoria made by Elagabalus, especially that for Hierapolis.87 The sources make much of the emperor’s tendency to marry his baetyl god to various goddesses, or at least to Carthage’s Urania/Dea Caelestis;88 but there is no clear evidence 84

81

Barnes 1972, 53, 60. 82 Herodian 5.3-5; Cassius Dio ep. 79.30.2-80.3.1-2; Historia Augusta, Heliogabalus 3, 5; Halfmann 1986a, 230-231; L. Robert 1964, 79-82, 99. 83 L. Robert 1964.

Kienast 1996, 173-174. Ibid., 174-175, 177-179. 86 M. Frey 1989. 87 Johnston 1984. 88 Cassius Dio 79.12; Herodian 5.6.3-4. M. Frey 1989, 5254 doubted Herodian’s account of a marriage to the Palladium 85

chapter

38

– historical analysis

for such sacred marriage among the new neokoroi. Only Herodian (5.5.2) notes religious excesses in Elagabalus’ early reign; elsewhere, he and his mentors are portrayed as behaving discreetly until he was well settled and well received in Rome. It must be emphasized that despite what the literature might lead us to expect, Elagabalus’ grants of neokoria were not much out of line with what Caracalla had given before. Indeed, Elagabalus appears to have been more moderate, at least where the province Asia was concerned: there are only four new neokoriai there as compared to Caracalla’s possible eight, and all except Ephesos were likely granted in or after 221. Previously, Elagabalus had granted one per province, very likely to cities to which he had some cause to be gracious during his time in the East: Tripolis for Syria; Nikomedia, his host city in Bithynia; Philippopolis on his route through Thrace; and off his route, Ephesos for Asia and Beroia for Macedonia. The total, admittedly for a short reign, comes to eight. There is no proof of Elagabalus preferring cities with cults of the sun god, nor of him marrying his baetyl to Demeter at Nikomedia, to Artemis at Ephesos, or to Lydian Kore at Sardis. In June 221 Elagabalus adopted his younger cousin Severus Alexander, designating him Caesar and successor.89 Though this act may have been intended to bolster his own waning popularity, it only offered his opponents a younger, more attractive alternative. He tried to revoke the adoption and even to murder Alexander, but in March of the next year he and his mother were killed in a revolt of the Praetorian guard. His body was dragged through the city, then thrown into the Tiber River. Severus Alexander was only thirteen years old when he succeeded his cousin. The power lay in the hands of his (and Elagabalus’) grandmother, Julia Maesa, and of his mother, Julia Mamaea. Though the new rule was thus closely linked with the old, that association was played down. Elagabalus’ name was erased from inscriptions, his religious policies were reversed, and his favorites were killed, expelled,

on the grounds that it does not fit with the Syrian triad mentioned on an altar found at Cordoba, Spain (bibliography 52 n. 1). He allies the sun god Elagabalus with an Aphrodite figure as consort; any Athena figure would perhaps be a daughter of those two. 89 Barnes 1972, 72.

295

or demoted.90 The many neokoriai granted for his cult were thus in jeopardy. Of the eight cities concerned, three had their sole neokoria for Elagabalus (Tripolis?, Philippopolis, and Hierapolis), while the other five (Nikomedia, Beroia, Ephesos, Miletos, and Sardis) were more than once neokoros. Sometime after Elagabalus’ death the first three ceased to call themselves neokoros, while the other five all gave up one neokoria from the enumeration of their titles. In considering the single neokoroi, as well as those like Beroia and Miletos which go from two to the simple title, we face a methodological problem. If they dropped the enumeration, or even dropped all mention, of neokoria from their coins and inscriptions, it might have been by choice because other titles or honors became more important to them. No edict stated that each city had to declare all its titles all the time. Tripolis’ claim to be neokoros is based on a single coin, so it does not take much to end the evidence. The case is plainer for the multiple neokoroi: these cities continued to claim their title minus one, a clear indication that neokoriai for Elagabalus were indeed being blotted off the record. Nikomedia and Sardis, which went down from three to two neokoriai, and Ephesos, which went from four to three, show this diminution incontrovertibly. We can extend this to the single- and twice-neokoroi cities that no longer declare the title after Elagabalus’ death: no doubt their neokoriai were withdrawn as well. Collating the evidence from the eight cities, we find that after a lapse of time (anything from a few months to a few years, considering that most cities minted irregularly) all the neokoriai for Elagabalus seem to have been withdrawn. The timing of the withdrawal is curious, as our sources, such as they are, give no hint of an explanation for the delay in the cities’ reduction of their claims. Nikomedia, Beroia, Ephesos, and Philippopolis continued to claim their neokoriai for Elagabalus on coins well after they had been informed of Severus Alexander’s succession and, presumably, the mode of Elagabalus’ death. Did they assume that Severus Alexander would continue to honor the memory of his cousin? If so, their memories were short. Though they might not have remembered Claudius’ renunciation of his nephew Gaius, Caracalla’s behavior toward his 90

Herodian 6.1.1-7; Cassius Dio ep. 80. 21.2-3; Kienast 1996, 172-173; Varner 1993, 406-417.

296

part ii – summary chapters

brother Geta should have been fresh in their minds. Was the new regime at first more inclined toward dynastic solidarity than our sources make it appear? Or did all the neokoroi attempt to save their titles by rededicating their temples to the new emperor? The coins of Ephesos hint that embassies were sent to Rome, and an inscription from Sardis indicates a period when it may have been uncertain which way the decision would go. It is possible that all the endangered neokoroi and their koina, representing at least five provinces, sent embassies, as all would be affected by the answer. It is likely that the procedure was long, especially if the petitions of the neokoroi for Elagabalus became mixed up with those of new applicants. The koina that had neokoroi for Elagabalus would probably have defended their case, holding that these cities had priority to neokoria. If so, there would have been no new applicants from the provinces of Macedonia, Thrace, Bithynia, Asia, or Phoenicia. New neokoriai were granted to previously uninvolved cities in previously uninvolved provinces starting from 225/226 (below). The process of disappointing the former neokoroi for Elagabalus may have taken even longer; it was over by the time of the Persian War, nine years after Elagabalus’ death. Why has such a proceeding left no record? Simply stated, because the Emperor’s answer was no. Cities did not build monuments or carve inscriptions honoring their ambassadors for an unsuccessful mission. No one would record for all posterity to read a flat refusal, even from an emperor. No city won, so no city commemorated the process. Indeed, the only record resides in the erasure of titles from previous inscriptions. As for the historians, Herodian preferred more dramatic material, Cassius Dio was preoccupied and in poor health,91 and the Historia Augusta for this and all subsequent reigns is a farrago of spicy gossip, with facts few and far between. Record of the emperor’s decision was doubtless kept in the imperial archives, but it has not survived.92 Severus Alexander granted neokoriai as well as taking them away. There is evidence for three cities gaining a neokoria during his reign: Neokaisareia in Pontus, Kaisareia in Cappadocia, and Aigeai in Cilicia. Not one of them is in a koinon whose cities had had and lost a neokoria of Elagabalus. All issued dated coins, and these are not without their 91 92

Cassius Dio ep. 80.1.2-80.2.1. Millar 1977, 259-268.

problems, but Kaisareia was likely neokoros for Severus Alexander by 225/226, Neokaisareia by 226/227, and Aigeai by 230/231. Severus Alexander eventually allowed neokoriai in the province Asia as well. Under him Magnesia first declared itself neokoros of Artemis. To make one city neokoros when others in the province had lost that title could be dangerous, as it would exacerbate the rivalry among the cities. The case of Magnesia fits well in this context, as its contemporary claim to be ‘seventh’ in a province all too well supplied with ‘firsts’ shows a sharp interest in status as reflected in titulature. The Magnesians could no doubt have pointed to several cities already neokoroi whose status they considered inferior to theirs. On the koinon’s side, there may have been need to preserve tangible signs of the emperor’s favor toward the province, and his pardon for any acrimony in the debate over Elagabalus’ neokoroi. The problem was to avoid reopening those scarcely healed wounds of the cities that had lost neokoriai, and the solution may have been to choose Magnesia, but as neokoros of Artemis, not of the emperor. Later, Kyzikos may have been readmitted to its standing as twice neokoros, certainly after 231 and probably close to Severus Alexander’s death in 235; that is, if Kyzikos was not simply repressing the enumeration of its second neokoria, as it had after the death of Caracalla. If there was going to be another neokoros chosen for the province Asia, a city that had already lost the honor through no fault of its own (but not for Elagabalus—that wound was too recent) would have been a good choice. Once again, however, the second neokoria of Kyzikos was not to endure for long. The Empire After 235 At the murder of Alexander, last representative of the Severan dynasty, the Roman Empire fell into turbulence. There were frequent wars with Goths and Vandals, Franks and Alamanni. In the East, the energetic, aggressive Sassanians looked only for the opportunity to raid, or even to reclaim, the long-lost empire of the Achaemenid Persians.93 All that was needed was a weakness in the center, and this was not lacking either. The occasional murder of an old emperor and proclamation of a new one was not 93

Kettenhofen 1982.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

without precedent, but after 235 the entryway to power became a rapidly revolving door, from which not all the contestants could be cleared as new candidates entered.94 For the cities, this instability only multiplied the factor of uncertainty that had prevailed in previous civil wars, such as that between Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger. It was possible for a city to obliterate an emperor’s inscriptions and then, chastened, to reinscribe the same name over the erasure a month later.95 Even those fortunate cities that chose the ‘correct’ side could find themselves invaded by friendly forces and their supplies of food, clothing, and animals requisitioned away. Worse, for the first time since the first century B.C.E., cities in eastern provinces well within the Empire’s borders were subject to the threat of foreign invasion. While the Sassanians snapped up Roman territories east of the Euphrates and threatened those beyond, the Goths and their allies repeatedly raided the Greek peninsula and Asia Minor both by land and by sea.96 The Palmyrenes, for a while Rome’s bulwark against the Sassanians, began to emulate them in taking over Roman possessions, and at one time Syria, Arabia, and Egypt fell under their dominion. Economic and social consequences were slower to appear but harder to counteract, and they had a particular effect on the coins and inscriptions that are our major sources of evidence for the neokoroi. There was an increasing debasement and consequent inflation of the standard Roman silver coinage.97 The bronze civic coinage, which had flourished for two centuries as a token currency and a symbol of the cities’ autonomy (also token), probably fell victim to this economic situation. As the value of the official coinage, now more bronze than silver, fell while prices rose, there was less need of a fractional currency to supplement it, especially one issued in good bronze. Soon after, official Roman mints were established in the East, and their products likely supplanted the old civic coinages.98 Most eastern cities ceased to issue coins after the reign of Gallienus, and with them our humblest but most dependable well of evidence for neokoria runs dry.

94 Hartmann 1982; though MacMullen 1976 indicates the nuances obscured by the term ‘crisis.’ 95 Herodian 7.5.8, 7.9.11; CIL 8.757, 10047. 96 Wolfram 1979. 97 Callu 1969. 98 Butcher 1996.

297

The inflation would have had some effect on private fortunes, though these were more likely to be in property than coin. Still, many members of the elite began to refocus their activities and interests from their home cities to the larger sphere of the Roman bureaucracy.99 Now those who managed to retain their wealth were growing unwilling to take on civic offices and responsibilities; increasingly, liturgies had to be forced on them. And as the bonds of civic patriotism weakened, so did the eagerness of the wealthy to serve as chief priests and priestesses and agonothetai of their koinon. In the same way, cities themselves became unable or unwilling to contribute to the coffers of their koinon and its chief cities.100 The koinon may not have been able to enforce its demands; judging from inscriptions and coins, evidence for the provincial koina blinks out, bit by bit, across the Empire, to a virtual disappearance of data after the reign of Gallienus.101 An end to the evidence, however, does not necessarily imply an end to the koinon, nor to neokoria. The ‘crisis’ years are notoriously short on all forms of evidence. The end of civic coinage has already been mentioned. Though inscriptions were still being carved, there were many fewer of them. No wonder: there were fewer buildings built, fewer statues erected, fewer gifts or dedications to gods or emperors, even fewer gravestones, though apparently the epigraphic habit died harder in the East than in the West.102 The parlous state of the literary evidence for this period echoes that of these archaeological records. Herodian’s history ends with the accession of Gordian III in 238. There are the Historia Augusta, though it contains more fiction than fact; Zosimus, who is not the latter-day Polybius he may have wanted to be; and epitomators such as Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, who give an outline, not a history. Though calling the age a ‘crisis’ has been criticized, the later third century was ‘dark’ in both senses of the phrase: chaotic and little documented.103 The procession of short-lived emperors must have had an effect on the imperial cult in the provinces, and on the neokoroi in particular. On the one hand, there were many more emperors and thus more 99 100 101 102 103

De Blois 1984. E.g. Philadelphia in Asia, SEG 17:528; Millar 1977, 390. Deininger 1965, 182-183. Winter 1996, 232; MacMullen 1986. Rogers 1988; Bleckmann 1992.

298

part ii – summary chapters

opportunities for establishing their cult; moreover, the koinon as an organization may have been growing weaker and losing the ability to mediate among the cities regarding what titles they could claim. On the other hand, the imperial cult and its benefits became much more uncertain. Was it worth sending ambassadors all the way to the Rhine to request neokoria from an emperor who was as likely to be killed by his own officers as by the enemy before the embassy could even arrive? If the cult and title could actually be granted, how long would it be before that emperor was killed and his enemy, now theirs, took his place? It is ironic to a modern sensibility that, at a time when the emperors seem less and less powerful, there may have been an increased tendency to worship the emperor, and for him to proclaim his close relationship with the gods.104 By the same token there was a current belief that the welfare of the entire empire depended on the proper maintenance of official Roman religion.105 It may have been grasping at straws, but no hope, however small, was to be rejected. If a city became neokoros of an emperor, perhaps his troops would come to its rescue, would protect it, or just not pillage it. The emperor’s name, the status of neokoros itself, might form the city’s aegis. Whether this was a realistic expectation was probably a question not to be asked. From an emperor’s point of view, there was little reason not to grant neokoria, and much to favor it. There is no trustworthy evidence for any emperor after Caracalla modestly refusing to be worshipped. Indeed, emperors were increasingly likely to claim the special protection of particular gods.106 The next usurper could rise out of nowhere, and no city’s pledge of loyalty was to be despised. An emperor could bind the cities to himself by granting gifts, but what money there was was needed for the army; other privileges could be expensive or impossible to arrange, and exemption from taxes or requisitions was out of the question. The neokoria, however, required no outlay of imperial funds, and if the city in question reused an extant temple, there was little expense on that side either. These factors probably made the title ‘neokoros’ easier to get for those cities that still were interested, 104 Cerfaux and Tondriau 1957, 407-409; Taeger 1960; Turcan 1978. 105 Nock 1930a. 106 E.g., Aurelian; Alaric Watson 1999, 183-198, 201-202.

and there are signs that many were. But again, the more it was granted and the less eminent the cities that boasted of it, the less valuable the simple honor became: just like the coinage, neokoria was to experience rampant inflation. Indeed, for a city’s status to be made truly significant, it could instantly become several times neokoros, as we will see in the cases of Thessalonike under Trajan Decius, and of Perge and Side under Aurelian and thereafter. Maximinus A professional soldier, Maximinus may not have instigated the army revolt in which Severus Alexander was murdered, but he certainly benefited by it.107 The sole event of his reign that concerns the neokoroi was that Kyzikos went back to calling itself simply neokoros on his coins after having been twice neokoros on late coins of Severus Alexander. Was this due to a condemnation of Alexander’s memory?108 Nine neokoroi cities declared their title on coins during Maximinus’ reign: Nikomedia, Pergamon, Ephesos, Smyrna, Sardis, Anazarbos, Magnesia, and the aforementioned Kyzikos. Only the latter two had become neokoros under Severus Alexander, and Magnesia as neokoros of Artemis was certainly less likely to lose that honor because of an obliteration of Alexander’s memory. As for Aigeai, Kaisareia, and Neokaisareia, the neokoroi for Severus Alexander who did not mint with the title in Maximinus’ reign all began to mint with undiminished titulature soon after, Aigeai as early as 238, Kaisareia by 240, and Neokaisareia by 241/242.109 Kyzikos did not. It seems that either Kyzikos’ troubles were not caused by a condemnation of Severus Alexander’s name, or that it was simply suppressing the enumeration from its titulature. Gordian III Though successful in his war against the Germans, Maximinus was less able to pacify Italy and the pro107 Herodian 6.7.10-6.9.8; the following account based on Herodian books 7 and 8. 108 Kienast 1996, 177-179; Varner 1993, 418-422 held that the condemnation was unofficial. 109 Aigeai was the only city in Cilicia to strike coins for the elder Gordiani, though these did not mention the neokoria; see Weiss 1982, 196-197.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

vinces. Revolt broke out in Africa, where the proconsul Marcus Antonius Gordianus and his son of the same name were declared co-emperors. The Senate had been alienated by Maximinus and confirmed the Gordiani, but within thirty-six days both men were dead, the son in battle against Maximinus’ troops, the father by suicide on hearing the news of his son. The Senate was stuck; it had already outlawed Maximinus and he was leading his armies to invade Italy. Two compromise candidates, Pupienus and Balbinus, were selected from the Senate itself. To placate the people, among whom the Gordiani were still popular, a grandson of the proconsul was named Caesar and successor. Though only thirteen, within two months he became the emperor Gordian III: Maximinus, unsuccessful at besieging Aquileia, had been killed by his own soldiers, while Balbinus and Pupienus were murdered by their Praetorian Guard. Gordian III, though young, had good advisers and philhellenic tendencies.110 There are few sources for his reign, however, and most concentrate on his war against the Sassanian Persians and their king Shapur I.111 Under his rule Thessalonike in Macedonia became neokoros; and by 240 its rival in the province, Beroia, had again become twice neokoros and first began to put its name on the koinon coinage to underline that fact. It is possible that he allowed Thessalonike that honor because it would be an important transshipment point for the proposed eastern campaign, and that Beroia, though less strategic, was honored at the same time to concede its long-held primacy in the province. But in fact no clear connection can be made between Gordian (who only went East for the war two years later, in 242) and these honors to Macedonian cities. Armenia Minor was closer to the scene of action, and an inscription from the time of Gordian III first documents Nikopolis there as twice neokoros. But that only provides a time by which the title had been granted, and does not assure that Gordian himself granted it. Philip According to Zosimus, Gordian’s praetorian prefect Philip contrived a shortage of supplies which caused 110 111

L. Robert 1970, 14-17. Dodgeon and Lieu 1994, 34-45.

299

the troops massed for war against the Sassanians to revolt, kill Gordian, and declare Philip emperor.112 The sources’ bias against Philip is partly racial: he was an Arab from Trachonitis, east of the Jordan. He did not linger in the East after Gordian’s death, but made peace with the Persians, named his son Philip Caesar, and founded a city, Philippopolis, near his birthplace. It may have been around this time that he made Neapolis in Syria Palaestina neokoros. Then he proceeded back to Rome, where he triumphantly celebrated the millennium of the city with secular games. Trajan Decius Philip appointed the city prefect Decius to command the restive armies of Pannonia and Moesia, and this was probably his greatest mistake. The armies declared Decius emperor, Philip had to march against him, and he was killed in battle.113 Though some of Philip’s inscriptions were erased after his death, no official condemnation of his memory has been documented.114 Neapolis did not issue coins and probably lost its colonial status under Trajan Decius, perhaps because favoritism towards its benefactor Philip turned the city against his successor.115 But subsequently coins issued under Trebonianus Gallus occasionally use the title ‘neokoros.’ Herakleia in the koinon of Pontus also declared itself neokoros first on coins under Philip, and there too the title seems to have survived his death; but its neokoria may have been granted some time before. The survivor ruled under the name Trajan Decius, recalling better times for the Roman Empire; in flattery, Pergamon put out an issue of coins that showed its temple of Zeus Philios and (the original) Trajan, the one that had made it twice neokoros 135 years before. But Decius’ reign was anything but prosperous. The Goths had begun attacks on Moesia late in Philip’s reign; combating them had been part of Decius’ assignment to that province.116 His rise to the throne did not discourage their incursions, however. The Gothic armies launched a twopronged invasion of Moesia and of Thrace. They 112 Zosimus 1.17-20; Aurelius Victor 27.7-28; Eutropius 9.23; de Blois 1978/1979; Kettenhofen 1982, 19-37. 113 Aurelius Victor 28.10-11; Orosius 7.20.4; Eutropius 9.3. 114 Varner 1993, 484-487. 115 Harl 1984, 67-73. 116 Zosimus 1.23; Jordanes, On the Getae 16.18.

300

part ii – summary chapters

besieged the city of Philippopolis, metropolis of the Thracian koinon and formerly neokoros, and eventually captured it.117 At around the same time the Carpi, allies of the Goths, were advancing into Dacia. Of course, with foreign war went further internal rebellions: Priscus, governor of Macedonia and imperial legate to Thrace, was besieged in Philippopolis and had to declare himself emperor and make a pact with the Goths.118 In this context Thessalonike declared itself four times neokoros, three more neokoriai than it had under Gordian III; this probably reflected the city’s importance to the Balkan front. Anazarbos in Cilicia, however, which now declared itself three times neokoros, was far away from the major war of the time. Decius sent his son and Caesar, Herennius Etruscus, to the front first, while he himself followed soon after.119 The rest of their lives would be spent in combat in the Balkan area, but that would not be a long time. Trajan Decius became the first Roman emperor to die in battle against a foreign enemy. Trebonianus Gallus It was hinted that some responsibility for Trajan Decius’ death rested with Trebonianus Gallus, his ally and military commander of Moesia, who is said to have plotted with the Goths to lure Decius into a trap.120 Such suspicions always tended to linger around the successor. Though the Senate made Gallus co-ruler with Hostilianus, Decius’ surviving son, a plague, convenient to Gallus but deadly to the rest of the Empire, soon carried Hostilianus off. Thessalonike would lose two of its four neokoriai at some point after Decius’ death, certainly by 253/ 254. This loss was less likely due to a condemnation of Decius’ memory, however, than it was to restoring the balance between cities in the same province, so that Thessalonike and its rival Beroia would each be twice neokoros.121 Trebonianus Gallus made peace with the Goths and guaranteed them a yearly subsidy, but buying off one segment of the attackers did nothing about 117

Zosimus 1.24.2; Ammianus Marcellinus 31.5.17. PIR2 I 489 (T. Julius Priscus); Kienast 1996, 208; Aurelius Victor 29.2; Polemius Sylvius 39-40; Dexippus fr. 18. 119 Aurelius Victor 29.3-5; Dexippus fr. 16a; Zonaras 12.20. 120 Zosimus 1.23.2-1.25.2. 121 Kienast 1996, 204-210; Peachin 1990, 32-35, 239-265; Varner 1993, 487-488. 118

the rest. The Danube border may have been breached again, and for the first time it is possible that the raiders took ship, extending their grasp to the wealthy cities of Asia Minor.122 Also ominous was a successful attack by the Sassanian empire; King Shapur I had been checked by Gordian III’s expedition, but afterward continued raiding Roman territories. In Gallus’ reign he seized a long-awaited opportunity, and in a series of campaigns took Armenia, invaded Mesopotamia and Syria, and sacked Antioch.123 Aemilian The only Roman military success in this period was that of Aemilian, governor of Moesia, who beat back the Goths from his province in 253. It was thus predictable that his troops would declare him emperor.124 Aemilian at once set out with his armies to invade Italy. Trebonianus Gallus summoned troops from fighting the Alamanni to combat Aemilian, but there wasn’t enough time. Gallus’ own soldiers, seeing that they were outnumbered, killed him and went over to Aemilian. The murder did not stop Gallus’ reinforcements, still on the march from the Upper Rhine. They declared their commander, Valerian, emperor, and as they outnumbered Aemilian’s troops, this time it was Aemilian who was betrayed and killed by his own soldiers. Valerian and Gallienus The new emperor, Valerian, combined military expertise with consular dignity and an illustrious family background.125 On his arrival at Rome, he raised his son Gallienus, already made Caesar by the Senate, to the status of Augustus and full partner in the realm. Both emperors would be needed, as 122 Zonaras 12.21; Zosimus 1.28.1; the latter perhaps an anticipation of the invasion described in 1.31-35. The accounts are plagued by doublets and repetition, but some cities may have actually been invaded more than once: Potter 1990, 310314; Bleckmann 1992, 156-219; Salamon 1971. 123 Zosimus 1.27.2, with problems of interpretation similar to those of his account of the Gothic sea raids; Bleckmann 1992, 54-155. 124 Zosimus 28.1-29.2; Eutropius 9.5-6; Aurelius Victor 3132.1. 125 Aurelius Victor 32-33; Zosimus 1.29-1.40; Eutropius 9.78.

chapter

38

– historical analysis

Rome now had to fight wars on every side. Gallienus took command at the Rhine and at the Danube frontier while Valerian went east to combat first the Goths, then the Persians. Many of the great cities of the East, some of them neokoroi, came under attack. The emperor Valerian himself was captured by the Persians in 260, after which Gallienus reigned alone.126 The presence of armies in the East may have encouraged a temporary increase in the issues of bronze coinage, as it did in Athens between Gallienus’ visit in 264 and the Herulian invasion in 267.127 The chronology of this period is just short of chaos, however. To the detriment of this study, most of the bronze civic coinages, those abundant and dependable informants on city titulature, fade out after Gallienus’ reign. Without them there is darkness, with only intermittent inscriptions to show us the subsequent history of the neokoroi. At least ten grants of neokoria have been associated with the names of Valerian and Gallienus, a total that exceeds even those granted under Caracalla or under Elagabalus. Ideally, one might wish to look at these and discern some cogent series of circumstances that accounts for them all. But the only historical evidence we have is anecdotal, not explanatory, while the archaeological evidence is, as always, partial and subject to interpretation. Still, the neokoroi under Valerian and Gallienus do seem to cluster into groups, or at least into one group with some outliers. The most notable cluster is that of cities that were restored to the status they had held in the reign of Elagabalus, before the condemnation of his memory removed one neokoria from each. This includes Ephesos again four times neokoros, Sardis and Nikomedia at three times each, and perhaps Hieraspolis at one. All of these had regained the honor before 260, and Nikomedia and Ephesos offer evidence that their neokoriai were granted by 256-258. If Valerian and Gallienus had for some reason reinstituted the cult of the emperor Elagabalus, we might expect to see Beroia, Philippopolis, Miletos, and Tripolis also with restored neokoriai. Unfortunately all of these had ceased to issue coinage showing the title by this time, and no other evidence is yet known. Beroia, at least, had already become twice neokoros again in the reign of Gordian III.

126 127

De Blois 1976. Kroll 1997.

301

There are two outliers to this group of neokoroi. Kyzikos, which had not been neokoros of Elagabalus but whose second neokoria had wavered several times, named itself twice neokoros again between 258 and 260. Thessalonike, which had been four times neokoros under Trajan Decius, was reduced to two times by the time of Valerian but then upped to three times by Gallienus’ sole reign. The reappearance of Kyzikos as twice neokoros definitely postdates the neokoriai to Nikomedia and Ephesos, and that to Thessalonike may postdate all of them. As usual, the situation of Kyzikos is uncertain; it may have only been suppressing the enumeration from its title. If that was not the case, however, and if we extend the confined cluster from only Elagabalus’ neokoroi to take in these two outliers, a remarkable coincidence occurs. The larger set now includes every city known to have lost a neokoria. The exceptions are again those cities for which we lack all evidence of their status at this time: Beroia, Philippopolis, Miletos, and Tripolis as before, with only Nikaia added. Thus we no longer need look for the unlikely reason why Valerian and Gallienus restored lost neokoriai of Elagabalus, but rather why they may have restored all lost neokoriai. There were other neokoriai granted at this time that do not fall into the ‘regained neokoriai’ group. Tarsos seems never to have lost a neokoria, but became three times neokoros, and Ankyra, Side, and Aspendos, which had never been documented as neokoroi previously, now claim that honor, Ankyra as twice neokoros. It is noteworthy that these cities fall into a geographic area that is distinct from that of the cities that regained neokoriai: they are in the south and east, while the ‘regained neokoriai’ are in the north and west. The one group was primarily threatened by Sassanian incursions, the other primarily by the Goths. One unifying factor is war, which brought the emperor Valerian to the East and made him wish to reward and encourage cities to hold out against the invaders. But the factor of war is so widespread as to be unhelpful to these considerations. If we could overlay maps with all the various Gothic invasions and Sassanian incursions, we would find that no city in the East was safe, none out of raiding distance, none far from the paths of armies. Then why were these particular cities singled out as neokoroi? The answer may lie with the unusual group of cities with regained neokoriai. Most of these had lost a neokoria less than forty years before, a few even

302

part ii – summary chapters

more recently. In a situation where many cities, perhaps even every city, wanted close ties to the emperors, which cities could have been seen to have most claim to the honor? Of necessity, those that had once had it but lost it through no fault of their own. In addition, the fact that they had had it once assured that they were important cities already deemed worthy of neokoria. A grant to them would have the air of a restoration, harking back to times of peace and prosperity only a generation before. As it happens, the ‘restored’ group centers in northern Greece and western Asia Minor, where Elagabalus happened to make his grants. What of the area to the south and east, where Valerian himself was leading the Roman armies? Here the choice seems to emphasize not restoration of particular neokoriai, but restoration of balance among the neokoroi. In Cilicia, Tarsos and Anazarbos had been neckand-neck in neokoriai since the Severan period, though Tarsos had originally had precedence. Yet under Trajan Decius, Anazarbos had become three times neokoros, leaving Tarsos behind. Now balance was restored; Tarsos too became three times neokoros. Both cities, plus Aigeai, the other Cilician neokoros, were soon to be sacked by the Sassanians in the invasion that also carried the emperor Valerian off to captivity.128 Ankyra in Galatia was more remote, though not untouched. The city built a fortification wall in the face of famine and barbarian invasions; probably the Goths followed the ‘royal road’ through Ankyra on their way into Cappadocia in 261/262.129 So far as is known, Ankyra had no rivals in its province. We cannot even affirm that the city was actually given its second neokoria under Valerian and Gallienus, only that it began to announce it. Still, there may be some point in comparing Ankyra not to other cities in its province but to other provincial metropoleis. Even Kaisareia in Cappadocia had been twice neokoros for some time, and the cities of Asia and Bithynia had passed that mark even longer before. The status of twice neokoros would have only brought Ankyra up to its proper status among the capitals of the East. Pamphylia had recently become strategically important, a status which made grants of honors and titles understandable, at least from an emperor’s 128 129

Kettenhofen 1982, 106-112. IGRR 3:209; Salamon 1971, 128-129.

point of view. From a provincial viewpoint, however, the neokoriai of Side and then of Aspendos (the latter during Gallienus’ sole rule) changed the balance of titulature: Perge, since Vespasian probably the only neokoros, suddenly had to accommodate its rivals. The change, as always, goes beyond mere titulature to put in question former relationships among cities and between them and the emperor: Perge was no longer alone (and therefore first), but the three cities stood on equal footing at least as regards neokoria, and thus on an equal footing towards the emperor. Perge’s reaction to Side’s neokoria was to publicize its long-unstated status as neokoros more intensively. As the rivalry between the two was heated enough to be alluded to on coins, it may be that Aspendos was only later added to the neokoroi in order to dissipate the tension. To sum up, a multitude of neokoriai were granted or regranted during the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, when Valerian was leading his campaign against the Sassanians. A common thread runs through these grants, a thread of restoration, whether of a title previously withdrawn or of a city’s position in the province or the Empire. A restoration could have the effect of recalling the great days of a city, often less than a generation before yet perhaps seeming sadly remote. Valerian’s neokoriai in Pamphylia, however, were not so much a restoration as a recognition of the current status of cities based on their strategic importance. Thus Side, a vital port, was made equal with Perge, and Aspendos was eventually added too. It is likely that two basic ingredients, the imperial wish to bind cities in loyalty by means of grants of neokoriai, and the cities’ rivalry with one another, combined in Pamphylia as it had in other provinces to promote an inflation of neokoriai once again. Aurelian and After There is no evidence for a formal end to neokoria; at last sight, especially at Perge and Side, it was undergoing rapid escalation in the chaotic years at the end of the third century. On coins of Aurelian, the Pamphylian cities show a definite inflation in neokoriai; both went from simply neokoros to Perge claiming to be four times and Side three times neokoros. It is difficult to tell why these cities were so honored. Though Pamphylia had just suffered from Gothic raids, with Side defending itself with

chapter

38

– historical analysis

particular distinction, Aurelian’s itineraries for his war with Palmyra bypassed the province completely.130 Side’s harbor may have made it vital for supply lines, but the pecking order still gave the precedence to Perge. It would be interesting to know how many times Perge was neokoros when Side later claimed its sixth; one document may show that Perge too became six times neokoros. Inscriptions of the first Tetrarchy, 293-305, call Synnada and Sagalassos twice neokoros, though both cities were not known to have been neokoroi at all up to that point. Sagalassos was still twice neokoros on inscriptions even down to the time of Constantine and his sons. It may seem remarkable that the title ‘twice neokoros,’ symbol of the cult of the emperors, was still being used while the Empire was ruled by Christians. Yet Constantine deified his father (and was later himself deified), and accepted a temple at Hispellum and priests dedicated to his Flavian gens.131 Orators who spoke before the emperor himself not only praised his ‘divine mind’ but could attribute his victories to a vision of Apollo; he is said to have put up his own image in pagan temples, or even to have built pagan temples in the city he founded, Constantinople.132 Though some of these statements may have arisen from pagan/Christian bickering, it is certain that the emperors of the house of Constantine did nothing that would lessen their power as rulers, their Christianity notwithstanding. The more research is done on the late antique period, the clearer it becomes that reports of the death of civic life have been greatly exaggerated. Great eastern centers like Ephesos, Sardis, and Aphrodisias were prosperous up into the sixth century, though the governmental role formerly handled by their elites gradually passed into the hands of imperial officials and leaders of the church.133 Probably due to breakdowns in large-scale transport and supply lines for any but imperial and military purposes, local building begins to be done with the materials on hand, and old structures are cannibal130

240.

131

Alaric Watson 1999, 46, 70-84; Halfmann 1986a, 239-

Drake 2000, 180-187; Clauss 1999, 196-208. Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.18.1, ed. G. Hansen (Berlin 1995) 57-58; Zosimus 2.31. See Setton 1941, 196-211, on fourthcentury Christian proskynesis toward the emperor or his image. 133 Roueché 1989a, and the works of Foss, especially 1979 and 1976. 132

303

ized to build new ones. In many cases, private houses and workshops encroach upon former public areas.134 There is also a new emphasis on refuge, behind walls or in high citadels, especially in places more threatened by invasion, as in the West, the Balkans, and Greece. Most important for the neokoroi, temples began to be either despoiled for or converted to Christian churches. The process is generally dated to the fifth century, following the provisions in the Theodosian Code for the closing of the temples (below). Of course, it is obvious from the repetitions in the Code itself that its injunctions were often unheeded; along with the anecdotes of Christian zealots destroying temples well before the law allowed, there were places where pagan shrines were winked at, or even vigorously defended, even in the fifth century.135 Temples to the emperors may have been the last to have been attacked—after all, to impugn the dignity and privileges of emperors was dangerous, no matter how anti-pagan the emperors themselves may have been. The Theodosian Code assembles imperial proclamations, including those on various aspects of the temples. Pagan priesthood, for example, was not abolished at once: in 386 C.E. Valentinian II and Theodosius I decreed that chief priests of the emperors were to be chosen from non-Christians of the decurion class who had performed the most services for their cities.136 A number of regulations in the code assume that pagan temples should be preserved, though rituals practiced around them, especially sacrifice, were strictly forbidden. In a ruling of 326 (CT 15.1.3), provincial officials were warned against starting new public building projects without finishing the old ones, but temples were excepted. Later CT 16.10.3, dated to 342, stated that temples outside the walls of the city were not to be injured, since festivals in their honor were for the entertainment of the Roman people. One of the most famous provisions, CT 16.10.4, dated somewhere between 346 and 356, closed the temples in all places and in all cities; but then CT 16.10.8 (382 C.E.) protected a particular temple at Osrhoene, with its images and festival, though sacrifice was again prohibited. Various rulings of 399 C.E., directed at Spain, ‘the five pro134 135 136

Cameron 1993, 152-175. MacMullen 1997, 20-25, 34-39, 50-59. CT 12.1.112; the following according to Pharr 1952.

304

part ii – summary chapters

vinces,’ and Africa, protected temples empty of illicit altars and statues (CT 16.10.15, 18). Though many fourth-century decisions were aimed at pagan worship and rituals, they assumed that the temples themselves would continue, as public property, under the administration of the cities’ decurions.137 At the end of the fourth century, however, the emperors’ decrees turned toward the destruction of temples or reuse of their remains. For example, a decision of 397, CT 15.1.36, directed the Count of the Orient to use certain material from destroyed temples in constructing roads, bridges, and aqueducts. While CT 16.10.15 seems to have protected temples in cities of some provinces in 399 (above), CT 16.10.16, issued in the same year, declared that temples in country districts should be torn down. In 407, CT 16.10.19 stated that temples in cities, towns, or outside towns should be turned to appropriate public use, and that their administrators should destroy them. In 425, Theodosius II forbade adoration of imperial statues or images when they were set up at festivals or on ordinary days (CT 15.4.1). The last word was the decree of Theodosius and Valentinian, CT 16.10.25, in 435 C.E.: if any pagan temples or shrines remained, they were to be destroyed, and purified by erection of the sign of Christianity. Of course, it was still a big Empire, and not every community behaved in the same way. Many temples 137 Provisions against worship, not temples: 356? C.E., CT 16.10.4; 381, CT 16.10.7; 391, CT 16.10.10-11; 392, CT 16.10.12; 395, CT 16.10,13, more vigorous enforcement of 16.10.12. CT 15.1.40, of 401 C.E.: buildings that belong to any temple, and all public buildings, are the responsibility of the decurions of the city.

were demolished and deserted, though some provided good building material for churches; others survived in good enough condition to be themselves turned into churches after the late fourth century.138 Rome, the former world capital, sacked by the Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455, was a special case: in 458, Majorian (in Ravenna) forbade that public buildings (including temples) in Rome be demolished for reuse of their materials.139 We do not know precisely when, or how, most temples for which cities were neokoroi were closed, secularized, Christianized, and/or knocked down. Constantine himself had had the temple of Asklepios at Aigeai destroyed; the temple for Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos was carefully demolished and some of its stones reused in a local church, perhaps in the fifth century; and one side of the temenos of what was probably the temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was refashioned into the Church of Saint Mary, certainly before 431, when the Ecumenical Council of Ephesos met there. The last inscription to document neokoria, at Sardis in 459 C.E., calls the city twice neokoros when previously it had been three times neokoros. The superannuated title had likely been copied off old inscriptions, from monuments under repair or broken up for reuse. This last statement of neokoria indicates that by the fifth century the title had lost its meaning, rather than that it still retained any.

138 139

Krautheimer 1986, 41. Novels of Majorian 4.1; Pharr 1952, 553-554.

chapter

39

– the temples

305

Chapter 39. The Temples The word ‘neokoros’ means ‘temple warden,’so the existence of a temple that the neokoros cares for is explicit in the term. Even before ‘neokoros’ came to designate a city that possessed a koinon temple, a temple building was understood to be a vital part of provincial imperial cult. For example, though Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 states that Augustus allowed the building of sacred precincts (temen¤sai) to himself in Pergamon and Nikomedia, in the same passage he specifies that the Pergamenes were permitted to celebrate a sacred contest “in honor of his temple” (§p‹ tª toË naoË aÈtoË timª). Thus scholars who wished to envision the precincts at Pergamon and at Nikomedia solely as altar courts should have turned to the evidence of both coins and literature.1 According to this evidence, both were peripteral temples, though we have not yet found the remains of either. A Greek temple served many functions. Conceptually, it was a house for a deity or deities, who were generally represented in the form of cult statues within the adyton/cella of the temple. The temple was also a focus of sacrificial ritual, usually accomplished on an altar placed before the temple’s main entrance. A temple’s rituals and upkeep were the responsibilities of its priests and/or priestesses, neokoroi, hierophantai, hymnodoi, and other officials; there may have been facilities for the cult’s equipment and practices around the temple itself, though these are often difficult to isolate archaeologically.2 As mentioned above, the temple was also the focus of festivals in honor of its cult (examined in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ below), and scene of their sacrificial rites, though the contests themselves were held in theaters, stadia, or other entertainment complexes. Temples of the neokoroi were often collection points for documents of province-wide importance, especially the earliest ones such as the Rome and 1 Tuchelt 1981; for the rebuttal, see Hänlein-Schäfer 1985, 13-14, 166-168, no. A26. 2 E.g. Bergquist 1998.

Augustus temples at Pergamon and at Ankyra.3 An important benefactor could be signally honored by statues placed around the temples in neokoroi cities: so around 141 C.E., Titus Aelius Alkibiades’ statues were to be set up in the “sacred temples of the emperors of (the koinon of) Asia.”4 The precincts of the temples were enlivened by statues and dedications set up by other cities, to commemorate the temple’s foundation, celebrate a festival, or simply honor the emperor, as at the Flavian temple of the Augusti at Ephesos. Thus the temples of the emperors that made their cities neokoroi were the settings where dramas of loyalty were enacted, in the present by the priests and officials of the koinon sacrificing to the emperors, and in the past through the permanent record of statues and documents. This chapter will examine the evidence for the temples, cult statues, and other realia of the neokoroi. In order to keep the focus on these provincial cults, evidence for imperial cult or for temples in cities that were not neokoroi will only be used as comparanda. First the surviving remains of temples of the neokoroi will be examined; for ease of comparison, all temple plans are drawn to the same scale, with temenos plans following in a smaller scale. Then follows the evidence for temples whose remains have not yet been discovered, but whose appearance is documented by depictions on coins. The conventions of architectural representation on coins have already been discussed in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ allowing their evidence to be interpreted correctly. Separate sections will then examine what we know of the funding of the temples, how long it took to build them, and their place in the urban fabric of each neokoros city. We will then look at the cult images that stood in the temples, and ask what other 3 Fayer 1976, 110-111 n. 8. Also note Augustus’ edict concerning the Jews, which is directed to Asia and to be inscribed in Augustus’ temple, but in a city whose name is corrupt, closer to Ankyra than Pergamon: Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 16.162165. 4 L. Robert 1938, 48; see Ephesos inscription 42.

306

part ii – summary chapters

cults accompanied those of the emperors in temples that made their cities neokoroi, including instances where the imperial cult was moved into the extant temple of a god. Finally, we will look at the temples of other gods (rather than emperors) that nonetheless made their cities neokoroi: Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus, and the temples of Artemis at Ephesos and Magnesia, all of which have remains preserved to our time. Temples Known Archaeologically The earliest surviving temple that made its city neokoros is that of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra (illus. pl. 1 fig. 1), a foundation that antedated its city’s first declaration of neokoria by over two hundred years. Though only the cella stands today, the temple was octastyle, likely Corinthian, with fifteen columns along its flank. The pronaos had four columns prostyle, the opisthodomos two columns in antis. The peristasis was 23.6 x 42.42 m. measured along the centers of the columns, and probably stood on an eight-stepped base. Its pseudodipteral plan, in the tradition of Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis at Magnesia (below), gave it broad aisles around the cella, and the fineness of its ornamentation led early authorities to call it Hellenistic instead of Roman. What little is left of its architectural sculpture shows an outer frieze and anta capitals of flowering acanthus scrolls with occasional Victories, a program recalling that of the temple of the deified Julius Caesar in the Roman Forum. In the cella, a high frieze of garlands, typical ornament of altars, surrounds the interior. The themes of the sculptural decoration thus included victory, fruitfulness, and the sacred. The possible scale of provincial imperial temples is shown by the fact that the cult of Gaius (Caligula) designated for Miletos was likely moved into one of the largest and most elaborate temples in Asia, the Ionic temple of Apollo at Didyma (illus. pl. 1 fig. 3). It is possible, however, that this only reflected Gaius’ own thought as to the magnificence his worship deserved. The temple is a colossal dipteros, facing east, with ten columns on the short side and twentyone on the long; its stylobate measures 51.13 x 109.34 m. It had been under construction since at least the beginning of the third century B.C.E., and was never finished. Its unusual layout, probably dictated by the requirements of its oracle of Apollo, was a deep twelve-column pronaos leading to a high door which looked into a two-columned room but

couldn’t actually be entered; instead, access to the interior was via two stone-lined tunnels into the hypaethral court and its small central naiskos. The architectural decoration kept to Apolline themes. The temenos (illus. pl. 4 fig. 16) was irregular in shape and not expansive, but the sheer size of the temple itself still stuns the viewer. It is not possible to say what, if any, modifications would have been introduced for worship of Gaius; the cult lasted only until his death and the condemnation of his memory. The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 2 fig. 2, pl. 4 fig. 17) is not as well preserved nor as large as the temple in Ankyra, much less the Didymaion, but its site was designed to make it imposing. Set axially on a vaulted 50 x 100 m. terrace, it overlooked the state agora, site of Ephesos’ governmental buildings and possibly also of Ephesos’ shrine to Rome and Julius Caesar. The terrace’s north face, two stories tall, may have later been decorated with galleries of Doric columns and caryatids of barbarians, though their actual placement is uncertain. Finished in the reign of Domitian, the temple of the Augusti was octastyle and pseudodipteral like the temple at Ankyra, but lacked an opisthodomos and had only thirteen columns on its flank. Its stylobate was thus only ca. 24 x 34 m., but its high position both dominated and helped to shape the civic/religious center of Ephesos. Its altar decorated with weapons, and the barbarians on its terrace facade, play on themes of war and triumph, but these are later than the original building. The temple’s order is uncertain; though Corinthian columns decorated with dolphins and eagles have been associated with it, the temples on coins that boast the title ‘neokoros’ in Nero’s reign look Ionic. Even more magnificently sited was the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon (illus. pl. 4 fig. 18). It was built out on vaults from the highest point of the city’s acropolis. Its 68 x 58 m. terrace was broader than it was deep, and was eventually surrounded by stoas on three sides, with a 23 m. high wall retaining its open front. The temple itself (illus. pl. 1 fig. 4) was a hexastyle Corinthian, its stylobate 20 x 32 m., and unlike all the temples yet discussed, it was isolated on a high podium in the Roman fashion, accessible only by a frontal staircase facing south. Its shallow depth, with a flank of only ten columns, suited its position in the center of a broad terrace, where it was best seen from below. The architectural decoration combined the acanthus

chapter motif with gorgoneia, which had also been used in the friezes of the temples of the Deified Julius Caesar and of the Deified Vespasian in Rome. The akroteria featured Victories, so the themes of the architecture also recall those of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra. The coins indicate that there may have been a shield or tondo in the pediment. The remains of the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, celebrated for its grandeur and huge size even in antiquity, were under excavation in the 1990’s (illus. pl. 2 fig. 7). The publication of a full report will clarify the description given by Cyriacus of Ancona in the fifteenth century, but so far it seems that the building was a massive Corinthian octastyle, with fifteen or seventeen columns on its flank, each column over seventy feet tall, rising from a stylobate of ca. 48.84 x 106.56 m.5 Its models were such massive dipteral temples as the Artemision of Ephesos or the Didymaion of Miletos. There may have been a shield portrait of Hadrian, along with other statues, in the pediment. Fragments of elaborate vine-wreathed columns were probably from the interior, and drawings from manuscripts of Cyriacus hint at a high frieze of groups and processions of the gods and also large gorgoneia inside the cella. Parts of a continuous frieze have been discovered, showing combat between Romans and easterners and a possible apotheosis of Hadrian, reflecting the fact that the temple was largely built in the age of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. One unusual feature which the manuscripts hint at was a portico of arches, possibly in the precinct before the temple; such arches recall the facade of the Basilica Julia in Rome, or a cryptoporticus surrounding a raised temple terrace, though none has yet been recorded at Kyzikos. Though big enough, Ephesos’ likely temple of Hadrian was not quite as grandiose as that at Kyzikos. Sited on infilled ground near the harbor, its temenos was an expansive 225 x 350 m., including colonnades on all four sides (illus. pl. 4 fig. 19). In the center was a south-facing Corinthian temple with a peristasis of approximately 33 x 60 m (illus. pl. 1 fig. 5). Though the excavators have vacillated concerning the temple’s measurements and possible reconstruction, it is unlikely to have been any larger than decastyle, as its stylobate is only slightly larger 5

Barattolo 1995, 84.

39

– the temples

307

that of the temple of Artemis Leukophryene in Magnesia, and was possibly pseudodipteral as well. It is to be regretted that Hadrian’s temple at Smyrna has not been definitely located, but if the ruins noted at Deirman-tepe by Walter and Prokesch von Osten were indeed of this building, its scale, at least in column dimensions, was comparable to that of the Olympieion in Athens (which had a stylobate of ca. 41.11 x 107.89 m.). It has sometimes been assumed that all the temples of Hadrian that made their cities neokoroi were based on the Olympieion and were part of Hadrian’s panhellenic program.6 But as was shown in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the temples at Kyzikos and Smyrna antedated Hadrian’s involvement with the Olympieion in Athens. Moreover, though the temple at Kyzikos was indeed monumental and possibly dipteral, that at Ephesos was not quite on that scale, while those at Smyrna and perhaps Nikaia and Tarsos are not yet known. It is not yet certain whether the temple of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos served a provincial cult, or even if it was a temple for which the city was neokoros. It stood axially in a large temenos (ca. 82 x 60 m.) with porticoes on all four sides, the whole raised on a terrace where it could be seen by all who entered the southern gates (illus. pl. 5 fig. 20). One entered via a propylon, possibly with composite capitals, from the west. The temple was Corinthian (illus. pl. 2 fig. 8), a modest six by eleven columns on a stylobate ca. 13.8 x 26.8 m., but rich vegetal ornament decorated its door, friezes, and cornices. It also had certain oddities of design: its pronaos, with two columns in antis, is almost as deep as its cella, and its pediment is rather steep, the latter peculiarity seen in other Sagalassian temples as well. A fragment of a pediment featuring a personification of another major city of the province identifies what was probably a koinon temple at Sardis (illus. pl. 2 fig. 10). The one corner of the building that has been unearthed is enough to tell us that it was built on a pseudodipteral plan, probably octastyle and comparable to, although slightly smaller than, the temple of Rome and Augustus at Ankyra. It was set into the lower slopes of the akropolis hill, with no sign of the grandiose terracing seen at the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos or that of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. It took 6

Schorndorfer 1997, 60-62.

308

part ii – summary chapters

its orientation from the theater, however, and may have been intended as a centerpiece of a great sacred/civic complex. More is known of Sardis’ other temple that conferred neokoria: it was the Hellenistic temple of Artemis, which was refitted to accommodate the cult of Antoninus Pius and his family (illus. pl. 2 fig. 9). Originally intended to be another colossal Ionic dipteral octastyle like the Artemision at Ephesos, the temple at Sardis was cut down to pseudodipteral, but even so was never quite completed. It was meant to have eight by twenty columns in a 45.51 x 97.94 m. peristasis. While Artemis continued to preside in the west-facing shrine, a dividing wall and door at the rear of the cella provided an east-facing shrine for the Augusti. The six colossi found on site will be dealt with below; it is likely that Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina the Elder were the chief couple among the cult statues, with their adoptive sons Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and their sons’ wives Faustina the Younger and Lucilla, in supporting roles. It is possible that the decastyle temple that made Tarsos twice neokoros for Commodus is identical with the remains at Donuktaâ outside the ancient city (illus. pl. 2 fig. 11). These cement/conglomerate foundations are large enough to have had a peristasis of ten by twenty-one columns. The temple’s total footprint was 49.60 x 105.30 m. Set on a podium 11.57 m. high, and thus isolated and dominant in the Romanizing fashion, it was approached from the northeast by a steep staircase; vaulted corridors led from the pronaos to the lower cella, recalling the layout at Didyma. Fragments of marble show that the order was Corinthian, with architectural ornament datable toward the end of the second century. Though Neapolis was only called neokoros after the reign of Philip, it is possible that it received the title for a second century C.E. temple on Tell erRas on Mount Gerizim (illus. pl. 3 fig. 12). The temenos was an irregular oblong with its long axis running north-south, around 44 x 64 m., approached by a long staircase that started at a monumental propylon at the mountain’s foot, in the city itself. Approximately centered in the temenos, the modest four-column (14 x 21 m.) prostyle looked north over the city. Though the temple had a threestepped krepis, some aspects of its design were more Roman than Greek: it had attached rather than freestanding columns on its exterior walls (pseudoperipteral), and was approached by a frontal

staircase. The facade columns were Corinthian, possibly with shafts of red granite; the rest was faced with limestone, and part of the floor was paved with marble. Thirty-five cities were at some time neokoroi for temples of emperors, or at least not specifically of other gods; if each neokoria meant one temple dedicated or rededicated to the cult of the emperors, only about one-seventh of those temples have been preserved, that is, we have found archaeological remains of only ten; eleven if Sagalassos’ temple of Antoninus Pius is included. This is a very small sample, and cannot be taken as representative. Nonetheless, several features stand out. Eight of the eleven temples ranged in size from large to gigantic (among the latter, the Didymaion, temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, and the temple of Artemis at Sardis). The average size, if we can speak from such a small number of examples, was octastyle. But even the three smaller temples, the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, the temple of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos, and the tetrastyle temple at Neapolis, were set in grandiose contexts, dominating their cities from prominent positions. The temple of Antoninus Pius commanded the view of anyone entering Sagalassos from the south. The other two, set on hillsides, are also the most ‘Roman’ temples: the temple at Pergamon on its high podium with stairs only in front and parastades on either side, the one at Neapolis prostyle and pseudoperipteral. Also emphasizing the facade was the temple at Tarsos, set on its enormous podium, only approachable via the stairs on its facade. Eight of the eleven temples were freestanding and fully peripteral structures set on a krepis of standard Hellenic type. Of course, two of them, the Didymaion and the temple of Artemis at Sardis, were in fact Hellenistic temples that predated the imperial cult practiced in them. Still, of the eight temples newly built for the imperial cult, four follow a Hellenistic model, the pseudodipteral temple canonized by Hermogenes; the temple at Ankyra so closely that it was at first dated to the second century B.C.E. This is not to say that these temples were untouched by newer trends and tastes in Roman imperial architecture: the temple of the Augusti in Ephesos, for example, was shortened and set up on a high vaulted terrace typical of Roman urban design.7 And the 7

MacDonald 1986, 119-121, 135. For a detailed compari-

chapter pseudoperipteral design of Neapolis’ temple was Roman-inspired. But none of these temples was set into the back wall of its temenos on the model of the imperial fora at Rome, like, for example, the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.8 Five of the temples were set axially in the center of sacred spaces, often ringed by porticos, visible (and generally approachable) from all sides, again in the manner hallowed by Hermogenes’ temple of Artemis at Magnesia. In other words, in these temples, the Roman emperors were housed in a very Greek fashion. Also noteworthy is what we don’t see. The multiple-column and aediculated facade of the ‘marble style’ has been played up as the very type and symbol of the imperial cult.9 Yet not a single example of this design is in or around any extant temple of the koinon cult of the emperors. It was not used in the interior of any cella (as it was, for example, in the ‘temple of Bacchus’ in Baalbek); nor in the gates of the precincts, nor in the colonnades that circled them. Of course, this may be an accident of preservation. Still, the association of the aediculated facade with the imperial cult has been overstated: the inscriptions of the so-called Kaisersäle in fact call on the patron deities of the cities in question in addition to, and generally before, the emperors. This ostentatious and theatrical decor, with its multicolored and imported marbles, was a sign of wealth, even a form of conspicuous consumption; but many gods and personifications, not just the emperors, were associated with it, in gates, nymphaea, libraries, gymnasia, and especially in stage buildings. But not in the temples of the neokoroi. Instead, we find the rather austere and delicate treatment of the temple of Augustus and Rome at Ankyra, with its high interior frieze of garlands encircling the sacred space. Later, the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos may have had a more elaborate interior, judging from the few remains and from the manuscripts of Cyriacus of Ancona: its cella lined with vine-wreathed columns, a continuous frieze of processions of deities above them, and perhaps gorgoneia below. But this sort of elaborate interior had been known in Greek temples since that at Bassae, in the fifth century B.C.E. Where their reson between Asia Minor’s Roman-period temples and their Hellenistic predecessors, see Pohl 2002, 169-179, 186-188. 8 Smith 1987. Further exploration at Laodikeia may associate its ‘forum temple’ with the neokoria, but at present, this is uncertain. 9 Yegül 1982.

39

– the temples

309

mains have been found, the temples of the neokoroi continue the long-standing tradition (itself notable for magnificent size and elaboration) of temple building in Asia. Temples Shown on Coins More of the temples that made their cities neokoroi appear on contemporary coins than have remains extant. Yet it must be remembered that coin types can be schematic and abbreviated, and can vary in details represented. The interpretation of coin types has already been discussed in the ‘Introduction,’ and closer examinations of each case have been given in the City chapters in Part I. What follows here is a compilation of what evidence the coins can give us for temples that conferred neokoria. The temple of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia appears on both silver cistophori of the koinon and bronze coins of the city; on the former, it is explicitly identified by the legend. Though the representations differ in style, they can be reconciled to indicate that the temple had at least eight columns on the facade, and was of the Corinthian (or perhaps Composite) order. Pedimental decoration may have included such Roman symbols as the wolf and twins, and the akroteria were of Victories erecting trophies. The contemporary temple in Pergamon also appeared on both silver and bronze coinages, and as at Nikomedia was labeled. Corinthian in order, it had at least six columns on the facade. Akroteria and pedimental decoration were present, but on the coins they were only expressed by numismatic abbreviations: floral curlicues for the akroteria, a dot or disc in the pediment. The picture of the temple of Rome and Augustus in Ankyra given by the coins is especially valuable, as it can be checked against the building itself. The building is shown as Corinthian, with up to eight columns, and this representation does not conflict with the remains as we have them. The temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate in Smyrna, known only from coins, is shown with four fluted Corinthian columns. The figure of the emperor, however, stands within the temple’s facade in all known representations, and takes up space that would ordinarily be devoted to columns; so it is possible that the temple was actually larger than tetrastyle.

310

part ii – summary chapters

The first temple that made Neokaisareia neokoros was probably built by the time of Trajan, but its object of cult is uncertain. The coins generally illustrate it as tetrastyle, but on one type pentastyle. It was Corinthian in order, with large and elaborate double doors, around which the masonry of the cella walls is usually indicated. A comparison between coins and remains is again possible with the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. Though seen as four-column on coins, the reason for this abbreviation of a hexastyle structure is obvious: the coins show the two cult statues, so the die-cutter reduced the columns from six to four to allow them room. Details which do not interfere with the cult statues, however, are very clearly delineated, especially the parastades that flank the steps and indicate that the temple is on a podium, as the remains at Pergamon indeed are. The temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos appeared on coins late in the reign of Antoninus Pius, five or six years before its dedication but almost forty years after its inception. It is shown as octastyle and Corinthian, which agrees with what we know of it from written sources and remains. It also appears with a disc in its pediment, which may represent a shield portrait. Other temples of Hadrian, for example at Smyrna and at Ephesos, only appear on multipletemple reverse types, so little can be told about them individually. The temple of Commodus at Tarsos is shown as decastyle with a wreath or eagle in its pediment, like its predecessor koinon temple in the same city. This may reflect reality, however, as the new temple, clearly identified, is occasionally shown by itself. The individual temple’s coin image is what allowed the remains of a structure at Donuktaâ, of the correct date and likely decastyle, to be identified as the temple of Commodus. The temple of Septimius Severus that finally made Nikomedia twice neokoros may have been the same as one earlier dedicated to Commodus, for which neokoria was given but then withdrawn. Both are shown as Corinthian and octastyle with outsloping entablature. Nikomedia’s temple of Rome and Augustus was also Corinthian octastyle, but is shown with a standard entablature. Three imperial figures, likely Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, also identify the second temple, as do specific architectural touches like the double capricorn at the peak of its roof, and pedimental sculpture including an eagle between griffins, two Victories(?) holding a

shield between them, a figure perhaps holding a sceptre, and a star or cross. The variety in pedimental sculpture again recalls the temple of Rome and Augustus, as do Victories as side akroteria, but where the first temple’s Victories erect trophies, the second’s drive two-horse chariots, details likely to reflect reality. More summarily shown is the temple of Septimius Severus at Perinthos, a Corinthian octastyle with figures or a disc in the pediment. His temple at Kaisareia generally appears as a standard Corinthian hexastyle, though one (unfortunately very worn) coin may indicate that it was set on a high Roman-style podium, and that its baroque ‘broken’ pediment featured an eagle. The temple that likely made Perinthos twice neokoros (though it did not enumerate the title at the time) was for Caracalla and Geta, but is only shown as the twin of the city’s earlier temple for Septimius Severus. At Anazarbos, however, when the two temples for the same emperors are shown together, they are sometimes assimilated but sometimes distinct; the latter is so unusual that the coin image may represent the two temples’ actual appearance. The likely temple for Septimius Severus had already appeared as a four-column Ionic structure with a star or sun in the pediment, while that of Caracalla and Geta is shown as larger, with eight columns. The temple of Caracalla at Philadelphia appears on coins as Ionic, agreeing with the columns on the stele that documents the emperor’s grant of neokoria. The coins show additional details: up to four columns, and an arched lintel. Though the latter feature could have been meant to allow more space on the coin to show the cult statue, the stele shows a rounded pediment on the temple, and it is possible that this temple actually did have arched feature(s) in its facade. Coins indicate that Caracalla and Commodus each had an individual temple at Laodikeia, though the city was only (once) neokoros for their cults: both temples are shown with six columns, but at least one appears with an arched lintel and an odd pagoda-like roof. Temples for Caracalla at Tralles and probably Kyzikos only appear schematically on coins of their cities, the former with six columns, the latter with as many as nine. In two cities the cult of Caracalla was introduced into a previously existing temple of a god. Both the temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of Rome at Smyrna are shown as Corinthian tetrastyles of

chapter standard peripteral type; the latter, however, only appears with the other two temples to which it is assimilated. Of the temples to Elagabalus that made cities neokoroi, two were extant temples to patron gods, who thus became partners in the imperial cult. Elagabalus’ cult was moved into the temple of Demeter at Nikomedia, shown with up to six columns on the coins, and into the temple of Apollo Kendrisos at Philippopolis, whose eight-column Corinthian temple is often marked by a shield with diagonal spear in the pediment. The temple in Hierapolis also had a pedimental feature hinting at the presence of another cult, that of the moon god Men, but it is uncertain whether the temple was originally his or was built for the city’s neokoria, in which case Elagabalus and Men may have shared cult. The Hierapolis temple is also shown with four columns and an arch in the pediment, once with a solid lintel below the arch. The oddity of the latter detail may reflect reality rather than an effort to allow room for the cult statue on the coin. The rest of the coin representations of temples that made cities neokoroi for Elagabalus are rather schematic; each city’s coinage shows all the temples that made it neokoros together, and individualizing details are rare. So Beroia’s two temples are shown as identical, with up to seven (!) columns, while Miletos’ two have two columns and a dot in each pediment. Ephesos’ temple of Elagabalus has up to four columns and a togate cult statue, but its image is affected by that of the Artemision beside it. Sardis only emphasizes its new (hexastyle) temple by showing the figure of the cuirassed emperor within, and by placing it next to the temple of the patron goddess, Lydian Kore. Severus Alexander’s cult apparently moved into Aigeai’s temple of Asklepios to make the city neokoros. The temple is shown with up to eight (perhaps Corinthian) columns. Its arched facade and the eagle in its pediment appear with regularity on even the smallest images, and so probably represent real, recognizable features. By contrast, Neokaisareia’s temple for Severus Alexander is only shown as the twin of the other temple that made it neokoros, both Corinthian with up to six columns. The two temples built to the cult of Gordian III in Macedonia, in Beroia and in Thessalonike, are only shown as sketchy four-column structures. Then under Trajan Decius, Thessalonike added three more temples, none of them more specifically rep-

39

– the temples

311

resented than the first. Anazarbos also became neokoros for Trajan Decius, though again the temple is only shown in the most summary manner, with four up to seven columns. Of the many neokoriai granted or regranted under Valerian and Gallienus, very few are reflected by depictions of the temples on coins. Nikomedia issues types echoing those of its lost third neokoria for Elagabalus; again, the third temple is that of Demeter. Ankyra depicts two temples so schematically that we cannot be sure whether they are actual temples or altar courts, while Kyzikos either shows two identical hexastyle temples or its temple of Hadrian accompanied by the round shrine of Demeter and Kore. Aspendos’ coin type shows a temple-shaped plaque rather than a temple. Only Side issues a coin with a specific depiction of its likely imperial temple, shown between two others as tetrastyle with an equestrian statue within. One may then ask if many of the third-century temples were ever built. Most of the coins issued from Caracalla onward depict the temples as schematic rather than individualized, making us wonder whether they represent an actual temple or only the promise of one. That more than one neokoria could be granted at once raises yet more doubts: how could Thessalonike have possibly built three new temples under Trajan Decius, Perge another three under Aurelian, and Side two under Aurelian and three more by the last quarter of the third century, despite the troubled times and pinched finances? Certainly cases where emperors’ cults moved into already extant temples of gods increased in the third century. The first century had only Gaius moving in with (or supplanting) Apollo at Didyma, and the second only Antoninus Pius and his family taking half of the temple of Artemis at Sardis. But from the start of the third century, Caracalla’s cult was placed in the temple of Asklepios at Pergamon and that of Rome at Smyrna; then Elagabalus moved in with Demeter at Nikomedia, Apollo Kendrisos at Philippopolis, and perhaps with Men at Hierapolis; and Severus Alexander was apparently identified with Asklepios in his temple at Aigeai. It is very possible that this also happened in other cases that we don’t know about. A feature that appears on the coins showing temples of the neokoroi, but not yet on any of the temples that survive, is the arched lintel. As mentioned in the ‘Introduction,’ coins sometimes show a temple with arched lintel in order to make the cult

312

part ii – summary chapters

figure larger and clearer despite the small space. For example, coins of Aizanoi show Zeus in an arched shrine or baldochino, though his temple at Aizanoi is extant and its entry is certainly not arched. For other temples of the neokoroi, arched lintels appear on coins at Philadelphia, Laodikeia, Hierapolis, and Aigeai. In none of these cases do we have remains of temples to contradict the coin images. All of them come from the early third century, from Caracalla to Severus Alexander; not a single one of the preserved temples dates that late. An arch in a temple’s facade is certainly architecturally possible, with examples ranging from the little shrine at Ephesos formerly known as the temple of Hadrian, to the giant triple gate at Baalbek. Until firm evidence to the contrary is found, it remains possible that some temples of the neokoroi had arched features in their facades. The procedural problem is this: where no archaeological remains have been found, it can never be confirmed whether a temple illustrated on coins was built, or really looked the way it appears to. Though specificity and repetition of details inclines us to believe that the depiction reflects reality, we cannot be positive. On the other hand, even the clumsiest and most schematic image on coins does not indicate that the temple it represents did not in fact exist.

Funding The question of whether third-century temples were actually built brings us to another crucial point: where did the funds necessary for building and maintaining a temple that made its city neokoros come from? There is only limited information available, for the cities, much less the koina, of the eastern Roman empire seldom inscribed their financial matters in stone.10 Also, virtually all the evidence comes from Asia; other koina may have differed in how they dealt with their own projects. For example, the younger Pliny’s letters from Bithynia show both his and Trajan’s concern for possible misappropriations, peculations, and sheer failures of building projects in the province.11 Pliny, however, apparently concentrated his investigations on the finances 10 11

Deininger 1965, 156-158. Harris 1964; Talbert 1980; S. Mitchell 1984.

of Bithynian cities, not of the koinon. Indeed, as the province shows no evidence of having built more than a single koinon temple up to Trajan’s time, that of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia, its expenses were likely devoted more to its festivals and embassies than to building projects. Asia’s first koinon temple, that of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon, was built ‘by Asia,’ that is, at the expense of the koinon and likely under the direction of its officials. Later, the hymnodes of Rome and Augustus were also maintained by a levy on the entire province. No contemporary document states how contributions were assessed, though it is likely that, as later, payments were organized by judicial district, and judicial district centers paid the highest amount (see below).12 Thirty years earlier, however, Asia had offered to build ‘a temple and monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus, and in this case the member cities appear to have decreed the funds each would contribute to the project from the outset, rather than taking them from any accumulated koinon budget or central fisc. It is noteworthy that Cicero refused the honor, keeping his eye squarely on the reaction of Rome rather than that of the Asians.13 For the second koinon temple, that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate in Smyrna, the Senate assigned a special commissioner to the proconsul of Asia to take charge of the temple. This does not mean that Rome was to fund the building, but more likely that the authorities thought it best to have a man on the spot to see that the Asians did not overspend their budget or misallocate funds, leaving the temple incomplete. After all, Kyzikos had been disciplined just one year previously, in 25 C.E., for failing to complete its shrine to Augustus. Later, when the temple at Smyrna collapsed in the great earthquake of ca. 177, Aelius Aristides (Oration 19.13) wrote that it could be rebuilt with the help of Asia, and only imperial approval, not funds, was needed. Construction on the temple of Gaius at Miletos, likely the Didymaion, was also the work of the province as a whole, and was supervised by its representatives, the neopoioi of the thirteen judicial districts of the koinon. Craftsmen of Asia probably worked on the same project, and may have been paid out of pooled provincial funds or those voted by their cities, though the emperor himself may also have 12 13

Habicht 1975, 90. Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.26.

chapter played some role in underwriting the great unfinished temple where his cult was to join or supplant Apollo’s. Numerous dedications to Domitian for the koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos were set up by various cities over a period of around three years. Those found so far are only from cities of Asia: Aizanoi (two copies), Keretapa, Klazomenai, Philadelphia, Silandos, Teos, Kyme, Tmolos, Hyrkanis, and Synaos, and the free cities Aphrodisias and Stratonikeia.14 Perhaps these represent members of the koinon whose contributions built the new temple, though they could also commemorate participation in the dedication ceremonies; the two lists would largely coincide. Later, at the time of Ephesos’ third neokoria, another series of dedications, this time set up by Ephesos, commemorated cities outside the koinon such as Carthage, and may represent these cities’ participation in a worldwide festival held at Ephesos. We cannot rule out such outside participation for the earlier temple; so the dedications for the temple of the Augusti should still be called those of ‘celebrants’ rather than ‘contributors.’ Probably in the time of Trajan, Dio Chrysostomos gave a speech of praise to the people of Apamea in Phrygia. He pointed out that it was an argument for the city’s power and high status that it paid the largest assessment possible, sharing in “the sanctuaries of Asia” and paying as much of their expenses as any city in which they were situated.15 It seems clear that he is referring to cities with koinon temples; when Dio gave his speech, these would have included Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos. Dio’s statement also implies that cities contributed to the koinon on a sliding scale according to their status and ability to pay; Apamea was one of Asia’s thirteen judicial centers, as Dio observes, and so contributed at the highest rate.16 Funding arrangements for building a koinon temple likely differed from those for other expenses incurred by Asia. For one thing, it occurred seldom, at least until the time of Hadrian when his temples proliferated. It required a large initial contribution from all koinon members, and possibly also the assignment of supervisors and a workforce for the 14 Friesen 1993, 29-49; on the Macedonian settlement of Hyrkanis, Cohen 1995, 209-212. 15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; C. Jones 1978, 6869. 16 Sartre 1995, 198-201.

39

– the temples

313

cities grouped according to judicial center, as in the case of Miletos under Gaius. Once the temple was built, however, expenses became much lighter, merely the costs for hymnodoi if any, regular rituals and sacrifices, etc. Festivals, on the other hand, involved heavy costs each time they were celebrated. Thus when private citizens founded contests, they often gave a large initial endowment, the income from which was to pay for the festival. It is possible that the koinon too may have set up such endowments, thus avoiding the necessity of making its members pay large yearly or quadrennial assessments.17 Of course, chief priests and agonothetai would make substantial contributions toward or even endow provincial festivals, as when C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus paid for the Traianeia Deiphileia at Pergamon. Hadrian was known for being favorable to Greek cities and generous with imperial funds, and his projects in the provinces went far beyond the normal range of imperial building (generally earthquake relief and large schemes requiring military engineering).18 Some sources state that two great temples to Hadrian’s own cult, that at Kyzikos and that at Smyrna, were in fact built out of funds given by the emperor. The foundation of the temple at Kyzikos was connected with Hadrian’s benefaction after an earthquake, and it was once compared to the Olympieion in Athens as a long-unfinished project completed out of the public purse. Likely Hadrian made a grant of money to Kyzikos, some of which the city may have diverted to its share in the construction costs of this huge temple. When another earthquake struck, Marcus Aurelius went before the Senate and gave a speech asking for assistance to the Kyzikenes; again, some of the relief funds may have been devoted to the temple, which was finally dedicated about five years later. Yet an epigram copied by Cyriacus indicates that all Asia joined in the construction, perhaps in the same way that it had in Gaius’ temple at Miletos. In the case of Smyrna, Philostratos states that Hadrian gave the city ten million drachmai, out of which it built a grain market and a gymnasium as well as the temple; an inscription puts the emperor’s gift at a more modest one and a half million. In any case, when a gen17 Wörrle 1988; for the Republican period, Erkelenz 1999, 49-53. 18 Winter 1996, 67-138, 196-199, 232-236; S. Mitchell 1987; MacMullen 1959.

314

part ii – summary chapters

erous emperor stood ready to pour money into building projects, it may be imagined that the koinon and city would gladly accept. After all, Asia eventually would build three major temples to Hadrian, these two and the later one at Ephesos. The third century witnessed an explosion in the number of temples in Asia that made their cities neokoroi, but information on how they were funded is scanty, and there is a distinct possibility that few new temples were actually built. As mentioned before, Caracalla’s cult was moved into several already extant temples, saving money that presumably would have been spent on building them. Caracalla ‘founded’ an apparently new temple at Philadelphia, though that was likely done just by granting the neokoria, not by donating the money. But by the mid-third century, Philadelphia was trying to get out of its contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of chief priesthoods and of festivals. The motive for this request may have been Philadelphia’s wish to take on the status of a metropolis itself, but it is also true that while temples and festivals had multiplied, times were harder. It may be, then, that the system of city contributions to koinon functions was under strain, or even breaking down. Philadelphia in fact won its exemption from the emperor Valerian. To sum up the evidence, the koinon of Asia probably built its temples with money voted by its member cities at the inception of a project. Assessments seem to have been made according to size or importance of the cities, with the thirteen judicial district centers contributing the most. A neopoios from each judicial district was likely appointed to a board of overseers; they may have supervised a team of craftsmen or workers from each district, or may simply have taken care of how the money was spent. From the point at which the offer of a koinon temple was accepted by the emperor and permitted by the Senate, the city in which it stood became neokoros, not waiting until the completion of the building (see below). The koinon’s funding process did not exclude the grants of benefactors, however, whether imperial or private. When neokoriai proliferated in the third century, however, funds were scarcer, donors and officers less willing to serve and less generous when they did, and even imperial projects (with the exception of military buildings) fell away.19 Cities still competed to become neokoroi, but expenses could

be saved by moving the imperial cult into an older temple. Construction Times Once a koinon temple had been decreed, the funds for it allotted, and the petition finally accepted by the emperor and Senate, how long did it take for it to be built? Once again, with a few exceptions, evidence chiefly comes from the koinon of Asia. One such exception is Ankyra, whose temple of Augustus and Rome was built by the koinon of the Galatians. The last Galatian king, Amyntas, died in 25 B.C.E. The organization of Galatia as a Roman province, from which point its era began, has been variously dated, but ranges between 25/24 and 2220 B.C.E. On the left anta of the temple itself is preserved a list of priests of the Galatians “of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome”; the term of the first priest on the list may be dated to 19-20 C.E., but it is quite possible that the beginning of the list was inscribed elsewhere and did not survive. Thus the temple of Augustus and Rome can only have vague dates within a range of forty years or more to cover the time needed for its planning and construction. This period is comparable to that of the Forum of Augustus in Rome, vowed in 42 and dedicated in 2 B.C.E., though the length of that project may have been due to its long-delayed start.20 Even the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, begun under Tiberius, was only ‘finished’ under Nero.21 Back in Asia, there is more data for the earlier temple of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon. Augustus granted permission for it to be built when he was still in the East, in 29 B.C.E. According to an inscription of Mytilene, it was in process of construction ‘by Asia’ in 27 B.C.E. The earliest date for silver cistophori of Asia that show the temple standing in full detail is 19 B.C.E.; though buildings could be portrayed on coins before they were built, there is no sign that that is so here, since the early depictions do not disagree with later ones.22 So from acceptance to erection, the temple probably took ten years. Asia’s temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate had a slower start. Though initially offered and 20 21

19

Winter 1996, 232.

22

Steinby 1993-2000, 2:289-295 (V. Kockel). Rockwell 1990; Smith 1987. Burnett 1999, 141-142.

chapter accepted in 23 C.E., it took three years more before the field of cities vying for it could be narrowed down to eleven contestants. The Senate decided for Smyrna in 26 C.E., and the temple soon appears in some detail on coins issued between 29/30 and 34/ 35 C.E. A priest of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate is documented by 29-31 C.E., but it is not certain that he served in Smyrna. This temple may have been built quite speedily, and was probably standing within a decade from the decision to build it at Smyrna. From current evidence, it seems that the koinon of Asia introduced the cult of Gaius into the temple of Apollo at Didyma, which was not only one of the most enormous buildings of the Greco-Roman world but one that had been started early in the third century B.C.E. and was still under construction. Inscriptions document that some work was done during Gaius’ reign, and the first board of koinon officials responsible for the building dedicated a statue of Gaius in 40/41. That emperor, however, was killed on January 24, 41 C.E. in Rome, ending the Didymaion’s career as a koinon temple. As we shall see, there were to be other huge projects long unfinished among the temples that made their cities neokoroi. The next koinon temple of Asia known is Ephesos’ temple of the Augusti. Much of its history has been obscured, however, by misinterpretations. An early appearance of a temple and the word ‘neokoros’ on Ephesian coins dated to 65/66 may indicate that the koinon temple was originally to be for Nero. His death and the condemnation of his memory in 68 put the project into limbo. We hear no more of it until the city again began to be called neokoros, this time specifically ‘of the Augusti,’ perhaps by 85/86; the title also appears on dedications that were likely set up around the temple’s own precinct between 88/89 and 90/91. Though the dedications were to the current emperor, Domitian, the temple is called ‘the common temple of Asia of the Augusti in Ephesos,’ a colossal statue found there represents the emperor Titus, and later inscriptions call it the temple of Vespasian. If this is the temple that had appeared on coins of Nero, it took twenty to twentyfive years to complete. On the other hand, if the honor of a koinon temple had been granted by Nero, lost after his death, stymied by changes of emperor and dynasty, and eventually regranted by Vespasian, a twenty-odd-year lapse would not seem so out of line with the decade needed for more straightforward

39

– the temples

315

projects like the temples at Pergamon and at Smyrna. In addition, Ephesos’ new temple was set on a large, vaulted artificial terrace that would have been a project in itself. Unfortunately the dating material from the excavation of this area has not been fully published, since a Domitianic date was assumed. Certainly work went on there even later, as both the altar and the architectural decoration of the terrace’s facade may date to the mid-second century. The temple that made Pergamon twice neokoros, that of Zeus Philios and Trajan, was granted somewhere between August 114 and February 116, and appeared in detail on coins issued before the emperor’s death in 117. This speedy start on the temple itself did not carry through to the entire project, however. The porticoes on either side of the temple’s precinct and the wing buildings attached to them were only constructed later, likely after 135, at the end of Hadrian’s reign. Like the Didymaion, the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos was renowned both for its colossal size and for remaining long unfinished. It was granted as early as 123 or 124 C.E., but the huge scope of the project (even necessitating the invention of new techniques of building, according to Aelius Aristides) slowed it down. A chief priest of this temple was recorded perhaps as early as Hadrian’s reign. It did not appear on coins until late in the reign of Antoninus Pius, but an earthquake hit the city shortly before Pius’ death in March 161 and threw the temple down. Nonetheless, it was dedicated with an oration by Aelius Aristides in 166 or 167. This construction span of over forty years eclipses even the twenty-plus years of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, much less the ten of the early temples at Pergamon and Smyrna. On the other hand, this temple was on such a scale that over forty years seems reasonable, even brief, considering the earthquake. Since its unfinished state became rather a byword, it is in fact possible that, like the Didymaion, the temple at Kyzikos was dedicated and in use before it was ever completed. Ephesos became neokoros for a temple to Hadrian sometime between 130/131 and 132. Yet there was still only a provincial chief priest ‘of the temple’ in Ephesos as late as 134/135, which shows that though the city was twice neokoros, the second temple was not yet standing. It is likely, however, that the ‘temple of Lord Hadrian Caesar’ was complete enough for Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantos to serve

316

part ii – summary chapters

as the first chief priest of two temples at Ephesos before the emperor’s death in 138. We turn from the province of Asia to Sagalassos in Pisidia. A temple of Antoninus Pius has been identified by the inscription honoring that emperor and his house on the building’s architrave. Some scholars, however, have preferred to call the temple Hadrianic, basing their date on the style of architectural sculpture that decorates the temple, and positing an initial dedication to Hadrian, a long building period, completion after Hadrian’s death in 138, and a final dedication to Antoninus Pius. The pious Antoninus is unlikely to have usurped Hadrian’s temple, however, while it is very possible that a team of architectural sculptors should have been working in something other than an up-to-theminute fashion. If anything, the architectural style may indicate a very short building period, early in Antoninus’ reign; but one would need further data for proof. It is not even certain that this temple conferred neokoria on Sagalassos. Sardis became twice neokoros for the cult of Antoninus Pius, and the history of its temple should give some last caveats on interpreting the intersection between a temple’s function, its history of construction, and when it can be called finished. For at Sardis, the cult of the emperors was introduced into a far older temple, that of Artemis. Begun perhaps in the third century B.C.E. as a colossal dipteros, it was redesigned as a pseudodipteros. After the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E., despite aid from the emperor Tiberius, the rebuilding of the temple continued slowly if at all: it seems that most of its side colonnades were never even erected. Nonetheless Sardian Artemis’ cult remained one of the greatest in the city, with asylum status; her priestesses were eminent; and the cella of her temple was divided and one half devoted to the imperial cult that made Sardis twice neokoros. So how long should we say that the temple’s construction lasted? In a sense, the temple was always under construction, never fully finished. Yet priestesses of Artemis as well as chief priests of Asia served and sacrificed there, and colossal statues stood within. One may say, then, that the cult image and the sacrifice signal a functioning temple rather than a ‘finished’ one; this distinction applies to all the temples discussed above, except where direct archaeological evidence can show that every part of the temple planned was actually built.

Temples in Urban Space Placing a new koinon temple in the extant fabric of a city must have presented problems to the planners. When new shrines were brought into a city, generally the city itself was new, and the shrines not large.23 The reverse was true of the neokoroi. Again, how prominent koinon shrines were accommodated in extant cities is best studied in the eleven temples known directly from their remains, all but four of which are in Asia. Two temples did not have to be inserted, as they already existed: the temple of Apollo at Didyma, and that of Artemis at Sardis. In both cases, though, the temple chosen to receive the imperial cult was the most prominent temple of the city. The same situation applies, of course, to the temples of Artemis that made Magnesia and Ephesos neokoroi for the goddess. These precincts had already existed for centuries. By contrast, Aizanoi’s new Hadrianic urban plan made the temple of Zeus, for which the city became neokoros, its centerpiece. Other cities either had to rework or to create land to ensure the new temple a prominent place in the city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti was placed on an artificial platform, both to overcome the irregularity of the terrain and to let the koinon temple loom over the state agora’s civic buildings and shrines; later additions may have made the side of the terrace a sort of triumphal monument, with sculptured barbarians lined up as in the Forum of Trajan at Rome. At Pergamon, the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was also built on a new high terrace, over remains of the Hellenistic palace compound, and several monuments of the kings had to be transplanted there. It is difficult to tell what form the previous buildings on the Pergamene akropolis had taken, but it is likely that the new complex completely changed the shape of the city’s heights, and may have even determined the line of its new street grid. From that point on, the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan, with its terrace overlooking the Pergamene acropolis, both crowned and dominated the city. To make a place for an enormous temenos, Ephesos reclaimed and filled in the marshy land near its harbor, and built what was likely the temple to Hadrian that made the city twice neokoros. Indeed, all Hadrian’s temples in Asia appear to have been 23

Jost 1994.

chapter monumental buildings visible from the sea. Ephesos’ was close to the harbor, and Smyrna’s was said to have “challenged Mimas” across the straits. According to Aelius Aristides, Kyzikos’ temple not only competed with mountains, but was so great a landmark that navigators sailing to Kyzikos would no longer need beacon fires to guide them. Excavations at Kyzikos have borne out this picture, as the temple was erected on flat open land in the westernmost part of the city, just northeast of its built harbor. It faced east, and thus turned its south flank to ships sailing along the bay. Kyzikos’ temple, however, does not appear to have been set in the midst of a great temenos like that at Ephesos. Instead, an expansive walled courtyard or agora adjoined it on the north side, and may have included an arcaded portico. Some of the temples that made their cities neokoroi were built in proximity to theaters and festival complexes. The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon loomed above the city’s theater; the likely temple of Hadrian at Ephesos was not far from the city’s stadium; and the pseudodipteros at Sardis was not far from, and apparently on the same orientation as, the stadium and theater. But, where datable, these entertainment venues predate the temples and were placed to benefit from the natural slope of the terrain. The temples of the neokoroi, then, cannot be called theater temples. Indeed, large koinon temples, like stadia, had to be placed where they would fit, and both were often put in newer and less built-up districts. Of the four temples known outside the province Asia, Ankyra’s temple of Augustus and Rome seems to have been centrally located on top of the city’s citadel. It must be admitted that not much is known of Ankyra’s plan, but this temple was likely one of its earliest and most important monuments, built when the urban armature was still fairly open. Further excavation is needed to fill in the urban history of Sagalassos, but certainly the broad terrace and axial entry of the temple of Antoninus Pius were built to dominate the city’s southern approach. The temple at Tarsos, on the other hand, was apparently built well outside the ancient town, probably due to its great size. The position of Neapolis’ temple on Tell er-Ras was likely determined by the sacred status of Mt. Gerizim, from whose slopes the temple looked north over the city. Temple and city were connected by a long staircase and propylon. Orientation of the temples varied, again based on the lay of the land and of extant monuments in the

39

– the temples

317

city. At Ephesos, the temple of the Augusti faced east, while that likely to be Hadrian’s faced south. The temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan faced southsouthwest, in order to take best advantage of its position on the Pergamene akropolis, overlooking the city. Location on a height also determined the orientation of the temple on Tell er-Ras over Neapolis (north) and likely that of Ankyra (southwest). The temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos, built on flat ground, faced east toward the older core of the city, while the temple at Tarsos that was probably dedicated to Commodus faced northeast, away from its city. The pseudodipteros on the lower slopes of Sardis’ acropolis likely faced southeast, aligned towards the city’s theater and stadium. The temple of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos faced west, toward the city’s southern gate. And of course, the temples that had previously served other deities maintained their orientation, though a divided cella at Sardis let the Antonine imperial family face east while the goddess Artemis still faced west. To sum up, the temples of the neokoroi tended to be large, prominently placed, and when newly built, Corinthian. They also tended to follow Hellenistic rather than contemporary Roman models, and to be fairly conservative in their decorative programs. Beyond that, they followed no cookiecutter pattern, but were adapted to conditions in the cities where they were built. Cult Statues The objects of worship within these temples were statues of the emperors, members of their families, and deities or personifications who shared the cult. Some fragments of statuary have been found in the ruins of the temples; some images can be identified from coins. As other evidence for the cult practiced within the provincial imperial temples is scanty, an analysis of these statues, where identifiable, is crucial. The accent is on ‘identifiable’ because it is difficult to say which statues were cult statues, here defined as statues that were prominent within the temple and represented the object(s) of cult.24 Even colossal, not to mention life-sized, portraits of emperors could simply be honorifics, whether set up in 24

Donohue 1997 is cautionary.

318

part ii – summary chapters

a temple or anywhere else around the city. For example, the Athenians set up a colossus of Hadrian behind their Olympieion among other portraits of the emperor, and there were four other statues of Hadrian in front of the temple, but none are mentioned inside; the cult statue was a gold and ivory Zeus.25 Even in ancient terms, the line between a ‘likeness’ (eikon) and what is often called a ‘cult statue’ (agalma) was not always as clear as archaeologists would like; a cult statue could be a likeness, but a few likenesses were classed as cult statues; and the limits of the definitions could vary with time and place. When the technitai of Dionysos in the second century B.C.E. honored Ariarathes V of Cappadocia with both an agalma and an eikon, the statues when discussed together were called eikones.26 In the first century B.C.E., private individuals were honored with “a marble agalma” or “a colossal golden eikon.”27 The latter may have honored the recipient on an equal level with gods, but may not have stood in a temple. On the other hand, a ‘colossal eikon’ of Hadrian may have been the object of worship in the Panhellenion at Athens.28 Nor does style of dress necessarily determine whether a statue represented an individual as god or mortal. To quote two early examples, a cuirassed statue of Attalos III was classed as an agalma and worshipped as a cult partner of Asklepios Soter at Pergamon, while an Italian businessman had himself depicted as a heroically naked colossus as a dedication to Apollo at Delos.29 Given that gold or ivory statues rarely survive, that a statue when found is not often labeled agalma or eikon, that few statues have been found actually in a temple’s cella, and that colossi were not always cult statues, the entire discussion that follows here contains many elements of uncertainty. To top it off, all the evidence we have only represents a tiny proportion of what once existed. Not only are the vast majority of cult statues lost, but we have only indirect evidence of the honors that were once offered to them, possibly including sacrifice, offerings of incense, crowning, clothing, 25 Pausanias 1.18.6. The hips and belly of a colossal standing naked male were indeed found in the Olympieion: Willers 1990, 46-48, pls. 6.1-2, 4.4-6. 26 Nock 1930b, 22; S. Price 1984b, 176-179. 27 Kreikenbom 1992, 39-51; Tuchelt 1979, 68-70; Pekáry 1978 and 1985, 56-57, 66-83. 28 Nock 1930b, 32-33. 29 Attalos III: OGIS I no. 332; Stemmer 1978, 137. The businessman C. Ofellius Ferus: Kreikenbom 1992, 40-41, 141142.

or anointing the statue, lighting torches before it, carrying it in procession or into festivals in the emperor’s honor, presenting hymns or orations before it, or revealing it, as the focus of imperial mysteries.30 One must also consider that the original intention for a statue (whether agalma or not) does not necessarily indicate how it was treated throughout its existence, or what rituals may have been practiced or omitted in connection with it. Most of the identifiable images dealt with here were found in the vicinity of the temples themselves, or among their debris, and are of colossal size. Though not assured as being cult statues, these colossi were at least prominent images in the temples; koinon temples were generally large and colossi would have dominated the space effectively. Also, each of the statues so far found has been acrolithic. In this technique, a statue was built on a wooden core, with only the flesh and extremities (head, hands, legs, feet) of marble; clothing was represented in wood, which could then be covered in sheet metal, gilt, or paint.31 This was a method particularly appropriate to colossal statues: it lessened the weight of the image, was easier to manipulate than either a monolith or jointed stone sculpture of so great a size, and probably gave the impressive appearance of an ivory and golden image while being far less expensive. Though metal and paint would have protected acroliths to some extent, their wooden-dowelled structure was sensitive to weather, and most would have been set up in roofed areas. Many of the colossi found vary in some respect from the standard models of imperial portraits disseminated from Rome.32 Some of this difference is due to the visual tricks needed to remake a portrait to such a giant scale: facial features would be regularized and idealized, while the eyes were enlarged so that they would not appear small or squinted in a face seen only from an angle far below.33 Making the ruler appear heroic or godlike also affected the image: even an aged or veristic imperial portrait could get a dynamic turn to the head, longer windtossed locks of hair, a wide high brow, arched eyes, and a breathing mouth.34 These features were also 30

1965. 31

Pekáry 1985, 107-143; S. Price 1984b, 188-191; Pleket

Despinis 1975. Rose 1997a, 57-59; Riccardi 1996 (though the general point is not best proved by study of ‘crisis’ years). 33 Kreikenbom 1992, 113. 34 Zanker 1983, 15-25, 44, 47. 32

chapter characteristic of the sculptural ateliers of Asia Minor, with their Hellenistic ‘baroque’ background typified by the Pergamon altar of Zeus. Local sculptors were not always so adept at producing acceptable portraits: Arrian, on his voyage around the Black Sea, wrote to Hadrian that he had seen a statue of him at Trapezous, in a good location and making a grand gesture toward the sea, but it was a poor likeness and a bad statue in any case, and Arrian asked him to send another.35 But it was the local style, not just the poor likeness, that displeased Arrian, for he also asked the emperor to send better cult statues for the temple of Hermes, specifying the sizes (five feet for Hermes, four for his cult partner and descendant Philesios) that would be suitable for the space. The local sculptors’ work may have suited the locals, if not Arrian; or it may have simply been the best their sculptors could produce. Of extant remains that may have been from cult statues in neokoroi cities, the earliest yet known is the colossal Titus found in the substructures of the temple of the Augusti at Ephesos (illus. pl. 8 figs. 26, 27). Any official portrait of Titus that the Asians may have used as a model probably resembled his statues found in Italy: an affable strongman, benevolent prince, scion of hearty Italian stock, as portrayed most carefully by artists who decorated the sturdy Republican model with touches of Flavian sculptural elegance. Once in Asia, however, the image changed to such an extent that one cannot really distinguish which portrait type inspired it. There was no need for restraint or hints at the ruler’s civilitas. The Ephesian portrait is intended to portray a god made manifest, or at least a ruler into whom godhead has been breathed. The most obvious way of achieving this effect was simply to increase the size. At about four times lifesize, the sheer scale of the statue could awe the credulous and impress the sophisticated. But then the sculptor faced a conflict between nature and art. To portray an apotheosized Alexander the Great was no problem; according to all accounts he fit the Greek notion of the heroic physiognomy anyway. But what to do with the pudgy face and homely features of Titus, who must be made to look like a god and nonetheless retain his recognizability as a Roman emperor? The sculptor did the best he could. Titus’ wrinkled forehead becomes a lowering brow, 35

Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1.

39

– the temples

319

under which the eyes are made larger and deeper set. The mouth, in Roman portraits usually set in a prim smile, now opens to breathe divine aither; the emperor’s crisp, wavy hair becomes heavy, baroque curls; and the entire head strains to the left on a neck whose muscularity hints at the treatment given to the rest of the body. The final effect may not be quite what the artist had in mind: Titus, though not precisely godlike, has nonetheless ceased to be human, and the total impression is as strange as it is awesome. It is likely that the statue was cuirassed, and raised a sceptre in his left hand. An isolated third hand shows that Titus had at least one colossal companion, though their placement is uncertain. Possibly when the temple was dedicated, in the reign of Domitian, cuirassed figures of Titus and Domitian stood in mirror poses on either side of an image of their father Vespasian. Titus’ head may have been doweled for further support into a wall or niche, another indication that it stood within the temple rather than outside, and is more likely to be a cult statue. Fragments of three statues were found in the debris of the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon. They too were colossal, but only about two and a half times lifesize. The parts of the statue of Zeus Philios that have been discovered show that the god was enthroned; and there are enough body fragments to identify two standing statues with well preserved portrait heads, one of Trajan, the other of his successor Hadrian (illus. pl. 7 figs. 24, 25). Both were portrayed in the same pose, right arm raised and left arm lowered, and dressed in armor. Coins that portray the cult images, however, only show Zeus and Trajan, not Hadrian. Apparently the Pergamenes had wanted to erect a new temple for Hadrian, but he only allowed them to set up an eikon of him in the temple of his father. Though the portrait of Trajan shares certain traits with that of Titus (parted lips, sweeping curves in the hair, a certain broadening of scale necessary to adapt the portrait to colossal dimensions), its sculptural style is more restrained and classical. This was also typical of its Roman model, which can be dated ca. 109-113. In contrast, the head of Hadrian seems fussy and overworked: the forehead wrinkles and bulges, the hair appears crimped with large drilled curls, even the eyebrows are ruffled. Its model has been dated around 131, and Hadrian indeed granted

320

part ii – summary chapters

permission for this eikon at the end of his reign. Still, Zanker noted that these statues are closer to their Roman prototypes than the ‘Asianized’ Titus.36 The two emperors were portrayed as equals, parallel in dress and stance, not as an interacting pair. This is natural if one was set up later than the other, but even Trajan and Zeus Philios, as shown on coins, were turned toward each other but did not interact. How the statues would have been placed in the temple is uncertain. It may be instructive to compare this temple with the temple of Augustus and Rome at Lepcis Magna (a city that was not neokoros) in Tripolitania. In that temple, two separate cellas were reserved for the enthroned acrolithic statue of Augustus and for the goddess Rome, while an enthroned statue of Tiberius and one of his mother, Augustus’ wife Livia, must have been placed elsewhere, probably in the pronaos.37 There were at least six colossal acrolithic figures in or around the temple that made Sardis twice neokoros (illus. pls. 11-17 figs. 32-45). These included Antoninus Pius and his wife Faustina the Elder, and four figures that may have represented their sons and sons’ wives: Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, and Lucius Verus and Lucilla. Enough fragments have been found to show that Antoninus was four times life size, naked, diademed, enthroned, and may have held a sceptre, in the pose of Zeus. The sculptural treatment is baroque, with dramatic light-and-dark effects produced by skillful drillwork. Hair and beard fall into unruly, flamelike curls and the lips are slightly parted; the head was turned strongly to the left. Faustina was more composed; her neck inclines only slightly to the right and her lips are barely parted. She was over three times life size, and so on a smaller scale than her husband, either as a sign of lower status or, if she was standing, in order to bring her closer to his seated statue’s height. Her wide, blank eyes are probably designed to be seen from below; her hair also shows the strong effects of the running drill, and she probably wore a veil added in painted, gilt, or metal-sheathed wood. These two, probably in the guise of Zeus and Hera, were almost certainly the main cult statues of the imperial group, he enthroned at the viewer’s left, she seated or standing at the viewer’s right. The other four colossi were similar in sculptural treatment and effect, though not enough parts have been found to

show whether they stood or were seated. One male, here identified as Lucius Verus, probably wore armor. Where the mouths are preserved, the females’ lips are just parted, while the males breathe more dramatically. Though the Faustina the Elder comes closest to its Roman prototype, all the statues depart from their models considerably, and show common traits in the treatment of hair and beards that may indicate the work of a local atelier. Like the Antoninus Pius, the two males were approximately four times lifesize, while the two females were closer to three, even smaller than the statue of Faustina the Elder. If their identifications as Faustina the Younger and Lucilla are correct, the difference in scale may again reflect hierarchy, this time among the generations: the one would have been her daughter, the other her granddaughter. The latter was likely veiled as well. There are not many precedents for this large an imperial family group among colossi. One is from Africa, and its temple was municipal, not provincial. The temple whose frieze bears a dedication to the Gens Septimia Aurelia at Cuicul (Djemila) in Numidia was finished ca. 229 under Severus Alexander; the inscription details his lineage through his ‘father’ Caracalla back to Trajan (skipping Hadrian and of course Elagabalus).38 Found in the temple were colossal acrolithic heads of Septimius Severus (head and neck 1.10 m. tall, about four times lifesize) and Julia Domna (probably once veiled).39 The cella itself was large for a mere tetrastyle Corinthian temple, 11.10 m. wide including the walls; at the back was a crosswall, possibly supporting a base for cult statues ca. 2.85 m. deep and as wide as the whole cella. This confined viewpoint may explain the stiff frontality of the preserved colossi. Two Corinthian colonnades flanked the temple, and at the back of the precinct on each side were two niches, one inside and one outside each colonnade, probably for four colossi of the family. The names of Severus Alexander and Julia Mamaea were most prominent on the facade, but were then erased after their death and the condemnation of their memories. It is likely that their statues (or at least heads) were removed at that point, and the heads of Severus and Domna, formerly perhaps in the side niches, were put in their places. Thus Septimius Severus and his wife, the 38

36 37

Zanker 1983, 24. Rose 1997a, 182-184 no. 125, with bibliography.

39

134.

Pensabene 1992; Cagnat 1913, 41-46. McCann 1968, 153 no. 45 pl. 53; Schlüter 1971, 83-84,

chapter elders of the Septimii, eventually reigned in the cella, as Antoninus Pius and his wife probably did at Sardis. The temple at Sardis was large, and had a backto-back divided cella. As it had rights of asylum for the cult of Artemis, it is likely that the goddess still ruled in her west-facing cella, while the imperial cult was set up in the new eastern-opening cella. The torsion in the necks of the colossi, where preserved, hints that they were made to be viewed from different aspects, not strictly from the front, as at Cuicul. At least one of the colossi, that possibly of Lucius Verus, shows evidence of water having trickled down its neck while it was still in an upright position; thus it may have been exposed to the elements, despite being acrolithic. Perhaps Antoninus Pius and Faustina the Elder ruled as Zeus and Hera on the single pedestal in the eastern cella, while their successors and their wives, at least four statues, were placed either among the columns on either side of the cella or two by two in the eastern porch, perhaps on either side of the stairs that led into the cella. Fragments of colossal statuary have also been found around the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos and at that likely to be the temple of Commodus at Tarsos, but so far they are too scanty to be interpreted. The statues from the temples of the neokoroi share certain significant traits. All are colossal, impressing the beholder with sheer size (though admittedly, the observation is tautological, as colossality is one of the features that identified them as cult statues). All are acrolithic, in order to lighten the immense weight that a colossus brings to bear, and perhaps as well to introduce more elaborate effects with metal additions, gilding, and/or painting. The likelihood is that these acrolithic colossi stood within the temple, and that at least some of them had the status of cult statues. Finally, all show the deepset eyes, turned head, and parted lips that denote their status as divinities or divinely inspired mortals. In the one case where we have statues of both the emperor and the deity with whom he shared the temple, Trajan and Zeus Philios, the two are the same size, though the god is seated and the emperor stands. At Sardis, where the emperors are grouped with their consorts, the men are all on the largest scale, the senior empress next, and her female descendants smaller, though the range is only between four times life size at the largest and three times at the smallest. Two of the Sardian female colossi were

39

– the temples

321

probably veiled, while Antoninus Pius was shown in godlike undress; the Lucius Verus at Sardis, along with Trajan and Hadrian at Pergamon and Titus at Ephesos, appeared in military costume. Cult Statues on Coins A good deal of additional information can be discovered from observing imperial cult statues as shown on coins. Though they cannot give us any idea of the size of the original images, they do indicate how the statues appeared when they were intact, how they were set within the temple, what relationship they bore to one another, and under what aspect the emperors were portrayed. It is important to consider certain numismatic conventions, however. The most secure case is when the image stands on a pedestal within a labeled temple, and is repeated over a period of time yet still preserves its peculiarities of stance, costume and attributes. These characteristics should indicate that the statue was still standing as a model, or at least as a check, for the die-cutter, and also that it was still recognizable to the populace among whom the coin was current. One must also note that generalized images in military dress often simply mean ‘an emperor’ rather than any specific statue. These were used when space was limited or when the coin design was otherwise rough or schematic. For example, we know that the original cult image of Tiberius at Smyrna was togate, yet when all three of Smyrna’s temples are crowded onto one coin, the small figure in the temple labeled with his name wears military dress. Thus it is always possible that such imperial images on coins do not reflect the actual cult statues. On the other hand, if we did not have the remains of the cuirassed colossus of Trajan from Pergamon, we might wonder whether its representation on coins was just such a conventional image. The statues of Augustus and Rome at Pergamon are best observed on the silver cistophori; the civic bronze issues are freer in design, cruder in execution, and often omit the figure of Rome. Augustus, in military dress and with a spear or staff in his right hand, stands in strong contrapposto looking back at Rome, who raises a wreath to crown him; she is costumed as a city goddess and holds a cornucopia. Though the size of the statues is impossible to calculate from coin images, the goddess and the emperor must have been on the same scale, as she raises

322

part ii – summary chapters

her arm to hold the wreath over his head. The same pair, with minor variations, is seen on coins from Claudius to Trajan. The various statues in the temple of Rome and Augustus at Nikomedia are described more fully in chapter 15. The statue of Augustus was dressed as a Greek god, probably Zeus; he held a staff in his right hand and a small figure of Victory in his left. Accompanying him was Rome, this time in her usual helmeted guise. She stands to the right of Augustus, on some issues holding a palm branch in her left hand, and crowns him with a wreath as at Pergamon. Again, this relationship implies that Augustus and Rome were on the same scale. Some of the bronze coins include a third figure, a goddess in chiton and himation with a sceptre in her right hand. She is difficult to identify. The architrave of the temple is labeled “Rome, Senate, People, Augustus,” so it is possible that she personifies the Senate, though this figure would usually be male; another male figure occasionally shown in the temple probably represents the Genius of the Roman people. Sometimes, however, the emperor appears in armor; either the die-cutter was conventionalizing the image to make it more recognizable, or else there was a parallel statue group of a different emperor. The temple to Tiberius, his mother Julia, and the Senate at Smyrna had yet another kind of cult image. Tiberius is togate, as Pontifex Maximus, within his temple; his head is veiled, and he carries a priestly implement, the simpulum. The image is specifically Roman, and one wonders how much influence the Senatorial commissioner in charge of this temple had on the choice of its cult image. Tiberius’ two cult partners appear only as busts on the other side of the coin: the Senate has been personified as a young man, whereas the emperor’s mother is shown for the first time with the diadem of a goddess. We have already examined the actual cult statues from the temple of Trajan and Zeus Philios at Pergamon, and can compare them with the coin representations. Coins of Trajan and of Trajan Decius show the laureate and cuirassed Trajan, with a staff or spear in his left hand, standing to the right of his cult partner. The fragments of sculpture show no laurel wreath, but it could have been of metal, which would not have survived. The coins confirm that the statue of Trajan was cuirassed, but differ with respect to stance: they indicate the left leg as weight-bearing, whereas the coins show the figure’s

weight on the right leg. Similarly, among the fragments of sculpture is a right arm lifted to hold a staff, but the statue on the coins raises the staff in its left hand. That the pose of the sculpture reverses that of the coin image does not necessarily denigrate the accuracy of the coins. There are two possibilities: either the die-cutter reversed the stance in order to better integrate the image of the emperor with the composition of the coin type, or he simply cut the die as he saw the image, so that the coin, when struck, came out reversed. The coins’ version of Zeus Philios is enthroned at the viewer’s left, and holds up a short sceptre in his left hand. Though he and the emperor are turned toward one another, they do not interact the way the groups of Rome and Augustus did; but the sculptural remains show that they were on the same scale. What the coins do not indicate is the cuirassed statue of Hadrian whose remains were also found on the site. Of course the statue would not have appeared on coins of Trajan because Hadrian was not yet the designated successor. But the coin types for Trajan Decius, issued a century and a half later to play on the reappearance of Trajan’s name, confirm that the same images, Trajan and Zeus Philios, were still the main cult statues. It is uncertain where the colossus of Hadrian would have stood in his adoptive father’s temple at Pergamon. The coin representations of cult images that appear within the first temple that made Neokaisareia neokoros are fairly strange. Drawn out to adorn the facade, from one to three radiate or non-radiate busts hover about the temple; they may represent the Augusti, the emperors who were brought in to share the primary cult. The cult image itself is a naked male figure standing in contrapposto upon a tall pedestal; he holds a staff or spear in his left hand. This image is not incompatible with an emperor portrayed as a god. The appearance of two such images on Neokaisareia’s coins may indicate a situation similar to that in the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, where Hadrian’s statue looked much like Trajan’s. It is likely that the three figures in the temple that made Nikomedia twice neokoros, on a coin of Geta Augustus, are images of Septimius Severus and his sons, though they are too small to be distinctly identifiable. All are shown in military dress, and each raises his left arm to rest on a long staff or spear. All are in contrapposto, but the one on the left puts his weight on his left leg and leans in to the right,

chapter whereas the other two do the reverse, weight on right leg, leaning in to the left. This is an interesting treatment of a group of three, as all repeat the same gesture, and the two on the right are identical; the central figure is not marked out in any way, and it is otherwise difficult to tell which is the senior and which are the two junior Augusti. The image of Caracalla that stood in his temple in Philadelphia was unusual. As illustrated on coins, he wears a short tunic with a cloak over it, holds a sceptre over his left shoulder, and extends his right hand. He also wears the radiate crown so well known from the antoniniani issued during his reign. The element of portraiture is not lacking even on so small a representation, and Caracalla looks distinctly pudgy. Though he has some of the attributes of Helios, that god appears otherwise on coins of the same city: naked, running, with rays emanating from his head rather than spikes from a distinct crown. Caracalla (as well as Geta) had been ‘new Helios’ at Ephesos, and apparently was shown in that guise at Philadelphia too. Where the coins of Laodikeia show an imperial cult image, they seem to contradict themselves. One coin of an issue shows the emperor as togate, holding a libation bowl in his right hand; another shows an imperial statue wearing military dress and holding a sceptre in the left hand as well as the libation bowl in the right. The latter (if genuine) should represent a statue because it stands on a pedestal in its temple; the other could perhaps be the emperor himself sacrificing within a temple. On the other hand, the coins later declare that Laodikeia is neokoros of both Commodus and Caracalla, and it is likely that two different emperors are represented here. Coins of Ephesos’ fourth neokoria show the latest temple in the center, in the place of honor next to the temple of Artemis Ephesia. Within it stands the togate Elagabalus, while the two temples on the outside, representing that of the Augusti/Vespasian and that of Hadrian, only show cuirassed figures. At Hierapolis, however, Elagabalus is shown in military attire, with a sceptre in one hand and a libation bowl in the other. The coins of Aigeai do not show Severus Alexander in the temple he probably shared with Asklepios, but standing in front of it. The emperor is shown as laureate and in military dress, but carries a snake-entwined eagle sceptre, perhaps to show his assimilation to the god.

39

– the temples

323

Finally, coins of Side show perhaps the most unusual imperial cult image of all. The temple that made the city neokoros for Valerian and/or Gallienus is likely that shown between two others, and in it appears the tiny representation of an equestrian statue (and perhaps another statue standing behind the horse—a soldier?). Though such a statue would be perfectly suitable for an emperor, an equestrian cult statue within a temple would seem as odd as having a horse in the house. It is more likely that it stood somewhere else within the sanctuary, but was shown instead of the real cult statue because it was more recognizable. From both coins and actual images, the majority of emperors in the temples of the neokoroi appear in military dress. These include the images of Augustus at Pergamon; Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Geta at Nikomedia; either Commodus or Caracalla at Laodikeia; and Elagabalus at Hierapolis. Some of these images, of course, may be conventionalized, but three or four actual colossi also wore the cuirass: Titus at Ephesos, Trajan and Hadrian at Pergamon, and perhaps Lucius Verus at Sardis. The usual attributes are a laurel wreath and a staff or sceptre, occasionally also a libation bowl. Two images, though also cuirassed, had unusual attributes that may indicate assimilation to a deity: Caracalla was shown with a radiate crown, perhaps as Helios, at Philadelphia, and Severus Alexander with a snake-entwined eagle sceptre, similar to that of Asklepios, at Aigeai. Some imperial images were naked or half draped, more directly assimilated to gods or heroes. Thus Augustus at Nikomedia looked like Zeus Nikephoros, and the cult statue of Antoninus Pius at Sardis was likely naked, enthroned, and diademed, again like Zeus. The statue or statues in the temple that made Neokaisareia neokoros may have been naked and/ or radiate. Three emperors were shown as togate: Tiberius at Smyrna, either Commodus or Caracalla at Laodikeia, and Elagabalus at Ephesos. The former was specifically garbed as Pontifex Maximus, while the latter two probably wore the toga as a sign of civil status, as princeps. As for the unique equestrian statue of Valerian or Gallienus at Side, it probably stood before the temple rather than in it.

324

part ii – summary chapters

Emperors and Their Cult Partners It has long been held that when gods and emperors shared a temple, the gods’ cult was considered primary, whereas the emperors received lesser and more equivocal honors.40 But in most of the cases where this occurs, the imperial cult was introduced into a previously existing temple of the gods. We shall see that in the provincial temples, the principal cult was that of the emperors, and any gods who were introduced to share the temple were considered secondary. This hierarchy was natural; as chapter 42, ‘The Roman Powers,’ shows, when gods or personifications were specifically included in early temples, it was generally done to accommodate Roman attitudes rather than those of the provincials. The first and most famous cult partnership was that of Augustus with the goddess Rome. As Suetonius stated, “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.”41 It is evident from the placement of this anecdote among those of Augustus’ melting down his silver statues and not allowing a temple to himself to be built in Rome that this was one of the acts of politic modesty by which the first emperor impressed the Senate and secured his position in Rome.42 Such qualms about divinization probably puzzled the provincials, but the gesture was not aimed at them. Rome was indeed present in the three provincial cults of Augustus in question here, though her iconography and companions varied. In the temple at Pergamon she appeared as an unarmed city goddess with a cornucopia as her attribute. Her appearance was constant on the cistophori, intermittent on local bronzes of narrower circulation. Her secondary, or rather supplementary, position to Augustus is emphasized by the pose of her statue, which held a wreath of victory over his head; they are on the same scale, and though he could be illustrated independently (as on many bronze civic coins), she could not be shown crowning empty air. As early as 27 B.C.E., before the temple at Pergamon was even complete, the name of Rome could drop out and the temple be called simply that of Augustus, or later, the Sebasteion. 40 41 42

Nock 1930b; S. Price 1980; 1984b. Suetonius, Augustus 52. Charlesworth 1939.

Much less documentation remains for the cult partners of Augustus at Nikomedia. The only evidence is that of the coins, specifically silver cistophori upon which the temple is labeled ROM(ae) S(enatui) P(opulo) AVG(usto). That Augustus was perceived as the most important of the four is again shown by the fact that he most often appears alone. Next in importance was Rome; her cult statue was helmeted this time, but was otherwise quite similar to that in Pergamon, in a long gown and raising a wreath over Augustus’ head. In both cities the function of Rome was to support and to glorify the emperor. Again, though the statue of Augustus often appears alone, that of Rome does not. A few bronze coins show a third cult partner, a female with a sceptre who stands on the other side of Augustus from Rome. It is uncertain whether she personifies the Senate or the People; likely the former, as another image associated with the temple, a male in a short costume with sceptre and libation bowl, may represent the Genius of the Roman people. There are good Hellenistic precedents for groups of a ruler or benefactor with a god or personification crowning him, and sometimes the two are specified to be the same size: for example, an Antiochene dedication at Delphi had two bronze statues, Antiochus III and the Demos of Antioch, and each was eight ells tall.43 Where rulers’ images were introduced into other gods’ temples, on the other hand, they were often smaller. The case of the neokoroi is more like the former than the latter. Unfortunately we have no images of Augustus and Rome as they were established in the temple at Ankyra. The emperor’s name took precedence over that of the goddess in the first catalogue of priests inscribed on its anta, as early as the reign of Tiberius. By the time of Nerva, these officials were known as the chief priests of Augustus, and the name of Rome had disappeared. The provincial temple at Smyrna was shared by Tiberius, his mother, and the personified Senate. It is likely that this time the Asians themselves suggested the cult partnership; that of Augustus had set the precedent, and Tiberius was even more hesitant to accept divine honors than his predecessor had been. As the Asians had voted the temple in gratitude for successful prosecutions before the Senate, they chose to enshrine the Senate with the emperor, and according to Tacitus (Annals 4.37) that was one 43

Rose 1997a, 212 n. 4; Kreikenbom 1992, 29, 48.

chapter of the reasons why Tiberius allowed it. The reasons for including Livia, now named Julia, in the cult are more obscure, as according to rumor Tiberius resented her, and after her death in 29 he forbade her deification, “this having been her own wish” (Tacitus Annals 5.2). But Tiberius also was accustomed to refuse cultic honors to himself, so the resentment is likely overstated. In any case, her position in Rome was powerful and unique: widow of the deified Augustus, adopted by his will into his gens, sole Augusta, and mother of the emperor, to whom he owed his rise to power. She may have been included as a matter of course; the temple in Spain that Tiberius refused in Annals 4.37 was also to be dedicated to him and his mother, though without the Senate. Nevertheless, coins that present the temple at Smyrna and its cult images indicate that the cults of Julia and the Senate were seen as secondary to that of the emperor. On them, Tiberius stands alone within the temple, while Julia and the Senate are not shown in full figure at all, but as busts on the other side. The Senate was personified as a young man, and this is the first image of Julia known that wears a goddess’ diadem. After Tiberius, the subject of cult partners drops off. Gaius may have tried to move in on Apollo in his temple at Didyma. There is no sign of any deity or personification sharing the cult of the Augusti (including Titus and Vespasian) at Ephesos. So it comes as rather a surprise when the Augustan pattern was revived for Pergamon’s temple of Zeus Philios (Jupiter Amicalis) and Trajan. So far as is known, there was no previous cult of Zeus Philios on that site at Pergamon. This aspect of the god appears to have been new and specifically designed to accompany Trajan in his temple. Unlike Rome or the Senate, he was not the personification of an institution or of Roman power, but a deity in his own right, and his cult statue as shown on the coins does not support or glorify that of the emperor in any way. Instead he was enthroned in majesty and self-sufficiency, like many another Zeus. The epithet Philios, however, does hint at a policy by which that god was chosen as suitable to share Trajan’s cult: Zeus is patron of kings, and in this aspect presides over friendships and alliances. Indeed, on a contemporary coin issued to commemorate Pergamon’s concord with Thyatira, Trajan himself is identified as ‘Zeus Philios.’ Zeus Philios was probably added as a cult partner at Pergamon because the new temple of Trajan

39

– the temples

325

had a powerful precedent: that of Rome and Augustus in the same city. The epigraphical dossier on the festival for the new cult specifically provided that it have the same privileges and status as the older one. It is likely that the same regard for precedent applied to the temple itself, and that Zeus Philios was provided for Trajan to better equate them with Augustus and his partner Rome. The coins often compare the two temples, one on the obverse, the other on the reverse, and always represent the emperors either as both alone or both with their cult partners (though again, the coins never show Rome or Zeus without their emperors). Of all the emperors, Hadrian was perhaps closest to speaking directly to the Greeks in the dialogue of benefaction and cult, so it is ironic that his own cult has been so misunderstood. As early as 123 he sent earthquake relief to Kyzikos, and the koinon and city built him a monumental temple that makes some lists of the wonders of the world, and whose remains are being excavated today. Some modern authors, however, have miscalled it a temple of Zeus and Hadrian. True, Hadrian later became involved with the temple of Zeus Olympios in Athens; but that project was only taken up well after the temple at Kyzikos had been granted. Also, Hadrianeia games at Kyzikos were sometimes called Hadrianeia Olympia; but again, that was later, after Hadrian himself took that epithet, and may only indicate that these were isolympic games modeled on the ones at Elis. Finally, some scholars took as a proof of Zeus being worshipped in the temple at Kyzikos the words of Cyriacus of Ancona in 1444, that the statues of the gods in the pediment were still intact, thanks to their lofty height and to “the best Jove their protector”. Since in Cyriacus’ peculiar Latin ‘Jove best and greatest’ means the Christian God, he was not indicating the presence of a statue of Zeus. Rather, he was making the point that Kyzikos’ pediment was protected from stone robbers by its height and God’s will. In fact, Cyriacus was uncertain to what god the great temple was dedicated. In fact, the ancient sources agree that the temple at Kyzikos was to Hadrian, without mentioning any other god. Aelius Aristides at its dedication said that the name of the “best of rulers up to that time” was written on it. A list of wonders calls it the temple “of Hadrian at Kyzikos, unfinished”; an early sixth century poem from the Palatine Anthology named it “the blameless temple of King Hadrian”; Johannes Malalas said that there was a bust of “the god

326

part ii – summary chapters

Hadrian” in the temple’s roof; and the church historian Sokrates said that Hadrian was worshipped there as “the thirteenth god.”44 Moreover, excavations at the site have found what appears to be an imperial apotheosis portrayed in the frieze on the temple’s facade. There is no evidence for Hadrian sharing cult with Zeus at Kyzikos. The same false assumption, however, has been extended to the two other provincial temples to Hadrian built in Asia. Likely in 124, Antonius Polemon used his influence and his oratory to get a huge grant and another provincial temple for Smyrna from Hadrian. Again this was well before Hadrian’s involvement with Athens’ Olympieion. And again, though festivals named Hadrianeia, Olympia, and Hadrianeia Olympia were celebrated, there is no sign of any god but Hadrian in representations of this temple at Smyrna. At Ephesos, a large temple complex near the city’s harbor has been named ‘the Olympieion of Hadrian,’ a term with no ancient basis whatsoever. Pausanias does mention an Olympieion at Ephesos, but he relates it to the Magnesian gate, at the opposite end of the city from the new temple. What is more, the cult of Zeus Olympios was already established in Ephesos in the Flavian period. Again, the name of the festival Hadrianeia Olympia is not decisive for the cult in the temple, though this particular festival was established after Hadrian’s identification with Zeus Olympios at Athens and elsewhere. But the fact is that the temple that made Ephesos twice neokoros is never called the Olympieion in ancient sources, only ‘the temple of the god Hadrian.’ Therefore, until better evidence is found, it cannot be asserted that Hadrian shared cult with Zeus at any of his provincial temples, whether at Kyzikos, Smyrna, or Ephesos. Emperors in Other Gods’ Temples Moving the statue of an emperor or emperors into a standing temple of another divinity was a common practice. But unless Gaius allowed Apollo to remain as his cult partner in the temple at Didyma, this was not the practice in temples that conferred neokoria until the mid-second century C.E. Our only evidence for the relationship between 44 Aelius Aristides Oration 27.22; list in Codex Vaticanus graecus 989; Palatine Anthology 9.656; Johannes Malalas 11.16; Sokrates Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59.

Artemis and the emperors in the temple at Sardis is the architecture itself and fragments of colossal statues that were found in and around it. The temple was Hellenistic, and as it had the honor of asylum status for the goddess, she cannot have been moved out when Antoninus Pius and his family moved in. The cella was divided to accommodate the imperial cult, with Artemis’ half still facing west and the emperors’ facing east. One cannot help but look for special circumstances to explain this double use of a standing temple, as the mid-second century was on the whole an age of prosperity for Asia Minor. Perhaps it was due to the destruction of the shortlived pseudodipteros which could have been the original home of Sardis’ second provincial imperial cult; but that speculation is very tentative. Perhaps it was only a means of rejuvenating the temple of Artemis, which had had a long period of dereliction after the disastrous earthquake of 17 C.E. Certainly the introduction of the provincial imperial cult could have provided additional funds for continuing to build a temple that had never been fully finished. Caracalla created many neokoroi in Asia. There is no evidence for gods sharing his cult in any new temples, but two cities that were already twice neokoroi became three times neokoroi by installing the cult of Caracalla in extant temples of other deities. The main evidence for both is the coin types they issued to show their three temples that conferred neokoria together. Smyrna’s ‘new’ third temple, shown between those of Tiberius and Hadrian, is the temple of Rome, with the goddess’ image or name clearly indicated; but the same coins specify that Smyrna is ‘three times neokoros of the Augusti.’ It seems, then, that the imperial cult had been moved into Smyrna’s venerable temple of Rome, built in 195 B.C.E., the first anywhere in the Greek world. The goddess’ usual image on coins had been armed and enthroned, often with a Victory in her hand, but after the third neokoria a small temple is often substituted for the Victory. Thus she, like the eponymous Amazon Smyrna, becomes a symbol of neokoria, guardian of the imperial cult in her own temple. On coin reverses of Pergamon, an image of Asklepios is shown enthroned in a temple between those of Augustus and Trajan, but Caracalla’s name is in the pediment, and the coin legends proclaim Pergamon three times neokoros of the Augusti. Likely the cult of Caracalla was moved into Asklepios’ temple, where sometimes the emperor himself

chapter is shown sacrificing before the temple of his cult partner. In each case where Caracalla granted neokoria to a city already twice neokoros (the third, of course, was to Ephesos for Artemis), no new temple was built. Since Caracalla may have allowed as many as eight new neokoriai for Asia, building new koinon temples in cities that already had two each would have been a strain on the province’s finances even at a time of high prosperity. Perhaps most importantly, it would have provoked protests from smaller cities of the koinon who might be expected to contribute more to those who already had too much. In this dilemma, cult partnership in an older temple may have appeared as the perfect answer. It had impeccable precedents from Augustus on, and had already been used at Sardis for Antoninus Pius. The only problem might be in choosing the deity most proper for the emperor to move in with. The emperor with Rome was of course a natural combination; while Asklepios was the chief god at Pergamon. Such precedents during the reign of Caracalla likely made it natural that the practice be continued into the reign of Elagabalus. Whether or not the emperor arranged marriages between his Syrian baetyl and other goddesses, it was he who moved into the temple of Demeter, the chief goddess of Nikomedia. On coins that proclaim Nikomedia three times neokoros, her image appears within the center temple, draped and veiled, holding a long torch in her left hand and a few ears of wheat in her right. Nikomedia never called itself neokoros of Demeter, but it never specified that it was three times neokoros of the Augusti either. How can we be sure that the third neokoria was for Elagabalus? Simply by its disappearance. Like all other neokoriai for that emperor, this one was revoked during the reign of Severus Alexander, and Nikomedia reverted to being twice neokoros. Had the third neokoria been for the goddess Demeter there would have been no reason for removing it despite Elagabalus’ death and the condemnation of his name (see the case of Magnesia, below). During the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus the third neokoria was given again, and the coins indicate that again the imperial cult was moved into the temple of Demeter. Elagabalus’ cult was also moved into the temple of Philippopolis’ patron god, Apollo Kendrisos. Coins show the emperor and Apollo holding Apollo’s temple, recognizable by the shield-and-spear motif in its pediment, between them. Apparently Philip-

39

– the temples

327

popolis too lost its neokoria after Elagabalus’ death, or at least the evidence for it ceased. A more uncertain case is that of Hierapolis, where one coin type appears to show a bust of the moon god Men in the pediment of the temple of Elagabalus. This may hint that the emperor’s cult moved into a temple of Men, or may simply indicate the pedimental decoration. Aigeai in Cilicia received its first and only neokoria for the cult of Severus Alexander, but the temple that keeps appearing on coins is that of Asklepios. It is a Corinthian structure with six or more columns, often shown with an arcuated lintel and/or an eagle in the pediment. The first hint that the cult of Severus Alexander was moved into this shrine is the coins that show the city goddess holding a temple. This coin type is one of the symbols of neokoria, and the small temple should logically be that for which the city was neokoros. The most detailed and clearest examples of the type represent the little temple with an arcuated lintel, and once with an eagle in the pediment, both recognized attributes of the temple of Asklepios. In addition, the obverses show Severus Alexander and a snake-entwined staff, an attribute of Asklepios. Moreover, just as Caracalla had sacrificed to his cult partner Asklepios on Pergamene coins, and Elagabalus may have sacrificed to Apollo before their temple on coins of Philippopolis, Severus Alexander, holding an imperial eagle sceptre entwined with an Asklepian snake, sacrificed before Asklepios’ temple on Aigeai’s coins. So it is likely that the cult of Severus Alexander joined that of Asklepios in his temple to make Aigeai neokoros. And though the argument from silence is not compelling on its own, it should be noted that in the reign of Maximinus, when Severus Alexander’s memory was condemned, Aigeai never claimed to be neokoros, but returned to the title immediately afterward, under Pupienus and Balbinus. There are also a few late uncertain cases. Kyzikos declared itself twice neokoros under Valerian and Gallienus, but its coins show either two temples, or one and the round shrine of Demeter and Kore; it is remotely possible, then, that the imperial cult was practiced in the latter. At the same time and afterward, Side named Athena, Apollo, probably Asklepios, and perhaps Dionysos either as neokoroi on its coins or called itself neokoros for them in inscriptions. It is uncertain, however, whether this meant that they shared cult honors with emperors.

328

part ii – summary chapters

Where emperors shared cult with other gods in temples that conferred neokoria, there is a striking contrast between the earliest cases (where the temples were newly founded, with cult partners chosen as suitable to the emperors’ modesty or personae) and these later instances, where the emperor was introduced into a cult partner’s extant temple. One of the chief reasons behind the latter trend was probably the multiplication of neokoriai and the difficulty of accommodating this increase into the system. It is likely that when the provincial imperial cult was introduced into the temple of a city’s patron deity, however, that temple, its officials, and its rituals, still focused on the city, not on the province. This factor may have promoted the ‘municipalization’ of koinon temples, for it threw them into a vicious circle: the more cities vied for neokoria, the more temples were granted, and the more reason there was to use older civic temples. Thus, the more the honor was identified with the city, not the province, the more it was sought as an honor independent of the koinon, and the greater was the possibility that the koinon either abrogated its responsibility for the temple or was simply passed over. Temples of the Gods that Gave Neokoria Calling a city neokoros of a god may antedate the title’s application to a koinon temple of an emperor, if in the mid-50s C.E. a grammateus of Ephesos actually asked “Who does not know that Ephesos is neokoros of the great goddess Artemis and of the heaven-fallen [image]?”45 By the time of Domitian at the latest, however, Ephesos was officially neokoros only for the koinon temple of the Augusti, not for the goddess; and once that title was used to designate a city that had a provincial temple, the informal use of it for the chief local god was no doubt forbidden. We also know that Ephesos later became officially neokoros of Artemis, but only because Caracalla diverted the honor from his own cult. It is likely, then, that neokoriai for gods, like all other neokoriai, had to be granted by Roman authorities. All three temples that made their cities neokoroi for gods and not emperors have been located, and their preservation ranges from excellent (Aizanoi) to problematic (Ephesos). An examination of their 45

Acts of the Apostles 19.35.

remains may also fill out the exiguous evidence for the other neokoroi and help to show what sort of temple could get the title neokoros for its city. The first city known to have become officially neokoros of a god was Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus from the time of Commodus. As the city’s temple of Zeus was begun under Hadrian, the neokoria may have been granted then. There is no evidence that the koinon of Asia counted Aizanoi’s temple of Zeus among its provincial temples; provincial imperial temples were administered by officials of the koinon, while Aizanoi’s temple was administered by its priests of Zeus. The temple of Zeus at Aizanoi is well preserved, with much of its colonnade still standing (illus. pl. 3 fig. 13). It was an Ionic octastyle, pseudodipteral, with fifteen columns on its flanks and a stylobate of 21.5 x 36.5 m. It was approached from the east via a staircase which led to the seven-stepped krepis. Composite-capitaled columns stood before the eastfacing cella of Zeus and the west-facing opisthodomos; the latter led to an underground vault for the cult of the mother-goddess. The temple stood in a squarish colonnaded temenos of 130.5 x 112 m. (illus. pl. 5 fig. 21), which was itself approached from an enclosed courtyard or agora 95 m. square; the agora’s entry aligned with the temenos’ original entry stairway (later a propylon), the altar, and the east door into the cella itself. The axially symmetrical plan emphasized the approach from the east while still preserving a fully Hellenic aspect, recalling its predecessor, the temple built by Hermogenes for Artemis at Magnesia (below). As mentioned above, the Ephesians may have called their city ‘neokoros of Artemis’ informally before the title became exclusive to provincial temples. Later, when Ephesos was already twice neokoros for koinon temples, it applied for a third imperial neokoria during the joint reign of Caracalla and Geta. It is likely that Geta agreed, but Caracalla refused. As his letter stated, “due to modesty. . . I transfer the neokoria in my name to the most manifest goddess, so that (the Ephesians) may enjoy the honor of a temple not from me, but from reverence for the goddess.” Thus Ephesos finally became officially neokoros of Artemis. The Senate’s approval may have already been gained for the proposed imperial neokoria, and was probably unnecessary for the transfer to the name of Artemis. Some Ephesian inscriptions appear to make a distinction between the two imperial neokoriai, which were issued by

chapter decree of the Senate, and the one of Artemis, which was the emperor’s gift. As the only city that was neokoros both for emperors and for its patron god, Ephesos could either distinguish its neokoria for Artemis or count it in with the others; occasionally both are spelled out. It is possible that Ephesos lost its neokoria for Artemis when some of Caracalla’s acts were nullified under his successor Macrinus, but if so, the title was quickly restored after Macrinus’ fall. The temple of Artemis at Ephesos was often counted among the seven wonders, as well as one of the largest buildings, of the ancient world. As it stood in Roman times, it was an enormous Ionic octastyle, dipteral, with twenty-one columns along its length and nine columns at its back (illus. pl. 3 fig. 14). Its stylobate was approximately 51.44 x 111.48 m. The west front had three rows of columns with sculptured bases and drums, and then four more rows of two columns each in the pronaos; the opisthodomos had three rows of three columns each. In the temple’s main pediment were three openings, the center one larger than the side two, and figural sculpture as well. 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. During Caracalla’s reign Ephesos could call itself the only city to be neokoros of Artemis, but this was not to be so for long. Magnesia on the Maeander also became neokoros of Artemis from the time of Severus Alexander. The city always specifies the title with the goddess’ name, never calling itself simply neokoros. In all probability some exactitude was necessary, as the plain title could have been misinterpreted to mean the possession of a koinon temple. Although none can be proved, there are several possible methods by which Magnesia could have become neokoros of Artemis. It may have been by the same process as at Ephesos, that is, diversion of the honor of the title from the cult of the emperor to that of a god. It is also possible that the Magnesians, offended at the preeminence of the Ephesian goddess, applied directly for the neokoria of their own Artemis Leukophryene. Their great rival, Miletos, had just lost its second neokoria for Elagabalus, and the Magnesians were likely eager to be at least on the level of Miletos neokoros. It should be noted that if it was Severus Alexander who made Magnesia neokoros for Artemis, the title was still used even in the reign of his successor Maximinus, unaffected by

39

– the temples

329

the (short-lived) condemnation of Alexander’s memory. The temple of Artemis at Magnesia (illus. pl. 3 fig. 15) was the famous octastyle pseudodipteros designed by the Hellenistic architect Hermogenes, who wrote a book about it. It was the basis for the design of the temples at Ankyra and Aizanoi, among many others. Though its 31.6 x 57.9 m. stylobate was not colossal like that of the Artemision of Ephesos, it was larger than that of the temple of Rome and Augustus at Ankyra, and probably only a touch smaller than that of the temple identified as Hadrian’s at Ephesos. The remains show that the temple at Magnesia had eight Ionic columns on its facade and fifteen on its flank. Like the temples of Artemis at Ephesos and Sardis, it faced westward, toward an altar lined with statues in a stoa-like Ionic facade. Both temple and altar were on the axis of a 200 m. long temenos lined with colonnades (illus. pl. 5 fig. 22). The temple’s Ionic frieze consisted of combats between Greeks and Amazons. In the west pediment were three openings similar to those of the temple of Artemis at Ephesos, either for epiphany of the goddess, or to throw light on her cult statue within. Aizanoi, Ephesos, and Magnesia are the only assured neokoroi of gods, and so these cities can help illumine what the standards were for this honor. All three had shrines of considerable fame, size, and splendor, all of which had asylum status; and all were in Asia, the koinon that had the greatest number of neokoroi cities. But there were other shrines just as old, honored, and enormous whose cities were not neokoroi for their gods, so far as is known; one might mention the temple of Hera at Samos, or Miletos’ Didymaion of Apollo, once site of the koinon cult of Gaius. Compared to those, Aizanoi’s temple might seem a small and recent foundation. It may be that the neokoria for a god was granted on similar terms as that for an emperor, but was for some reason or another diverted, as is known to be the case for Ephesos. When a city had but one neokoria, and that for a god, it was usually careful to use the name of the god instead of calling itself simply neokoros. This tendency, noticeable in both Magnesia and Aizanoi (though for the latter there is less evidence), makes it less likely that any others of the known but unspecified neokoroi were in fact neokoroi of gods. For example, Herakleia appears to have connected its neokoria with honor for the goddess Rome, but this

330

part ii – summary chapters

does not indicate that the city was neokoros of Rome. Neapolis’ most famous shrine was probably dedicated to an aspect of Zeus, but as the city never claimed to be neokoros for the god, we are inclined to believe that Neapolis too held the honor for an imperial cult temple. But when a city had more than one neokoria and one of them was for a god, as Ephesos had, there were more options. Where space was plentiful, the entire title could be written out, with the name of the god mentioned. Or the divine neokoria could be included among the imperial neokoriai, bringing the total number up by one, but in this case the titles could not be designated ‘of the emperors.’ So during the reign of Caracalla, Ephesos could call itself either ‘twice neokoros of the emperors and neokoros of Artemis’ or ‘three times neokoros.’ On coins, there appears to have been a tendency to use whichever was most impressive: the neokoria of Artemis was used more when Ephesos was the only city to have it; in the time of Elagabalus it was counted in to total a unique four; afterward it went back down to three, in order to at least equal the count of Ephesos’ rivals, Pergamon and Smyrna. Summary Of the temples that conferred neokoria, including both those of gods and emperors but excluding those shown only schematically on multiple-temple coin reverses, fifteen are octastyle or larger (two of those are decastyle); seven are hexastyle; and nine tetrastyle. But since many of the above are only represented on coins, which often show an abbreviated number of columns, many of the four- and six-column images probably represent larger structures. If we look at the actual remains, only the temple at Neapolis (and that only possibly, but not certainly, conferring neokoria) was tetrastyle, and only the temples of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon and that of Antoninus Pius at Sagalassos (again, the latter uncertain) were hexastyle. Probably five were octastyle, two (the temple at Tarsos and the Didymaion at Miletos) were decastyle, and one (Ephesos’ Koressos temple) either octastyle or decastyle. Thus, temples that made their cities neokoroi tended to be large and impressive structures. They also tended to be prominently placed, though sometimes their sheer size made them difficult to integrate in an extant urban plan.

Where order can be discerned, temples that conferred neokoria were generally Corinthian; the Ionic exceptions are earlier structures and/or are dedicated to other than imperial gods (the Didymaion, temples of Artemis at Ephesos, Magnesia, and Sardis, and the temple of Zeus at Aizanoi), though the temple of Septimius Severus at Anazarbos was likely Ionic. The temple of the Augusti at Ephesos and the pseudodipteros at Sardis are surely nonDoric, but otherwise uncertain. Still, the Corinthian order was more popular in the Roman period for all kinds of temples, not just those of the emperors, and was particularly adaptable on grandiose temples of large size. In design and structure more temples that conferred neokoria tended to follow Hellenistic rather than Roman models. The architecture was not without Roman influences, however, especially in placing the temple prominently by raising it on a vaulted substructure or a high podium. Temples of the neokoroi were often fairly conservative in their decorative programs, though there is no consistent pattern. Eagles appear in the pediments of temples represented on coins at Ankyra (along with a shield), Tarsos, and Kaisareia. Victories serve as akroteria on coin depictions of the first two temples at Nikomedia, and also appear among the remains of the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon, as well as on the friezes of the Ankyra temple. Apotropaic Gorgoneia hint at the aegis of Athena, and featured on the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan at Pergamon and that of Hadrian at Kyzikos, as they also did on the cuirasses of imperial statues. Other decorative details vary from temple to temple, but center on themes of Roman imperial triumph and of fruitfulness. There is no sign of the aediculated ‘marble style’ that has been supposed to be associated with the imperial cult. Among the cult images, most emperors seem to have been portrayed in military costume, though some were caparisoned as gods and others wore the toga. They could be accompanied by their successors or consorts. Where remains of the statues survive and have been identified, they are colossal and acrolithic. The original portrait models are often manipulated in order to make them larger in scale and more godlike in appearance. On the whole, despite three centuries of differing preferences, requirements, and circumstances among the provinces and cities that built them, the temples and cult images of the neokoroi present a fairly consistent image, adapting Roman figures to a Hellenic frame.

chapter

40

– the cities

331

Chapter 40. The Cities Though from the beginning the honor of building a provincial temple to an emperor was granted to a koinon, that temple was set within a city, and that city, not the koinon, was named neokoros as a result. This chapter will examine the internal structure of the neokoroi, the elites and benefactors who helped them gain the temple and title, and the festivals some of them celebrated in connection with their koinon temples. Their relationships with one another, however, are treated in the summary of ‘The Koina,’ chapter 41. Structure City structure in the eastern provinces was basically a continuation of what it had been in the previous Hellenistic period, but Roman administration tended to introduce certain modifications.1 Though the details varied from province to province and among the cities depending on their status, the body of the voting citizens (demos, meeting as an ekklesia) still existed, with the oversight of a council (boule). Plutarch’s instructions to an aspiring politician of late first century Sardis focus on persuading the people, and generally assume a democratic system of city government.2 Civic inscriptions often describe the city as a union between council and people, and generally it is the people or body of citizens who are described as neokoros, though at Kyzikos and Hierapolis the council is sometimes called neokoros too. Under Rome, there tended to be a maximum number of council members allowed, of a certain standard of wealth and usually possessing Roman citizenship, each contributing an amount of money for the privilege. From them the magistrates and executives were drawn, who generally had to pay the expenses of their offices as well as certain benefits 1 The basic picture is still that of Liebenam 1900; more recently, S. Mitchell 1993, 1:198-226; Quass 1993; Lewin 1995. 2 Plutarch, Political Precepts, esp. 21 (816).

(oil for the gymnasium, gladiatorial shows, feasts) that were expected by the populace; the truly magnificent added other benefits on top of that.3 This emphasis on offices as liturgies concentrated power and responsibility in the hands of a wealthy elite class. The Roman governors looked to this class to ensure stability, obedience, and financial rectitude; their activities thus saved the scanty Roman bureaucracy the job of governing the cities directly. On the other side, Rome was (ideally) a guarantor of peace, prosperity, and favorable treatment for the city elite, who were generally quite successful in cultivating good relations with Romans in power. Even for the wealthy and influential, this system was no Utopia. There could be crime, corruption, and quarreling at all levels, within the city, between city and city, and between cities and the Romans who were their overlords. Elites: Greek Culture, Roman Status Though Roman authority may have imposed adjustments on established Hellenic traditions only superficially and piecemeal rather than rigorously and universally, its cultural presence and legal influence worked profound changes on the social structure of its provinces.4 The greatest, of course, was that the overlord was no longer a Hellenistic king, but of a very different culture. No matter how friendly to or adept in Hellenic culture the emperor happened to be, he, his Senate, his legions, and his administration were of another world, speaking another language. This was especially obvious in the conduct of civic affairs, where the ideal of autonomy could be easily contradicted by the actuality of Roman officials. As Plutarch’s instructions to the aspiring magistrate famously note, “But you must say to 3 Veyne 1976; Delorme 1960; Gauthier and Hatzopoulos 1993; Pantel 1992, 255-420; L. Robert 1971. 4 Brunt 1990.

332

part ii – summary chapters

yourself, ‘You rule (but are ruled) over a city subject to proconsuls, to Caesar’s procurators. . . “this is not ancient Sardis, nor that former power of Lydia.” You must keep your general’s cloak well tucked in, and not think a lot of your crown or trust in it; look from your headquarters to the [governor’s] tribunal, and you see his boots above your head!’”5 Another great change was the admission of the elite to Roman citizenship. As an orator of the Antonine period proclaimed to a Roman audience, “You have divided all the people of your Empire into two parts. . . the more cultured, better born, and more powerful everywhere you have declared [Roman] citizens, even if of the same stock [as the others]; the rest, subjects under command.”6 Yet the preservation of Hellenic culture, through descent, education, purity of language, and institutions both political and cultic, was still crucial to civic elites in the Roman period.7 The intercombinations between Greek culture and Roman status are visible not only through novels, speeches, and other writings preserved to us, but through the careers of the people themselves, the buildings they built, the statues they set up, and the gods they honored. Their coins had the emperor on the obverse but an ancestral god, founder, or point of civic pride on the reverse. Their building inscriptions generally honored first their patron god(s), then the emperor(s), and then the council and people of the city itself. If the interpretation of Cassius Dio 51.20.7-8 given in chapter 1, ‘Pergamon,’ is correct, those who were allowed to worship the living emperor were xenoi, that is, peregrini; Romans, at least in Italy, were to worship the deified dead. This distinction would seem to present a problem for the chief priests of koinon temples, people of wealth and high status for whom this office was the acme of a civic and provincial career, but most of whom were Roman citizens.8 Of course, the dissonance, if it was felt at all, was soon obviated by the passage of time and the death of emperors to whom koinon temples were dedicated. And in any case, it was possible for the same person to behave differently in his home province than he did at Rome. That the ostensible conflict between Roman citizenship and koinon cult was, or soon became, neg-

ligible is shown by the three cities that combined the status of colony with that of neokoros: Nikopolis in Armenia Minor, Neapolis in Syria Palaestina, and Thessalonike in Macedonia. This meant that a city technically composed of Roman citizens got a title that was primarily associated with temples to the living emperor. Nikopolis was probably the first, a colony with ius Italicum and a component of real Roman veterans, perhaps metropolis and neokoros since Hadrian, but certainly twice neokoros after Gordian III became emperor. In this case, the status appears to be the result of Nikopolis’ being the major, almost the sole, urban center of a very unurbanized province. But colonial status was increasingly granted to towns with no veteran component from the second into the third century, as a reward, or an inducement, for loyalty.9 The distinction between Greek city and Roman colony was blurred in any case by Caracalla’s grant of Roman citizenship to most of the peoples of the Empire. So the emperor Philip made Neapolis (among others) colony and neokoros; it lost its colonial status, but likely not the neokoria, under his successor Trajan Decius. Decius, on the other hand, granted the titles of colony and four times neokoros to Thessalonike, a particularly strategic city for the empire’s defense in the Balkans. Two of the four neokoriai were suppressed after his death, but the rest remained. As at Neapolis, the titles appear to have been granted wholesale, to show imperial favor; they did not affect the city’s population or their civic status, and they could be removed at the next emperor’s will. The temptation to rise in Roman administration could certainly pull elite males’ attention away from civic and provincial offices and direct it toward Roman aims, a path culminating if possible in a senatorial career centered in Rome itself. The two paths were not mutually exclusive, of course, and we can track a variety of choices.10 On one was Dio Chrysostomos, who remained an orator and philosopher, urging concord on the cities and undertaking building projects for his home Prusa, though he only got tangled in lawsuits as a result. On the other was Cassius Dio, who referred to his city Nikaia in an indulgent way, but was not overly concerned with its quarrels, and took a firmly Roman and senatorial viewpoint despite the fact that he was writing a

5

Plutarch, Political Precepts 17 (813), rather freely translated. Aelius Aristides, Oration 26.59-60; see also Oration 27.32; Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 41.9. 7 Woolf 1994; Swain 1996. 8 Deininger 1965, 151-153. 6

9 10

J. Nollé 1995; Millar 1990. Eck 1980.

chapter Greek history. Of course, there was also a middle way: C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus, a Pergamene who became consul and then proconsul of Asia under Trajan, likely won his city its temple for Trajan and Zeus Philios, then endowed its festival; his son probably served as chief priest of Asia after the temple was completed.11 Brokers of Beneficence One man’s influence with the emperor sometimes became a reason to make a particular city neokoros.12 Orators could sway the emperors’ opinions, and so could chamberlains; and some men are credited with gaining neokoria simply by asking the emperor for it, though we do not know precisely why they were so influential. We may call them ‘brokers of beneficence,’ as they were not only benefactors in themselves, but also the means by which the emperor’s benevolence was channeled to a particular city. As mentioned above, C. Antius Aulus Julius Quadratus probably had some influence in obtaining Pergamon’s second provincial temple from Trajan, which broke the previous practice of having only one koinon temple per city. The inscriptions specify that this ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor, a citizen of Pergamon who had risen so far in the Roman world that he not only became consul ordinarius in 105 but was then proconsul in Asia shortly before the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was granted, paid for the new festival in honor of the temple. Then there were the speakers. According to Aelius Aristides, “the orator has trained so that he will be able not only to save himself or one other besides, but also his friends, city, and allies.”13 Cities used their orators and sophists for embassies, not only because of the persuasiveness of their speech, but in the hope that their renown would help the cities gain access to and influence in the court.14 Dio Chrysos-

40

– the cities

333

tomos supposedly so impressed Trajan that, according to an anecdote, the emperor took him up in his golden chariot and said “I do not know what you are saying, but I love you as myself.”15 Trajan’s level of erudition was certainly higher than implied, and his enthrallment likely lower: Dio’s rivals at home attacked him for not doing as well as other orators were rumored to have done for their cities.16 Still, Dio did win important privileges for Prusa from Trajan, and accompanied the emperor on his Dacian campaign.17 One orator who attained neokoria for his city was M. Antonius Polemon of Smyrna. A man who “spoke with kings as equals” (and who had the nerve to kick the proconsul and future emperor Antoninus Pius out of his house), he was of special value to the community as an ambassador to emperors. His oratory worked magic upon the philhellene Hadrian; though the emperor “had previously favored the Ephesians, he converted [him] to the Smyrnaean cause, so that in one day he 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.” This temple was the one that got Smyrna the title ‘twice neokoros,’ as is made clear by that city’s own inscription: “. . . we gained from the lord Caesar Hadrian on account of Antonius Polemon a second decree of the Senate, by which we became twice neokoros.” Polemon served as agonothetes for the festival celebrated in this temple’s honor, but died in the midst of a mission to defend Smyrna’s “temples and their rights” before the emperor Antoninus Pius.18 This phrase probably refers to the koinon temples, in which Polemon, having obtained a second temple and neokoria for Smyrna, had a special interest. So it seems that, despite confirmation by the Senate, even Smyrna’s status as twice neokoros could be challenged by rivals in the koinon. The likeliest is perhaps Ephesos, as shortly before, Smyrna had offended that city by not giving its precise titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice. In this case, Antoninus Pius read the speech that Pole-

11

IvP no. 269. See ‘Pergamon,’ chapter 1; and H. Müller 2000, 519-520 n. 6. 12 For Greek friends of prominent Romans obtaining privileges for their cities and receiving honors and offices in return, from the late Republic on, see Quass 1993, 138-149, 151-164, 187-192. 13 Aelius Aristides, Oration 2.376 (P. Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works 1, tr. C. Behr [Leiden 1986] 137). 14 Quass 1993, 168-176; but note also 192-195, on the cities’

tendency to save money by using ambassadors who could pay the costs of the mission themselves. 15 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.7. See Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 40, 44, 45, among others; Swain 1996, 194-195, 225241, 397. 16 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 40.13-15. 17 C. Jones 1978, 53. 18 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.25.10 (539-540).

334

part ii – summary chapters

mon had prepared and ruled in favor of Smyrna. Philostratos concludes, “thus Smyrna came away having won first place, and they declared that Polemon had come back to life to help them.” The inscription mentioned above makes it clear that the privileges Hadrian bestowed on Smyrna were due to Polemon; he is not just the eloquent pleader of a worthy cause, he is the cause himself. This is why the Smyrnaeans endowed him and his descendants with the right to preside at the sacred contest for which he was responsible, and why he continued to defend the temples, even posthumously. This reciprocal relationship between great man and great city was based on the honor each could give to the other. Of course, the emperor was the ultimate benefactor of both man and city, and his gifts to both (of honor and assent to one, of titles and assistance to the other) were too great to be repaid in full.19 All that Hadrian could receive in return was cult, as practiced in the new koinon temple in Smyrna. But Polemon and his like may truly be called ‘brokers of beneficence,’ conduits for imperial favor, and thus to be honored for the emperor’s gifts as well. Though Hadrian had allegedly favored the Smyrnaeans over the Ephesians once, a decade later Ephesos seems to have won his favor back. The man responsible for this was one Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos, “who was chief priest of the two temples in Ephesos, by whom the temple of the god Hadrian was consecrated, [and] who first requested it from the god Hadrian and obtained it.” Although we know less about Diophantos than we do about Polemon, it is apparent that he too pleaded his city’s cause before Hadrian, though this time no competitors are mentioned. It may be that Hadrian wished to compensate for his previous decision, if he had favored the Ephesians before Polemon got up to speak. In any case, Diophantos was successful, and the Ephesians and the koinon showed their gratitude. Diophantos was made chief priest, not immediately but as soon as the temple of Hadrian was complete; thus he was able to consecrate the temple that he 19 Lendon 1997, 78-84, 113-129, 148-149, 156-157. On the assertion (put into the mouth of Maecenas) that nothing could be given to an emperor that would be better than what he already possessed, Cassius Dio 52.35.2. On the other hand, Augustus weighed acts of loyalty to himself as if they were gifts worthy of being requited on a sliding scale, and refused the status of free city to the Samians because they did not merit it as had the Aphrodisians: Oliver 1989, 25-26 no. 1.

had obtained, and was first to serve in it as “chief priest of the two temples in Ephesos.” Diophantos’ memory was still honored in Ephesos as late as the fifth century. One man who obtained the neokoria for his city by personal influence was neither consular, ambassador, nor orator. He was Saoteros, chamberlain to the emperor Commodus, who got a koinon temple and a second neokoria for his home Nikomedia. It is unlikely that Saoteros appeared openly on behalf of his city, but his position made him powerful with the emperor, and the Senate went along with what pleased Commodus. Nonetheless, after Saoteros’ fall from favor and death the neokoria was promptly revoked, either on the initiative of his successor, or by a Senate indignant after the fact. We have seen that the Smyrnaeans viewed Polemon as the reason for their obtaining the neokoria, and the Ephesians probably felt the same way about Diophantos. Certainly the grant was not withdrawn from Nikomedia because it was an unworthy city, but because Saoteros was an unworthy citizen. Inscriptions and literature show that the Greeks of the East believed one man’s influence or power of speech to be the key to the emperor’s favor, and from that favor could come titles, festivals, temples, and showers of drachmai. We hear a similar story of Philadelphia, but from the emperor’s side. One Aurelius M... of Philadelphia asked Caracalla if another Philadelphian, Julianus, could be permitted to carry out his provincial duties in his home city and not at Sardis. This the emperor graciously allowed (if nothing else forbade it), and then added “I do this gladly for your sake, on account of whom I have given even the neokoria itself to the Philadelphians.” The letter calls Aurelius “most honored and beloved by me,” but gives no hint of why. A less fortunate outcome was that of Ulpius Apollonius Plautus, grammateus, advocate of Ephesos, and designated Asiarch on an inscription that also calls Ephesos neokoros of the most sacred Artemis and three times neokoros of the emperors. Thus it dates to the joint rule of Caracalla and Geta, before Geta’s death and the cancellation of his temple. That melancholy result is symbolized by the fact that the whole inscription was negated, crossed out with a chisel, but so lightly that it could still be read. It is likely that, like Diophantos as chief priest, Plautus was designated Asiarch to serve a term once the new koinon temple was built, probably because he had

chapter led the delegation to obtain it. When it fell through, his honor may have as well. These individuals were perceived as being a chief cause of the neokoria being granted to their cities. Of what did their benefaction consist? Basically, of asking for an imperial temple, and getting it. Some headed a formal embassy to the emperor, though Saoteros can be considered an embassy in himself. But if merely making the request were all one had to do to be credited with gaining the neokoria, why do we know of so few who were accorded that status? Perhaps in order to be seen as brokers of beneficence, they had to succeed overwhelmingly, win additional benefits, or as Polemon may have done, sway an emperor from favoring another city. The reward was often a leading provincial position once the new temple was dedicated, and/or the presidency over the contests, if any had been obtained. On the emperor’s side, the relationship varied with the emperor’s character and tastes: Hadrian honored a famous Greek orator, Commodus a palace insider. But from the Roman viewpoint, such exchanges fall into the time-honored relationship of patron and client. The patron could offer gifts and assistance and protection; the client loyalty, honor, and his talent, often eloquent speech. But in this situation the emperor had not only one man as his client, but through him the entire city. Thus the man served as intermediary or broker of the emperor’s patronage, and was recognized and honored as such by both the city and the emperor. Agonistic Festivals Though many have assumed that every grant of neokoria was associated with a ‘sacred’ contest in athletics and/or the performing arts, this study has found a much looser association between the two. Despite many excellent investigations, there is still much that is uncertain about these festivals.20 For 20

In general, Roueché 1993; S. Mitchell 1990; Wörrle 1988; along with many other works, L. Robert 1984 and 1960a; Moretti 1954 and 1953. Weiss 1998 notes some interesting correspondences between neokoroi, festivals, and concord coinages. Unfortunately there is no encyclopedic work that unites the evidence of coins and inscriptions, but for the inscriptions, Malavolta 1976-1977, and for the coins (though vitiated by some dubious and outdated material), Karl 1975, are useful. The transliterations that follow will be based on the majority or the bestpreserved of the surviving monuments, whether coins or inscriptions.

40

– the cities

335

one thing, their names are often agglutinative; imperial names could be suddenly attached to a longstanding festival, but later disappear.21 Full titles of festivals are often abbreviated to the point of (our) incomprehension on inscriptions and on coins; on the latter especially, where one prize crown is often taken as equivalent to one contest, sometimes a single contest’s name appears on two crowns; and coins often show fewer crowns than the city had contests.22 Specific names for contests could also be masked under the title of Koina, province-wide festivals. Such Koina were often celebrated by cities that did not yet have provincial imperial temples, a fact that argues against an invariable temple/festival connection. Some celebrations of the Koina were not even in the name of an emperor, such as the Koina of Asia Balbilleia at Ephesos, Smyrna, and Pergamon.23 And many koinon temples, especially early ones, are linked to no known specific sacred festival. In some instances, it may be that a sacred festival was not granted until later, in the third century, when cities both neokoroi and not acquired the right to celebrate more and more sacred and imperialnamed festivals. As often, we must return to Cassius Dio 51.20.69 to learn of the festival associated with the koinon cult of the first emperor at its origins in Asia and in Bithynia. The requests to build provincial temples emanated not from the individual cities, but from the two koina. Dio then adds the fact that one city, Pergamon, also got permission to hold a sacred contest in honor of Augustus’ temple. He says nothing of the sort for Nikomedia and its temple, and as a Bithynian, he ought to have known. Pergamon indeed celebrated a Rhomaia Sebasta festival, later perhaps subsumed among the Koina of Asia; so far as we know, Nikomedia celebrated no Rhomaia Sebasta. A Koina festival of Bithynia is only mentioned later, in Neronian times, and there as in Asia, Koina were celebrated in cities that had not yet received a koinon temple (such as Prusias and Claudiopolis). Lycia’s koinon, unique in so many ways, associated its provincial imperial cult with the established cults of ancestral gods, and its festivals often unified the two. We have no knowledge of Lycia’s building one or several separate koinon temples as Asia and Bithynia did, and no city in Lycia is known to have 21 22 23

Herz 1990, 177-178, 189 n. 21. L. Robert 1960a, 364, 366. Moretti 1990, 266.

336

part ii – summary chapters

called itself neokoros until the third century.24 It is therefore risky to reason backward from Patara’s panegyris for Apollo and the emperor, or Xanthos’ Rhomaia Letoa, or an isopythian festival to Rome and Augustus, or the great isolympic Vespasianeia, or any of the Koina celebrated in Myra, Limyra, and Telmessos, to account for the eventual neokoria of Akalissos or the two of Patara. The passage of Cassius Dio cited above implies that a sacred festival in honor of a koinon temple was a separate privilege, for the city, not the province, and had to be requested in addition to the petition for the temple itself. Moreover, as it was certainly possible for a city to have contests, even provincial ones, without a temple, so it could have been possible to have a koinon temple without a contest of sacred status. Ankyra, despite its celebrated temple for Augustus and Rome, is not known to have celebrated any specific sacred festival in its honor, at least at first; Koina were probably held there, but also at Pessinus and Tavium, cities whose possession of a koinon temple to the imperial cult is doubtful. Admittedly, to argue a lack of sacred festivals at Nikomedia, Ankyra or anywhere else can only be done from silence. Evidence for a strict connection between koinon temples and festivals may yet be found. But until that is true, one should not assume an inevitable association between temples, neokoriai, and sacred or imperial-named festivals. It is especially dangerous to date a grant of neokoria because of a festival named for an emperor. As has been noted, such names could be ephemeral; and just as many cities celebrated sacred and imperial-named festivals without ever calling themselves neokoroi, the neokoroi celebrated them for different emperors than the ones for whom they had provincial temples.25 To associate coin types that show the round prize crowns awarded at contests with specific neokoriai also goes beyond the evidence: again, many cities never known as neokoroi issued such types, and the association between number of crowns and number of temples can be misleading.26 Smyrna may have been the first city to celebrate Koina of Asia under that title, but has left no record 24 S. Price 1984b, 262-263; no. 79, the naos of Caesar at Xanthos, was likely municipal, not provincial. 25 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:217-225; Wallner 1997, 35-36. 26 Ziegler 1985, Wallner 1997, and Leschhorn 1998 are unwary on this point.

of a festival specifically for its first provincial temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate.27 There is none for the provincial temple of Gaius at Miletos either, but this is not surprising, as it lasted only a short time (Miletos did celebrate Koina of Asia by 90 C.E.). There is also no sign of any festival granted to Ephesos under Nero. Of the cities known to have become neokoroi from Nero to Trajan, Perge in Pamphylia became neokoros under Vespasian, and is known from later documents to have celebrated a festival Artemeiseia Vespasianeia, joining the cult of the emperor to that of the city’s patron; but the Kaisareia at Perge was also founded under the Flavians, and it is uncertain which festival (if either) would have been associated with the temple for which the city became neokoros. The case is more difficult for the Asian koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos, which was finished in Domitian’s reign. It has often been associated with a celebration of Olympia, but this was likely a revival of an earlier festival, and may not have been associated with the provincial temple at all; instead, Koina associated with the astrologer Balbillus were being established at around the same time that the temple was being granted and built. In Macedonia, the chief priest Python who asked Nerva to confirm Beroia as sole neokoros was also agonothetes of the koinon festival, an isaktian contest; this too may date earlier, to the Flavian period, but cannot be confirmed to honor a temple of any particular emperor. Under Trajan, Neokaisareia first declared itself neokoros, and a koinon festival of Pontus was celebrated in that period, but no name of a specific sacred festival survives.28 Agonistic coin types that hint at one festival per neokoria and temple appear there only in the third century. Pergamon, however, was granted the Traianeia Deiphileia, a festival of sacred and eiselastic status, in honor of its new provincial temple to Zeus Philios and Trajan; but Pergamon had been punctilious about requesting a festival for its first koinon temple, and was now being no less careful to acquire one of equal status for its second. The fact that the Pergamene citizen and former proconsul Quadratus took on the expenses of the new festival only added to its attractions. Hadrian’s interests in Hellenic culture and in fostering the cities, already noted in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ led to his allowing festivals in 27 28

Moretti 1954, 282. Moretti 1953, 191, 194.

chapter his name to more cities than any previous emperor.29 These cities included some that are known to be neokoroi for temples to him: Kyzikos, Smyrna (for which Polemon and his descendents were agonothetai), and Ephesos. Some cities that celebrated Hadrianeia may or may not have also been neokoroi for him, such as Tarsos, Sardis, and Herakleia, and some were probably not neokoroi for his cult, like Anazarbos, Ankyra, and Synnada. Also, no Hadrianeia is yet documented at Nikaia or Nikopolis, two cities that may have been neokoroi for him. But many of the cities that celebrated Hadrianeia were never known to be neokoroi at all, including Athens, Hadrianeia, Magnesia on Sipylos, Thyateira, Gaza, Antioch, and Alexandria. Of the cities that were surely neokoroi for temples to Hadrian, all three had Hadrianeia or Hadrianeia Olympia. Kyzikos’ Hadrianeia Olympia may once be qualified as a koinon festival. At both Smyrna and Ephesos there had already been Olympia previous to Hadrian; it is possible that Olympia means either that the Hadrianeia festivals were of isolympic status; that the epithet Olympios, often applied to Hadrian after 128, became associated with the festival in his honor; or that he allowed his name to be associated with a preexisting Olympia festival. It cannot be taken to imply that Hadrian was identified as or shared the temple with Zeus Olympios; the temples at Kyzikos and at Smyrna were founded before Hadrian’s identification with that god, and at Kyzikos and Ephesos they are only ever called temples of Hadrian. Few festivals, but also few neokoriai, were granted under Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Sardis became twice neokoros, surely for the cult of Antoninus Pius and his family introduced into its temple of Artemis. Later Sardian coins show two temples, each with a wreath over it, perhaps symbolizing two festivals; but neither is specifically named for the Antonines. Amaseia first declared itself neokoros by 161/162 C.E., but ceased its coinage in the early third century, just when agonistic types were increasingly popular, and no festival for its neokoria is known. Commodus gave his name to many festivals in cities such as Caesarea in Mauretania, Athens, Sparta, Nikaia, Kyzikos, Kaisareia in Cappadocia, and Antioch; none of these were neokoroi for him.30 29 30

Boatwright 2000, 99-104. Miranda 1992-1993.

40

– the cities

337

The emperor’s name was often attached to a festival of another god or emperor, such as the Kommodeia Dionysia Herakleia at Thebes; the Artemisia Kommodeia and the Hadrianeia Kommodeia at Ephesos; perhaps the Kommodeia Hadrianeia Olympia at Smyrna, Olympia Asklepeia Kommodeia at Pergamon, the Didymaia Kommodeia at Miletos, the Herakleia Kommodeia at Tyre, and the festival at Laodikeia (below). Among the neokoroi, Nikomedia received a temple, a festival, and a second neokoria for Commodus, but lost all in the fall of the chamberlain Saoteros. Instead, Nikomedia’s rival Nikaia got the festival, though not, so far as is known, an additional temple or neokoria. Tarsos certainly became twice neokoros for a koinon temple to Commodus, and also received a worldwide isolympic Kommodeios festival. Laodikeia had already been the site of Koina in the first century, well before it became neokoros. Then, as well as receiving the neokoria for Commodus, the city added his name to its festival of Zeus, now the Deia Kommodeia, of sacred and eiselastic status. The name was wiped out with Commodus’ death, but it returned when his memory was again honored by Septimius Severus; an Antoneina was also celebrated, and Laodikeia became neokoros for temples to Commodus and Caracalla. Septimius Severus seems to have granted festivals along with temples to several neokoroi, though to other cities as well, especially those on the scene of his wars. Nikomedia again became twice neokoros, and now celebrated a great (Augousteia) Severeia contest. At this point the city began to issue coin types on which the number of prize crowns matches the number of neokoriai. It is possible that an additional sacred festival had been assigned to the old temple of Rome and Augustus, but no specific name offers proof. As for Nikomedia’s rival, though at first Severus stripped Nikaia of all honors, the city later celebrated the great Severeia Philadelphia in honor of him and his sons, especially Caracalla, who may have pled the city’s case. Apparently the city did not regain its lost titles, however, which included ‘neokoros.’ Severus may have even granted both neokoria and a festival for his cult, and then another neokoria and festival for his sons, to two cities, Perinthos and Anazarbos. Perinthos first called itself neokoros shortly after the Severeia Prota (and/or Perintheia) began to be advertised on coins. This festival may also have been named Aktia, and around a decade later it was joined by a new contest, the Philadelpheia, also called

338

part ii – summary chapters

Pythia. Coin types show two temples, each with a prize crown, and probably Perinthos was twice neokoros, though it only calls itself neokoros. Anazarbos probably also received a temple and celebrated a festival for Septimius Severus, or at least shared the Severeia Olympia Epinikia at Quadrigae with Tarsos and the rest of the koinon of Cilicia. The city then got a second neokoria for Caracalla and Geta; some evidence has been detected for a Philadelphia contest as well. In other cases, Kaisareia took the title ‘neokoros’ on coins from 204-206 C.E., at the same time as it celebrated a sacred contest Severeios Philadelphios, koinos of Cappadocia. Tarsos celebrated Severeia, but there is no sign that Severus took over its provincial temple for Commodus. Sardis too had Severeia, though Severus granted it no new neokoria. Miletos first called itself neokoros at this period; there is no evidence for its celebrating Severeia or any other sacred festival, though it had allied Commodus’ name with the longstanding Didymaia for Apollo (above). Caracalla’s Parthian war and his travels in the East, his grant or restoration of up to eight neokoriai in Asia and possibly one in Galatia, all could have resulted in Antonineia (as it is usually spelled); the only problem is that the same name was applied to festivals for Elagabalus, so if the reference occurs in the latter’s reign, it is difficult to tell which emperor is being honored.31 If we confine consideration to the neokoroi, Laodikeia celebrated Antoneina, and that was likely associated with a neokoria shared between Commodus and Caracalla; Komodia, Asklepeia, and Pythia are mentioned as well, though under Caracalla known types only go up to three prize crowns. Under Elagabalus coin types show four prize crowns, and declare that Laodikeia’s temples and festivals were confirmed as worldwide by the Senate’s decree. But Laodikeia never became more than once neokoros, so far as we know. Tarsos celebrated a contest called Severeios Antoneinianos, but was neokoros for neither Severus (above) nor his son. Tralles, which had already celebrated Koina of Asia by the early second century, was probably made neokoros of the Augusti by Caracalla: among the names for the three agonistic wreaths on its coin for Elagabalus are Olympia, Augousteia, and Pythia, and if any is a festival for the neokoria, it is most likely the Augousteia. Philadelphia had been the scene of Koina since the mid31

L. Robert 1970, 20-27.

second century, but didn’t become neokoros until 214; it did not seem to celebrate Antoneina either, but this may be because Caracalla was assimilated to Helios there, so the Haleia festival for the god may have celebrated the emperor as well. No imperialnamed festivals are known for two third neokoriai, Pergamon’s for Caracalla (in Asklepios’ temple) and Smyrna’s for Caracalla (in the temple of the goddess Rome); on the other hand, both cities’ coin types of three temples show each with an (agonistic?) wreath above, possibly for Pergamon’s longstanding Asklepieia and Smyrna’s Rhomaia. Ephesos also got a third neokoria, but for Artemis, and if Caracalla’s name was associated with her Ephesia or Artemisia, record of it has not come down to us. Kyzikos likely received a second neokoria for Caracalla, but a report of a coin proclaiming Antoneina could not be confirmed.32 Antandros, though perhaps neokoros for Caracalla, is not yet known to have celebrated any sacred festivals at all. Ankyra boasted ‘great Asklepeia Sotereia Antoneineia,’ an isopythian festival, during Caracalla’s reign; but the emperor’s name disappeared as early as the festival’s second celebration, while the city’s claim to be twice neokoros first appeared on coins issued decades afterwards; the two are not directly associated. Antonineia proclaimed under Elagabalus may have honored him or his putative father Caracalla, but the only festival associated with Elagabalus’ grants of neokoria is that at Nikomedia. That city celebrated Demetria Antonia or Antonia Demetria, as Elagabalus was sharing the temple of Demeter, and also issued a coin type showing three prize crowns, perhaps alluding to a festival for each neokoria; but the doubts on this have been expressed above. Elagabalus’ cult was also moved into a patron god’s temple at Philippopolis, where he shared with Apollo Kendrisos; but the coins of that time only mention the Kendreseia and Pythia, contest(s) that had existed previously and that outlasted the condemnation of Elagabalus’ memory, as the neokoriai did not. Of the cities made neokoroi for independent cults of Elagabalus, none is known to have celebrated Antonineia; those that name their contests on coins do so under such shortened and generic terms that no association with an imperial sacred festival can be asserted. Ephesos, for example, became four times neokoros early in Elagabalus’ reign, and a coin issue shows a table with three prize crowns (Ephesia, 32

Karl 1975, 16.

chapter Hadrianeia, and perhaps Pythia) and one wreath (Olympia). But only the first and second can be associated with specific temples for which the city was neokoros, that of Artemis and that of Hadrian. The Ephesian Olympia predated the neokoria, and Pythia might represent any contest modeled on that at Delphi. The ‘evident’ correspondence between crowns and neokoriai is only on the surface. The same applies to Sardis, three times neokoros under Elagabalus, whose contemporary coins parade agonistic themes, often featuring four prize crowns. Only three of the crowns can represent temples that made the city neokoros, and none can be tied to any specific emperor; but some may represent festivals for which Sardis had no provincial temple, such as the Elagabalia (for the sun god of Emesa, not the emperor Antoninus) or the Severeia Koina Asias.33 Both Beroia and Miletos were twice neokoros, and issued coins showing two prize crowns; but the former never identifies the crowns, while the latter only calls them Olympia and Pythia, the last probably Pythia Panionia and likely not for an imperial temple. Tripolis in Phoenicia is called neokoros on only one coin, reportedly of Elagabalus, and is not known to have celebrated a sacred festival for any emperor. Perhaps the most interesting agonistic coin types issued by neokoroi are those of Hierapolis. Though the city was likely neokoros solely for Elagabalus, its coins show three temples and two wreaths, representing the contests as Aktia and Pythia; the central temple with the figure of the emperor has no wreath, however. This implies that though Hierapolis had two temples associated with sacred games, the one that made the city neokoros was not one of them. Severus Alexander allowed three neokoriai for his own cult, but no specific festival is associated with that honor at any of the cities involved. Kaisareia in Cappadocia issued a coin type with Alexan(drea) in its legend, but this is likely only an honorific title for the city itself. Neokaisareia, twice neokoros, issued types showing two temples and up to two prize crowns associated with them; but the only festivals named are Aktia and Koina. Aigeai probably became neokoros for the cult of Severus Alexander introduced into the city’s temple of Asklepios, but Aigeai’s sacred and worldwide festival in Asklepios’ honor appears to have been first granted almost twentyfive years later, by the emperor Valerian. And in the 33 Année Epigraphique 1993 no. 1527; Sardis had celebrated Koina since Neronian times.

40

– the cities

339

vexed case of Kyzikos, the city may have been celebrating the (short-lived) return of its second neokoria under Severus Alexander with coin types showing two (unnamed) prize crowns; the radiate emperor’s portrait hovers over one crown, a portrait of Julia Mamaea over the other. But if each crown means a festival, the type seems to say that both were for the current emperor and his mother, neither for the first temple to make Kyzikos neokoros, that of Hadrian. Gordian III founded one of the few Greek-style contests established in Rome, in honor of Minerva/ Athena Promachos, so it has seemed natural to scholars that similar contests should be associated with neokoriai he granted.34 The case is unfortunately not so clear. Beroia, having regained the second neokoria it lost after Elagabalus, issued coin types for the koinon with either two temples and one prize crown or one temple and two prize crowns; there is no exact correspondence between temples and festivals. Some Macedonian koinon coins of Gordian III mention Alexandreia, an isolympic festival honoring Alexander the Great; the Koina festival of Macedonia, established by the late first century and possibly (though not certainly) honoring the temple for which Beroia was first neokoros, had been isaktian, not isolympic. But much as one would like to interpret the Alexandreia as a festival for Beroia’s second neokoria, it had in fact been celebrated well before, at least since Severus Alexander. Thessalonike under Gordian III became neokoros and celebrated Pythia, possibly for a temple to that emperor; the names Kabeiria, Epinikia, or K(ai)sareia are occasionally associated, and the last two at least have direct associations with the imperial cult. Nikopolis in Armenia Minor, on the other hand, was twice neokoros under Gordian III, but no sacred festivals are yet known there. Considering neokoriai granted in the reign of Philip, no document is known for a festival corresponding either to the neokoria of Herakleia nor for that of Neapolis in Syria Palaestina. Thessalonike under Trajan Decius celebrated its title of four times neokoros with coin types of either four temples or of four prize crowns. The types’ consistency indicates a direct association between temples, titles, and contests there (see below). Anazarbos was probably awarded a sacred festival in honor of its neokoria 34

Wallner 1997, 78-83.

340

part ii – summary chapters

for Trajan Decius, the Dekios oikoumenikos; but other types dated 249-251 C.E. show five prize crowns in total, and thus go beyond the mere three neokoriai. Though Anazarbos remained three times neokoros, the total of prize crowns on its coins would go up to six from the time of Trebonianus Gallus. In the joint reign of Valerian and his son Gallienus, many neokoriai were either granted or restored. The clearest case in which a city’s festivals (if we take them as symbolized by the highest number of prize crowns shown on coin reverses) go up and down to equal its number of neokoriai is Thessalonike. The city lost two of its four neokoriai and two of its four crowns after Trajan Decius’ death: under Valerian, it was twice neokoros, with coin types of up to two prize crowns (named as Pythia, for the cult of Gordian III, and Aktia, the object of which is nowhere named). Later, in Gallienus’ sole rule, the city went up to three times neokoros and its coins show up to three crowns, though none of the temples is illustrated. Nikomedia’s case is probably similar, though it went through fewer changes: under Valerian it went back to being three times neokoros and put up to three crowns on its coins. The third temple was again that of the city’s patron Demeter, but none of the contests is explicitly named. On the other hand, several cities at this time showed a difference between the numbers of neokoriai and festivals that they boasted. Coin types of Sardis, for example, illustrate three prize crowns when the city calls itself twice neokoros, and still three crowns when it goes up to three times neokoros. In fact, the cities of Asia, though granted additional neokoriai at this time, apparently were not showered with more sacred contests, as cities on the northern and southeastern campaign fronts often were. Ephesos again became four times neokoros, but boasted no new festivals and issued few agonistic coin types. The same is true of Kyzikos (again twice neokoros) and Hierapolis (neokoros again). Of course, many of these cities (especially Nikomedia, Nikaia, and Ephesos) were troubled by Gothic raids that stole their wealth, disrupted transportation and trade, and destroyed their monuments, while the emperors’ attention and troops were elsewhere. The cities of Anatolia’s south coast, entryway for imperial armies on their way to the Persian conflict, issued many coins referring to festivals; but even so, those festivals do not exactly correspond with their neokoriai. Side, though newly (and only once) neo-

koros, celebrated two contests: the Pythia, already founded under Gordian III, and the Mystikos, which appears at this point but may be earlier. Coins of its rival Perge, now first proclaiming the neokoria the city had held since Vespasian, do not refer to a festival for that emperor but illustrate two prize crowns for Asylia Pythia and Olympia Augousteia, both apparently recently established. Aspendos’ only known imperial festival, its great pentaeteric Kaisareoi, antedates its neokoria under Gallienus, when the city boasted no sacred contests. Ankyra first calls itself twice neokoros under Valerian, but its agonistic types show either one or three prize crowns, and mention Aktia, Pythia, and Mystikos festivals. The latter was granted by the time of Hadrian, the Pythia is likely the Asklepeia Sotereia (by now no longer Antoneineia), and though it is tempting to ascribe the Augousteia Aktia to Ankyra’s provincial temple of Augustus and Rome, most citations of Augousteia in fact date to the time of Valerian and Gallienus. Tarsos may seem to have one festival per neokoria: it became three times neokoros in Valerian’s and Gallienus’ joint reign, and its coins show up to three prize crowns. But the contests specified are the Severeia Olympia, Hadrianeia Ekecheiria, and Augustia Aktia, and though all contain emperors’ names, they do not necessarily coincide with the neokoriai of Tarsos. It is possible, though not certain, that Tarsos first became neokoros for Hadrian, and three times neokoros for Valerian and perhaps Gallienus; Hadrianeia and Augustia would apply well to these neokoriai. But the second neokoria was assuredly for Commodus, whose contest continued under Septimius Severus and afterward, but is not among the three festivals celebrated on these coins. The end of city coinage, mainly after the reign of Gallienus, though in Pamphylia somewhat later, means the end of our major source of information. Of cities that were documented as neokoroi in these later years much is uncertain, but the lack of equivalency between neokoriai and festivals continues. Perge was made four times neokoros under Aurelian, and Side three times neokoros, but neither city is known to have boasted additional festivals at the time, nor did their few coins emphasize agonistic types. Afterward, Tacitus made Perge metropolis of Pamphylia and gave it a new festival, though no neokoria. Side (and perhaps Perge as well) became six times neokoros after 275, though again there is no sign of new festivals. Synnada, twice neokoros on an inscription dated after 293 C.E., issued coin types

chapter with a single prize crown under Gordian III; little else is known of it. The evidence of Sagalassos as twice neokoros is also from the Tetrarchic period; in Flavian times its chief priest of the Augusti had been an agonothetes, but likely for a municipal festival, and Sagalassos’ other known contests were privately founded ones. From the Tetrarchy onward, civic inscriptions also become infrequent, so our sources of information on neokoria dry up. As the above evidence indicates, it should no longer be simply assumed that a provincial temple and the title ‘neokoros’ went hand-in-hand with a sacred contest in the temple’s honor. Too often a particular festival cannot be allied to a particular grant of neokoria, and vice versa. From the beginning, it is likely that a sacred festival had to be requested in addition to a provincial temple, not as an unvarying accompaniment to it. In later centuries, the popularity of sacred and worldwide contests meant that more were asked for and granted, either to supplement the honor of a long-standing temple and neokoria or as an accompaniment to new temples; but new contests could eclipse older ones, names could be added to or taken from a contest to the point of incomprehensibility, or festivals could lapse through loss of income or mismanagement of funds. The interrelationship among cities (whether neokoroi or not), temples, and festivals was complicated, varied according to individual circumstances, and still requires much research before it can be fully understood. Neokoria: City versus Koinon As was stated at the beginning of this chapter, it was the city that became neokoros, not the koinon; even when coins call the koinon of Macedonia neokoros, this apparently reflected the position of its headquarters, Beroia, where the coins were minted, and which had long fought for its sole right to the title. This usage reflects a basic tenet of both Hellenic (or Hellenized) social structure and Roman administration of that structure: the organizing unit was generally the city, not the koinon, despite the fact that ‘neokoros’ was originally a title gained by the possessor of a koinon temple. Where one city dominated the activities of the koinon, there was of course no conflict between their interests. This was probably true of Kaisareia for Cappadocia, Ankyra for Galatia, and Nikopolis for

40

– the cities

341

Armenia Minor; it started out being true of Tarsos for Cilicia and Beroia for Macedonia as well. But in the latter two koina, rivals soon arose. And as chapter 41 will show, when cities quarreled most over the things they called ‘common,’ like the temples of their koinon, those things were no longer considered to be shared, but the property of one city or the other. Thus city rivalry, as well as administrative structure, led to the increasing ‘municipalization’ of the title ‘neokoros.’ Therefore ‘neokoros’ cannot be called entirely a ‘provincial’ or a ‘municipal’ title.35 It was granted for temples administered by the koinon and presided over by its officials. When those temples began to proliferate, the koinon officials often were said to preside over several of them—but only within one particular city. In Asia, we hear of a chief priest of the temples in Pergamon, never of the temple in Sardis and the temple in Smyrna. As has been noted in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ Hadrian’s generosity toward individual cities not only spread the honor of neokoria among more cities, but subtly refocused its import, away from negotiations between himself and the koinon, and toward a more direct dialogue between himself and the city he favored. Then Septimius Severus used the honor to punish and reward rivals in the same koina, hardly a technique to promote cooperation within the koinon. Caracalla granted it to many cities (some not very eminent) in Asia, often for personal reasons and direct contact, despite the fact that he still directed his decisions to the koinon. We have no record of the smaller cities’ having chief priests, chief priestesses, or any other koinon official in charge of the temples that made them neokoroi. Again in Asia, the title ‘neokoros’ was occasionally granted (or diverted) to a city’s patron god, as Caracalla did for Ephesos’ temple of Artemis. And in all provinces, starting from the third century, the cult of the emperors was apparently moved into extant temples more often, perhaps because of the expense of building new ones. Sometimes cities got three new neokoriai at a time, as did Thessalonike; likely such honors not only bypassed the koinon, but threw its membership off balance. All these factors tended to detach the honor from the koinon and move it closer to the city. 35

Municipal: Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5, with bibliography. Provincial: L. Robert 1967, 44-64, with bibliography.

342

part ii – summary chapters

On the other hand, the koinon continued to administer its temples of the imperial cult in the neokoroi cities. It represented its members on embassies, and corresponded with the emperor and Senate about their rights. And no matter the direct contact

between city and emperor, precedent probably insured that, officially at least, neokoria would result from an initial petition by the koinon, acceptance by the emperor, and approval by the Senate. The next chapter will examine this role of the koinon.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

343

Chapter 41. The Koina and Their Officials If there is a thread that runs through the history of neokoria and draws it together, it is the relationship among cities within their koinon. They celebrated the rituals of the imperial cult together, but quarreled over who was to go first in koinon processions. They complained to the emperor if other cities did not give them the full titulature they deserved, and struck coins celebrating their concord. Their enmity could reach such a pitch that they could support a contender for the throne solely because their closest rival was supporting his foe. It is as if all the energy, all the talent, and all the resources that in a truly autonomous city would have been directed toward administration and foreign affairs were instead diverted to fighting over precedence and titles. Orators deprecated it, Roman officials derided it. But we should not be misled into thinking that it was a squabble over nothing. The urban structure of the Roman East was highly hierarchic, and this type of stratification, as we shall see, was encouraged by Rome. Rivalrous cities can be seen as ‘niche competitors,’ struggling for desirable positions in the local hierarchy.1 In provinces where there were many cities, like Asia, competition for rank and position was fierce, whereas less urbanized provinces, like Cappadocia, had one primary center that served many functions (e.g. seat of the governor, center of the koinon, mint, focus of trade and markets) without challenge from rivals. One can visualize this particular form of hierarchy as a web, with cities seeking to make their way from their side of the periphery to the center of attention, using any means available. Where one city’s ancient temples and gymnasia were ranged against another’s harbor and strategic position, the former could gain a sacred contest, the latter a squadron and the title nauarchis; and the two could be eclipsed by another that had both historic and strategic importance. The acquisition of titles of various sorts was a way of making a city’s position in the web more evident,

and easing the way toward further and higher honors. And at the center of the web was primacy, the begrudged and competed-for place of first among the cities of one’s koinon. Modern scholars have often interpreted ancient cities’ aspirations in modern terms. Thus the profits of a city’s being a judicial district center, for example, are often seen as basically economic, as if the Hellenized elite of a city in Asia had the same motivations as an American city council calling for a new convention center.2 They generally cite Dio Chrysostomos, whose Oration 35 points out the economic advantages of attracting a motley throng of litigants, but they sometimes overlook the satirical tone of this speech.3 When addressing his own fellow citizens of Prusa, the same orator stressed not the economic side, but the indignity if one had to go for trial elsewhere: it was as if one’s own city had the status of a mere village.4 Being a judicial district center was desirable because it came closest to the ancient ideal of autonomy: to go to no other city to seek justice, in fact to have citizens of other cities come to you. It was a matter of honor, not just cash.5 In the same way, some of the rivalry for neokoriai must have been based on the fact that, if a city was neokoros, not only it but all the members of the koinon were probably (or, by the later third century, theoretically) celebrating at and contributing toward its temple. Smaller and less fortunate cities not only had to go somewhere else, but had to send their money somewhere else too. This chapter examines the structure of the koina, how they and their officials related to the imperial cult as practiced in neokoroi cities, and what role neokoria played in intra-koinon and intercity relations, especially in the competition for position on the hierarchic web. 2 3 4 5

1

Woolf 1997, 9-12.

172.

Burton 1975; more recently, Rogers 1991, 3-4. Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.15-17. Ibid., Oration 40.10, 33. Rigsby 1996, 23-24; Lendon 1997, 136-142, 151-154, 168-

344

part ii – summary chapters

Koinon Structure As mentioned in the ‘Introduction: Methodology,’ a koinon (‘commonality’) was an association of cities of similar ethnic background within a region.6 Its borders did not necessarily conform to those of a Roman province, though they seldom crossed them; there could be several koina within one province. The koinon had no administrative or governmental capabilities; those were still vested in the cities, the true administrative sub-units within each province. A koinon was simply a cooperative organization of cities, bound together by common interests and the practice of a particular cult; at the time of our investigation, the cult was generally that of the Roman emperor. Not all such organizations had specific titles for the cities that held their sanctuaries to that cult. At least to our knowledge, the neokoroi only appear in the koina of the East, not in their counterparts, the concilia of the West. Even in the East, no neokoroi have yet appeared in Crete, Cyprus, Lycaonia, or Syria, though all had koina. None are known in mainland Greece or in Egypt, places that lacked stable koina in imperial times.7 On the other hand, both Sagalassos in Pisidia and Neapolis in Syria Palaestina were made neokoroi, admittedly late, without known membership in any koinon. Even the koina known to have had neokoroi differ from one another, both in structure and in how they maintained their sanctuaries. Though the Hellenes of Asia and Bithynia apparently acted together in requesting their first temples to the ruler soon to be named Augustus, the Asians may have attempted to build a koinon temple to each subsequent emperor, whereas the Bithynians may have kept to the single one at Nikomedia for about a century. The Galatians, who were not Hellenes, also may have built a provincial temple to Augustus and Rome as early as his lifetime, and very much in the Ionic style perfected in Asia; on the other hand, their center at Ankyra only calls itself neokoros over a century after Asian cities regularly used the title. The cities of Pamphylia had rather hostile relations with one another, while those of Lycia acted in concert to an unusual degree; but the former had a neokoros city as early as Vespasian, while we hear of neokoroi 6 The basic work is still Deininger 1965; now also Marek 1993b and Haensch 1997. 7 Deininger 1965, 35, 88-91.

among the latter perhaps as late as the third century. Certain cities in the provinces had the status of ‘free,’ which they were granted by Rome, and held by Rome’s favor. ‘Freedom’ meant that they were not covered by the formula provinciae, were outside the direct control of the Roman governor, and that their citizens could not be forced to undertake the liturgies of the koinon.8 Neither these cities nor their citizens were kept from membership and participation in the koinon, however; they did so at their own pleasure, much as a free city could ask a governor to look into its affairs if necessary. Under Domitian, cities of the Asian koinon set up dedications in honor of their koinon temple of the Augusti at Ephesos. Ten of them used the same wording, perhaps based on a previous decree of the koinon. Two free cities, Aphrodisias and Stratonikeia, made longer and more elaborate dedications that emphasized that they were not bound by any decision of the koinon, but were participating voluntarily. Incidentally, nothing prohibited the city of Philadelphia, neither free nor particularly eminent at the time, from aggrandizing itself in its own particular dedication, rather than keeping to the koinon formula. In Cilicia, Tarsos was free but was also metropolis of its koinon, as well as neokoros from at least the time of Hadrian. Thessalonike, also free, had citizens who served as Macedoniarchs, and became neokoros under Gordian III. Koina that had one obvious center and few other major cities (Cappadocia with Kaisareia, Galatia with Ankyra, Armenia with Nikopolis) generally only proclaimed that city neokoros late, though they probably long had koinon sanctuaries and perhaps even the neokoria; cities with few rivals had little need to boast of their titles explicitly, so there are fewer documents to come down to us. In more urbanized regions, the centers of pre-Roman administration were sometimes first to receive koinon temples, for which they were later made neokoroi, as Nikomedia was in Bithynia and Pergamon in Asia. In the latter case, as in some other provinces, there was rivalry between the seat of the koinon and the center of Roman administration. Though Pergamon had the first koinon temple, Ephesos was where Asia’s governor generally had his headquarters, and as will be seen, the cities were frequently at odds with one another. Macedonia’s metropolis of the koinon 8

Ibid., 195; Bernhardt 1971; Reynolds 1982, nos. 14, 16; Herrmann 1993b, 246.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

was Beroia, and it not only became neokoros first, it claimed exclusivity for the title from the time of Nerva on, probably warding off challenge from the center of Roman government, Thessalonike. The latter only became neokoros under Gordian III, and probably at the cost of a second neokoria for Beroia, preserving that city’s notional primacy. In Thrace, however, the situation was the opposite: Philippopolis, metropolis of the koinon, didn’t become neokoros until 219 C.E., and likely wouldn’t have even then if Elagabalus had not favored the city on his route to Rome. In that case Perinthos, the seat of the Roman governor, would have remained the unchallenged neokoros in Thrace; indeed, Perinthos probably only boasted that it was in fact twice neokoros because Philippopolis was made (once) neokoros. The reason for this distinction was not that Thrace was an imperially administered province while Asia, Bithynia, and Macedonia were proconsular. Perge, arguably the governmental center of Pamphylia, was neokoros from Vespasian’s time, well before any of its rivals, and Tarsos, headquarters of the governor of Cilicia, also dominated its koinon and was its first neokoros; both were in imperial provinces. The situation in fact varies from koinon to koinon. The position and title of neokoros was not automatically accorded to headquarters either of governors or of koina, but had to be requested, and was sometimes only accorded to a city due to some special association with an emperor. The koina of Pontus are extraordinary, since there were apparently several, separated by the borders of the provinces into which Mithridates Eupator’s kingdom was divided. Likely Neokaisareia was metropolis of Pontus Polemoniacus and Amaseia that of Pontus Galaticus, each in a separate province until the time of Vespasian; each city thereafter retained its status of metropolis and first of Pontus, and for each the frequent proclamation of neokoria began on issues of coins from the same year, 161/162 C.E. Amastris also claimed to be metropolis of Pontus and likely seat of a koinon, but this one was in yet another province, Bithynia-Pontus, where the same person served as Bithyniarch and Pontarch; Amastris has not yet been documented as neokoros, and Herakleia is as yet the only neokoros known in that Pontic koinon. Yet another koinon of Pontus, known as left-hand, with its center at Tomis, is not yet known to have had any neokoros.

345

It is possible that the close structure of the unique koinon of Lycia made the individual cities less rivalrous, which is perhaps why so few cities (only Patara and Akalissos known so far) boasted of being neokoroi. Patara held the koinon sanctuary of Apollo Patroos; but it is likely that Xanthos, which had the ethnikon Kaisareion in its sanctuary of Leto, was neokoros as well, though the title is not yet documented there. Though administered within the same Roman province, Pamphylia’s cities were far less inclined to cooperation than those of Lycia. Indeed, their organization didn’t even call itself a koinon, only the ‘cities of Pamphylia.’ Though Perge became neokoros quite early, under Vespasian, that city was only officially made metropolis by Tacitus, about two centuries later. Perge, however, did not begin to flaunt its neokoria on its coins until its rival, Side, also became neokoros. In this it was like Perinthos, which did not specify that it was twice neokoros until Philippopolis became neokoros. Cities often took most care to declare their full titulature when a challenger to their titles appeared; but if the city had no close rival, it might proclaim its full titles only rarely. For example, Cappadocia’s metropolis Kaisareia added ‘neokoros’ to its coins only under Septimius Severus, though it may have long had a koinon temple, and even the title; and when granted a second neokoria under Severus Alexander, it still used the exact title and enumeration only intermittently from that point. Asia is the koinon we know the most about, and also the one with the most neokoriai. As such, we must not let the preponderance of its data overshadow the situation in other koina that offer less evidence. These organizations had different histories, different relationships with the Romans, different hierarchies among their members. Even so, koina could act in concert (as Asia and Bithynia may have in offering temples to Augustus) or copy another koinon’s action (as Hispania Ulterior did in offering a temple to Tiberius and his mother, “with the precedent of Asia”).9 One factor that may have led cities and their koina to seek neokoriai was the glittering example of Asia, with so many famous cities, each endowed with temples and titles.

9

Tacitus, Annals 4.37.

346

part ii – summary chapters

Officials of the Koinon and of its Temples The koina were generally headed by chief priests, who presided over the provincial imperial temples and their ceremonies.10 In their official functions, they may have come to be called ‘leader of the (individual koinon),’ so Asiarch, Lyciarch, Pamphyliarch, Pontarch, etc. In some cases, a woman also served the koinon as chief priestess; often she was the wife or relative of a chief priest or of a koinon leader. It has been suggested that her chief responsibility was the cult of the Augustae; in Asia at least, Tiberius’ mother shared his cult in the provincial temple in Smyrna from 26 C.E.11 But it should be noted that where chief priestesses and priests are portrayed as agonothetai and wear imperial portrait busts on their crowns, both male and female busts appear on crowns of both priests and priestesses, as on the crown of Plancia Magna of Perge, chief priestess of the Augusti.12 In most provinces there was only one chief priest per year, though Asia apparently had more than one chief priest serving simultaneously once its second koinon temple was built in Smyrna, after 26 C.E.13 From that point on, chief priests (and later, Asiarchs) were distinguished by the name of the city whose temples they presided over: chief priest of the koinon temple(s) at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at Ephesos, at Sardis, or at Kyzikos. Chief priesthood of a koinon was considered the summit of a provincial career.14 Chief priests were generally not just Roman citizens but knights or sometimes even of senatorial family, and frequently they were friends of prominent Romans in power. The office was very costly, and could involve massive outlay not only to add special magnificence to koinon festivals (for which the cities also made con10 The picture here presented is generally (though not in some particulars) that of Rossner 1974 and Deininger 1965, 148-154; for Asia, 38-41; Bithynia, 60-64. The controversy over chief priests and priestesses of Asia and Asiarchs is still being fought, but does not have a vital bearing on this work. See Kearsley’s articles: 1986, 1987a and b, 1988a and b, 1990, 1994, and 1996; also Friesen 1999a and 1999b, with a website presenting statistics, but flawed arguments; see below, n. 13. For rebuttals, Wörrle 1992, 368-370; Herz 1992; Campanile 1994a; and Engelmann 2000. 11 Herz 1992. 12 Rumscheid 2000, 31-32 cat. no. 32. 13 The main argument of Friesen 1999a, 283-284, and 1999b, 304, is flawed by his failure to recognize that there could be more than one chief priest (=Asiarch?) per year. 14 Quass 1993, 150-151, 216-218, 307-308.

tributions), but for such things as gladiatorial games and feasts, special building projects or even the payment of taxes for the entire province. For this outlay, and especially when presiding over the contests (s)he gave, the chief priest or chief priestess was often allowed the right to dress in purple, to wear a crown set with busts of the Augusti, and to walk at the head of the ritual procession of the koinon.15 Bithynia had Bithyniarchs, and female relations of the Bithyniarch often appear as chief priestesses of Bithynia. Bithynia also had archons of the koinon of the Hellenes in Bithynia, which may have been the same office as that of Bithyniarch.16 That one person could be both Bithyniarch and Pontarch has already been mentioned. Other known offices were sebastophantes and hierophantes of the mysteries of the koinon temple of Bithynia; both would have been in charge of revealing rituals to worshippers, though the former likely specialized in Augustus’ cult, as was true in Galatia (below). There was possibly a Helladarch, and a theologos is discussed below. Pamphylia’s association of cities was led by Pamphyliarchs; at Perge, a ‘chief priest of the Augusti and agonothetes of the great pentaeteric Kaisareia games and agonothetes of the Artemeiseia Vespasianeia games’ is also known. In Macedonia, the chief priest of the Augusti was also often named as agonothetes of the koinon festival, and later as Macedoniarch. Some third-century Macedoniarchs were also hierophantai, but there is no necessity that this provincial office (likely similar to that of Bithynia or Galatia) be the same as that of the hierophantes of Kabeiros, patron god of Thessalonike.17 Sometimes the wife of a chief priest and/or Macedoniarch is called chief priestess of (the current) Augusta, though one is Macedoniarchissa. It is noteworthy that between ca. 20 and 96 C.E. the former ‘priests of the Galatians for the god Augustus and the goddess Rome’ became simply ‘chief priests of Augustus.’ Later, some officials were chief priests, some were Galatarchs, and some were both. There were also chief priestesses, and sebastophantai limited to the cult of Augustus, as it was specifically distinguished from the position of ‘hierophantes of the theoi sebastoi’ for the other Augusti. 15 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.38; Merkelbach 1978, tempered by Haensch 1997, 284 n. 125. 16 Campanile 1993. 17 Pace Nigdelis 1996, 137-141.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

A statue identified as a Ciliciarch dates to the midthird century, and probably portrays an official who served at temples in Tarsos; Tarsos’ titles are even included on his agonothetic crown.18 Tarsos was not only metropolis of its own koinon (Cilicia) but of three eparchies (also Lycaonia and Isauria), and the Ciliciarchs at first only presided at Tarsos, though later they may have served at Anazarbos as well.19 Most is known of the koinon of Asia, but it again proves to be a unique and complex case. In Augustan times its chief priest bore the title of the sole koinon temple (in Pergamon), ‘chief priest of the goddess Rome and of the emperor Caesar Augustus, son of the god (Julius).’ Asia, however, kept adding koinon temples for later emperors, as has already been noted. The priests’ objects of cult could still be specified, as with the ‘chief priest of the temple of Gaius Caesar in Miletos’; but this same man had already served as ‘chief priest of Asia,’ unspecified, twice before. When the koinon temple of the Augusti was finished in Ephesos, under Domitian, the man who presided there was simply known as the chief priest of the koinon of Asia. As a result of the multiplication of koinon temples, however, the particular city was often specified, and early on we hear of a ‘chief priestess of the temple at Ephesos.’ It is possible that the ‘chief priest of Asia’ could later be known as ‘Asiarch,’ as both titles are occasionally clarified by a statement of which temple(s) the particular official presided over; but this issue is still contested, as has been noted. A precious account of the election of a chief priest of Asia is offered by Aelius Aristides.20 In 147 C.E., Aristides went into the assembly at Smyrna and was offered ‘the common priesthood of Asia,’ presumably the city’s nomination as its candidate for chief priest. Though he at some point had a dream (Oration 50.53) in which someone in Smyrna hailed him as ‘Asiarch,’ Aristides was unwilling to serve. He tried to scotch the plan, and believed he had succeeded, but later on the Smyrnaean delegates went to the koinon meeting at Laodikeia, and Aristides

came in third or fourth in the balloting, i.e., was elected. This implies that, had he not wheedled an exemption from the governor of the province, he would have become chief priest of the third or fourth city out of the five possible in Asia (see below). Aristides’ account does not tell us whether the chief priests were considered to be of equal or unequal rank: though the first one elected could have been allotted the most honorable place, it is also possible that the electees drew lots for assignments. Fayer believed that the provincial chief priest at Pergamon held precedence over the others, as he had been the koinon’s first chief priest, originally known as the chief priest of Rome and of Augustus.21 Campanile guessed that there were three or four chief priests of Asia, equal in rank to one another, though she correctly observed that they did not necessarily preside in the temples in their own cities or judicial district centers; a chief priest could serve two different terms in two different cities.22 She took her number from Dio Chrysostomos, who in the satirical address to the Apameans mentioned above referred to ‘three or four long-haired men’ whom he compared to chief priests of Asia; but this reference is too vague to be an argument either for the chief priests’ number or equality in rank.23 Though documents mentioning their offices are abundant, chief priests of Asia or chief priestesses or Asiarchs are specified as presiding over temples in only five cities: Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, Sardis, and Kyzikos. That these temples also made their cities neokoroi is clear: when the title changes from, e.g., ‘chief priest of the temple’ to ‘chief priest of the temples,’ the city in question also goes from being neokoros to twice neokoros, as happened to Pergamon under Trajan, to Smyrna and Ephesos under Hadrian, and to Sardis under Antoninus Pius (the change is not documented for Kyzikos, whose second neokoria remains problematic). Three of the five cities possessed the earliest provincial temples in Asia yet documented: Pergamon that of Rome 21

Fayer 1976, 112-113. Campanile 1994b. She believed that Miletos was one of the “three or four” cities, despite the unlikelihood of a provincial temple to Gaius maintaining its status after his death; there are no records of chief priests, chief priestesses, or Asiarchs of provincial temples at Miletos after Gaius. She was also incorrect and anachronistic in unifying these cities under the title neokoroi: there were eventually at least eight other neokoroi in Asia, none of which is yet known to have had a provincial chief priest, chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s). 23 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.10. 22

18

L. Frey 1982; Rumscheid 2000, 131-132 cat no. 34 claimed that the crown could refer to either Tarsos or Anazarbos; but she did not note that Anazarbos (q.v.) did not use the titles ‘first, greatest, most beautiful’ at the time to which the statue dates. 19 Ziegler 1995b; 1999. 20 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales, 4).100-104. For the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996, 272-273.

347

348

part ii – summary chapters

and Augustus, Smyrna that of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate, and Ephesos that of the Augusti, completed in the time of Domitian. The first imperial temple of Sardis, however, is not yet datable, and that of Kyzikos was probably the great temple of Hadrian. So the five cities in which chief priests or Asiarchs served may represent the first five possessors of provincial imperial temples, and later were named neokoroi for those and for any additional temples. There are many neokoroi in Asia that are never documented as having a provincial chief priest, chief priestess, or Asiarch of their temple(s), however, and it may be that cities that received their first neokoria later, such as Laodikeia under Commodus, did not have provincial chief priests assigned or elected. So the number of chief priests of the Asian koinon was likely limited to five sometime after Hadrian (Kyzikos’ first temple) and before Commodus. The five cities in question were probably the ‘five metropoleis’ specified in an Ephesian inscription dated ca. 270 C.E.24 The lady who was its subject, a member of the eminent family of the Vedii, boasted in each generation a chief priest in the five metropoleis. But note that the term ‘metropolis’ did not exclusively denote the fact that chief priests of the koinon presided over the city’s temples; it could also refer to the city’s having established colonies, being a center of administration, or simply being large and important.25 The case of Philadelphia is relevant to the question of chief priests and metropoleis. The city was rather a social climber: though its judicial district center had once been Sardis, it became a center itself by the mid-second century.26 It was also the site of the Koina festival of Asia by around the same time. Its citizen Aurelius M... then directly petitioned Caracalla, who allowed the city to become neokoros in 214. Philadelphia was given the title metropolis by Elagabalus, but apparently lost it with his death. Nonetheless, on the basis of that lost status, in 255 it successfully petitioned Valerian and Gallienus to be released from its contribution to the metropoleis for the expenses of the chief priesthood and panegyriarchy. The cities that were thus deprived of Philadelphia’s contribution were likely the same ‘five 24

FiE 3:72 (= IvE 3072), lines 23-27. Despite Bowersock 1985; inexplicably pursued in 1995, 85-98. See Haensch 1997, 24-26, 252-254. 26 Aelius Aristides, Oration 50.96-98; Habicht 1975, 75.

metropoleis’ later referred to in the Ephesian document of 270, and this probable fact solidifies their connection with the chief priesthood of the koinon. The cream of the provincial temples in Asia, then, were in only five cities; yet by the end of the second century the neokoria, previously a title signifying possession of such a temple, spread beyond those five. We do not have the documents to prove precisely what the status of these new neokoroi was. Certainly there was a provincial contest at neokoros Tralles, which occasionally even called itself metropolis, though no chief priest is yet known to have served there. It seems that, as has been noted, once neokoroi proliferated in Asia, they lost some of the features of ‘provinciality,’ or at least, the features that would have made functioning within the koinon impracticable, as will be seen. Also, in the third century, at a time when even the wealthy were becoming unwilling to take on the mammoth expenditure of provincial chief priesthood, it may have been difficult to suggest that there be ten or eleven chief priests of Asia each year instead of five, or to arrange their election and their order of precedence.27 Asia had a hard enough time with three ‘first’ cities and five or more metropoleis. But in fact we do not know enough about the administration of temples of the neokoroi outside those five metropoleis to make any assumptions at all. Thus the koinon of Asia had chief priests, perhaps later referred to as Asiarchs, and chief priestesses; in one or two cases, mainly in the mid-first century, chief priests were also sebastophantai.28 In addition, the koinon of Asia assigned neokoroi officials to at least some of its temples. They are recorded to have served at Pergamon, at Smyrna, at the short-lived koinon temple of Gaius at Miletos, and at Ephesos. Neokoros must have been quite an honorable office, as the men who served as such in the latter two cities had already been chief priests of Asia. The official at Smyrna was called ‘neokoros of the Augusti’ in the third century; this may mean that the one official was responsible for all three temples that made Smyrna neokoros in his time. There were also panegyriarchs, as the petition from Philadelphia discussed above asked that that city be released from the expenses of that office; one panegyriarch held office for the koinon temples at the metropolis of Pergamon.

25

27 28

Rossner 1974, 111. Campanile 1994a, nos. 15, 16.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

Associations of hymnodoi to sing the emperors’ praises were established at specific provincial temples of Asia by imperial permission.29 The first and most famous group was that for Augustus at Pergamon, an elite hereditary organization of up to forty men, supported by a levy on the entire province. Smyrna apparently also had hymnodoi for its temple of Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate; both they and the Pergamene group were likely exempted from the edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus of 44 C.E., which otherwise diverted the duties of hymnodoi to the ephebes. Hadrian appears to have granted hymnodoi for all three of his temples in Asia, at Kyzikos, Ephesos, and Smyrna; the latter were twenty-four in number. Allied with the hymnodoi in some cases, and of similar elevated status, were theologoi who celebrated the imperial god(s) in prose.30 P. Aelius Paion of Side had been rhapsode to Hadrian before he became theologos of the temples in Pergamon; and later, one of the Pergamene hymnodoi was the son of a Pergamene theologos.31 The provincial temple of the Augusti at Ephesos had nine or more theologoi (and also fourteen thesmodoi, deliverers of precepts or oracles) under the direction of the chief priest. Hadrian gave Smyrna theologoi as well as hymnodoi, and outside the province Asia there is an epitaph for a theologos (though not explicitly of the emperors) at Nikomedia. The koinon of Asia also had secretaries (grammateis) ‘of Asia,’ ‘of temples in Asia,’ and ‘of temples of Asia in Ephesos.’32 Miscellaneous other officers are known from particular temples in Asia. The short-lived provincial temple of Gaius Caesar at Miletos (i.e. the Didymaion) had neopoioi from all Asia, one from each judicial district. Such officials were in charge of the temple’s fabric, and in this case the group probably oversaw funds for the new construction, and perhaps directed teams of craftsmen of the province. The neopoioi inscription also specifies a chief priest of Gaius’ temple at Miletos (whose third term as chief priest of Asia this was); a neokoros who had also been

29

21.

Halfmann 1990; IvE 17-19, 3801; Oliver 1989, 90 no.

349

chief priest of Asia twice; and a chief neopoios who was also sebastoneos (an otherwise unknown office) and sebastologos (who like the theologos delivered prose eulogies, but specifically of Augustus or the Augusti). Koinon and Neokoria The increasing number of neokoroi over time prompts the question if, or when, the title ‘neokoros’ became detached from the koinon and its funding or administration of a particular temple. One may wonder whether Septimius Severus’ grants to his civil war allies, or Caracalla’s rain of favors on Asian cities large and small, or Elagabalus’ prodigality, or Trajan Decius’ giving Thessalonike three neokoriai at once, all involved the building of koinon temples at koinon expense and administered by koinon officials (see chapters 39 and 40 on ‘Temples’ and ‘Cities,’ above). Certainly when the title was accorded to honor the temple of a deity, as happened by the later second century at Aizanoi, neokoros of Zeus, that temple was not put under the control of the koinon. On the other hand, Caracalla’s letter making Ephesos neokoros of Artemis was apparently still directed to the koinon of Asia, not just to Ephesos. By the time of Philip, Neapolis became neokoros, though we know of no koinon of Samaria or Syria Palaestina to which it belonged. But this silence may be because our records are incomplete, as Caesarea Maritima in that province was metropolis (of a koinon?) from the time of Severus Alexander. We would gain a great deal of insight into the origins and development of neokoroi cities if we knew more about how the various koina chose them, or had them chosen. Unfortunately there are even fewer records of deliberations within the koina than of deliberations within individual cities. Again the best documented koinon is that of Asia, though as both the most urbanized and most rivalrous of the provinces it cannot be taken as typical. It had yearly meetings; one held in 4 B.C.E. had 150 representatives present.33 Major cities such as Smyrna sent more than one representative, and at least three cities, Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos, had the right to voice their opinions before the others, so that their views were privileged.34 It is not explicitly stated

30

L. Robert 1943, 184-186. Ibid. and 1980b, 16-17; Roueché 1993, 144-145; IvP nos. 374, 525. 32 Asia: IvE 3040; IGRR 4:821, 822 (Hierapolis); in Ephesos, IvE 3080. See Deininger 1965, 50 n. 2, 155. 31

33

Buckler and Robinson 1932, no. 8. Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).103 and Oration 23.34. 34

350

part ii – summary chapters

that some cities had more votes than the others, though that was so in the koinon of Lycia, which gave the largest cities three, the medium-sized two, and the rest one vote.35 Financial obligations were likely proportional, and Asia’s thirteen judicial district centers paid the most: Dio Chrysostomos praised one of them, Apamea, for sharing in ‘the sanctuaries of Asia’ and paying as much of their expenses as any city in which they were situated (at that point, only Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesos, and perhaps Sardis were neokoroi).36 The inscription of neopoioi for Gaius’ temple at Miletos also shows that the Asian koinon used its judicial districts organizationally, for choosing representatives and perhaps for collecting funds and allotting staff and work for a provincial temple.37 Judicial districts were not, however, an organizing principle for neokoroi: from the beginning, cities were chosen to hold koinon temples on the basis of their individual eminence, not from any aim at geographical representation. For example, eleven cities vied for Tiberius’ temple, and among them were the judicial district centers Ephesos, Pergamon, Miletos, Halikarnassos, Sardis, and Smyrna (the latter ultimately the winner). Tralles was at least a former center, but Hypaipa, Laodikeia, Magnesia, and Ilion were not judicial centers at all (though Ilion was itself the focus of a small koinon worshipping Athena Ilias). Though our knowledge of the extent of the judicial districts (as of the neokoroi) remains incomplete, neither the centers Alabanda, Halikarnassos, Adramyttion, Kibyra, Apamea, and Philomelion, nor any city in their districts, are known to have ever been neokoroi. Koinon Politics Where literature has allowed us a glimpse into the working of the various koina, we can see intense political maneuvering and bloc voting among the cities. Dio Chrysostomos berated the metropolis of Cilicia, Tarsos, for being at odds with its smaller neighbors, and apparently prosecuting cases against Roman officials on its own hook.38 It appears that

a single metropolis, were it powerful and well favored by service to Rome (as Tarsos was), could either swing its whole koinon willy-nilly behind it, or proceed without the koinon’s cooperation. The situation was different in Bithynia, which had two rival ‘first’ cities, Nikomedia and Nikaia. There, Dio pointed out the myriad dangers of their failure to get along with one another: it not only allowed Roman governors to play off one city against another by flattering it with titles, but gave real power to the smaller cities in the koinon.39 “By joining forces you [i.e. Nikomedia with Nikaia] will dominate all the cities; and the governors too, should they ever want to do an injustice, will be hesitant and even afraid before you. But as it is now, the other cities are overjoyed by the quarrel between you; for you seem to need them, in fact you really do need them, because of your contest with each other. . . the result is, while you (two) fight over first place, chances are that those whom you’re lobbying have first place.” (Oration 38.34-35). This passage describes very effectively how smaller cities could end up wielding power and perhaps winning privileges for themselves by taking sides in their koina. In the same koinon but at a later time, the little city of Kios did not support its close (and probably bossy) neighbor Nikaia, which sided with Pescennius Niger, but fell into the camp of Nikaia’s rival Nikomedia in supporting Septimius Severus: ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ When its side won, Kios expressed its joy in a coin legend that precisely echoed one at Nikomedia: “with Severus as king, the universe is happy, the Kianans are fortunate!”40 If the cities of Bithynia tended to line up behind one of two cities, Asia was yet more divided. We have already seen how eleven cities of various ranks vied for Tiberius’ temple, probably because as a koinon the Asians were unable to settle on which city should have that honor. When Aelius Aristides addressed a meeting of that koinon at Pergamon, three cities claimed to be foremost: Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos.41 The quarrel was not just among those three, however, as all the others took sides with one of them against the other two. As mentioned before, the three had the right to voice their opinions before the others; but as Aristides was careful to point out, when their views were at vari-

35

Strabo 14.664-665. Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 35.14, 17; see chapter 39, ‘Temples.’ 37 Mileta 1990; Sartre 1995, 198-201. 38 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 34, esp. 7-15, 27, 47-48. 36

39 40 41

Ibid., Oration 38.26-38. J. Nollé 1998, 345-347. Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 12, 34.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

ance, the entire koinon fell into faction. This meant that the Asian koinon was open to the same kind of maneuvering that Dio Chrysostomos deprecated in Bithynia. Koinon institutions and activities could themselves be a potent cause of hostilities. Aristides played on that contradiction in the same oration to the koinon meeting at Pergamon cited above: “I am amazed that while you pride yourselves most on the temples and contests you think of as common (i.e., of the koinon), it is over these very things that you have become divided. When you even quarrel over what you’re proud to hold in common, over what will you ever agree? . . . As if you meant them to be contradictions against divisiveness, you have called your council chambers ‘common,’ your temples and your contests ‘common,’ pretty much all the most important things ‘common.’ Don’t you have to be wrong one way or the other? For if you’re rightly proud of these things being common, why aren’t you ashamed to be quarreling over them?”42 By the time of Aristides’ oration, 167 or 168 C.E., Pergamon, Smyrna, and Ephesos had been at odds over proper titles and standing within the koinon for twenty years or more. Aristides called it a quarrel over proteia, over who was to be preeminent. All three already had the right to address the council before others, and one may wonder how the conflicting precedence was handled; and all were, or would soon be, entitled ‘first’ in some way. But the primary issues that Aristides addressed were, as mentioned above, the temples and contests called ‘common,’ koina. The common temples are likely those that distinguished cities as neokoroi, and they do seem to have been the focus of intense competition in the koinon of Asia. Aristides was careful to call each of the three rival cities equally praiseworthy, and to laud each for its individual attributes, as well as praising the koinon as a whole; but he reminded the audience that such points of pride are transient gifts of fortune, and spent the rest of the speech on the virtue truly worthy of pride, concord within the koinon. But as will be seen, this virtue was all the more to be prized because it was in fact so rare.

42

Aelius Aristides, Oration 23, esp. 65, 66. Dated to 167 by Behr 1968, 104-105, to 168 by Swain 1996, 288-293.

351

Competition and Concord From the epics of Homer on, it was taken as a principle that men would vie with their fellows to become foremost in honor and fame. Hesiod said that there are two kinds of strife, one good, one bad: the bad seeks to bring its rival low, while the good seeks to outperform the competition.43 Tellingly, Aelius Aristides quoted that passage almost a millennium later, to urge the factionalized Rhodians to cling to the good kind of strife, and banish the bad.44 The lessons of fifth- and fourth-century Greece were ready to hand in the repertoire of the orators of the ‘second sophistic,’ who practiced their art in the period of this study.45 These orators explicated contemporary and local events through the examples offered by the great events of the Hellenic past, which is how a dispute over who came first in one koinon could be compared to the Peloponnesian war. Thucydides had not only applied to cities the principle that had generally applied to men, but extended it: it was not enough that Athens be at Sparta’s level, or Sparta at Athens’, but one of them had to be first, to have proteia; and it was not enough that the first city be fully autonomous, but it had to have cities below that were subservient and tributary. This was the exalted background against which the Roman Empire’s Hellenic cities fell into rivalry and were urged toward concord. A number of excellent works have illuminated the agonistic nature of relations among Greek cities in the Roman empire in general, as well as the rivalries between particular ones.46 But few have sufficiently emphasized the place of the koinon as the main sphere for rivalry. In almost every case documented in the ancient sources, the cities at odds with each other were in the same koinon. And this was not just because neighbors always tend to fall out. As we shall see, the points of their dispute were often intimately associated with their places in the web of koinon hierarchy. The terms of discussion in documents and speeches of the Roman East in the first three cen43

Hesiod, Works and Days 11-26. On Greek culture as basically agonistic, Burckhardt 1998, xxxii, 71-72, 162-184. 44 Aelius Aristides, Oration 24.13. 45 Swain 1996, 65-100. 46 Among many, Magie 1950, 635-639, 1496-1501; L. Robert 1977b; C. Jones 1978, 83-94; Herrmann 1979; Ameling 1984; Gascó 1990; J. Nollé 1993; and last but by no means least, Lendon 1997, 74-77, 136-139, 170-172 (though incorrect on Anazarbos’ neokoria).

352

part ii – summary chapters

turies C.E. do not translate happily into modern English terms; present-day Western culture has a much more ambivalent attitude toward competition. Where the documents speak of philotimia, ‘love of honor,’ we often translate ‘rivalry.’ This does not mean that the Greeks couldn’t use philotimia in a denigrating manner, just as we can use ‘rivalry’ in a good sense—but the basic sense of the Greek word is good, the English one less so.47 The all-important proteia, ‘firstness,’ translates (weakly) as ‘primacy,’ ‘preeminence,’ or ‘being foremost’—and not only did several cities quarrel over being ‘first,’ but several would actually become ‘first,’ and somehow each of those could lead a procession, or speak its opinion, ‘first.’ Greek homonoia, ‘being of the same mind,’ is usually translated (via the Latin) as ‘concord,’ since ‘unanimity’ has become confined to contexts of voting. The opposite of homonoia is either eris, ‘conflict, discord,’ or stasis, ‘faction’; orators and inscriptions used any of these for agreements or disagreements among people, among cities, or within a city.48 One of the most common issues over which cities of the Roman East could compete was titulature. Though this type of competition may seem less sensible to us than disputing over such solid items as territory or harbor rights, titles reflected a city’s place in the hierarchic web, and as we will see, influenced both its current and its future treatment. Thus the quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia that Dio Chrysostomos derided was over onomata, ‘names,’ i.e. titles, specifically being acclaimed or inscribed as ‘first,’and it continued for a century at least.49 Cassius Dio wrote from a more remote, senatorial viewpoint than his possible relative, Dio Chrysostomos, but he too saw little good in titles. In his opinion, the best course was to eliminate the cities’ hatreds and rivalries by not allowing them empty names, or anything else that set them at odds, advice which he put into the mouth of Augustus’ advisor Maecenas.50 He further complained that 47

E.g. Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.80, where C. Behr (Aelius Aristides, The Complete Works 2 [Leiden 1981] 44) translates “let us engage in an honorable rivalry” for filotimhy«men. See also MacMullen 1974, 168 n. 14. 48 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:204-206, pointed out that the very cities that had the most internal turbulence were the ones that had the most intercity rivalry as well; though perhaps this is so just because these are the cases best documented by exhortations of orators. 49 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.22-31; L. Robert 1977b. 50 Cassius Dio 52.37.10; Gascó 1988.

whereas under Augustus it took a decree of the Senate to allow Paphos to call itself Augusta as a sign of real honor, in his own time most cities made out a list of names to suit themselves.51 Such freedom of selection may have applied to imperial names, which were honorific without implying any real change in a city’s status. But from the time of the high empire, and even later, both Roman authorities and other cities kept a strict eye to see that titles like ‘neokoros’ were not misappropriated. Antoninus Pius himself regulated the titles of Ephesos; at the end of the third century the citizens of Perge cried out that their city was “not false with respect to anything at all; all the rights are by decree of the Senate”; and even in the tetrarchic period, Ephesos had to send a dossier of documents to the governor to justify its preeminence, perhaps as the result of another city’s challenge.52 It is important to distinguish between a city ‘coming in first’ in some particular contest and that same city taking the title ‘first,’ as both Nikomedia and Nikaia did in Bithynia. For example, in Asia, Pergamon seems to have used the title ‘first’ by the time of Trajan, and Ephesos by the time of Hadrian; but even though Smyrna ‘won first place’ in an embassy to Antoninus Pius regarding the temples and their rights, and had the right to speak among the first in the koinon council by 167-168, it is not known to have called itself ‘first’ until the start of the third century. Nysa and Magnesia were eventually proud to call themselves ‘sixth’ and ‘seventh of Asia,’ implying that ranking by number went beyond ‘first.’53 Though these were not the greatest cities in terms of size or strategic placement, rank was probably judged not only on those bases, but took into account ancestry, ancient cults, foundation myths, associations with gods and heroes, and relations with Rome, as had the contest for Tiberius’ temple in Asia, already discussed in chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ Some titles conveyed relations not just in the provincial hierarchy but specifically with the rulers. To be called ‘friend and ally of Rome’ implied a relationship of equality and of military assistance that was long obsolete but that still may have evoked respect in a Roman audience. To be named ‘colony’ conveyed close cultural and social identification with 51 52 53

Cassius Dio 54.23.8. Chapter 18, ‘Perge,’ inscription 3; IvE 217. S. Price 1984b, 129.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

Rome, even when the city also became neokoros for a living emperor rather than a deified one, and even when most of the ‘colonists’ preferred speaking Aramaic or Greek to Latin. Among the various titles, ‘neokoros’ was an important weapon in the pursuit of honor and rank.54 It conveyed both status within the province and relationship with Rome. Awarded for the provincial imperial cult, at first its mere possession was a symbol of preeminence, as the title was at first granted only to the greatest cities by a consensus of koinon, emperor, and Senate. Trajan, however, allowed the title to be duplicated, introducing another layer of hierarchy based on number of koinon temples and symbolized by the title ‘twice neokoros.’ This action made neokoros different from all other titles, and in its way more desirable. Both Ephesos and Pergamon claimed to be ‘first,’ and it was hard to say that one was ‘first-er’ than the other; but Pergamon as twice neokoros was obviously superior to Ephesos as just neokoros, which meant that Ephesos would not rest until it was twice neokoros too. Then Hadrian allowed neokoria to spread yet more widely, making the title accessible to more cities within the Asian and Bithynian koina, and possibly allowing it as far afield as Cilicia. Where the smaller cities saw the great ones accumulating multiple neokoriai, the price of their support in the koinon may have become neokoria for themselves. A direct request to the emperor could also achieve results: Hadrian’s philhellenism, Septimius Severus’ rewards, and Caracalla’s and Elagabalus’ generosity with titles led to a rampant escalation in neokoriai. Since many of these were apparently granted due to direct relationships between city/citizens and emperor (e.g. Hadrian to Polemon, Septimius Severus to his partisans, Caracalla to Aurelius of Philadelphia, Elagabalus to Nikomedia and Philippopolis), it may be that these grants more or less bypassed the koinon, which previously had mediated between the two. This is a powerful explanation of how the title begins to appear to be divorced from the koinon and purely municipal. Soon leading cities boasted the honor three or even four times, the single title spread to Philadelphia, Aizanoi, or even Antandros, and likely by the start of the fourth century, Side was six times neokoros. 54 Collas-Heddeland 1995 also tried to show this, but was unfortunately vague and incorrect at points (see L’Année Epigraphique 1995 no. 1476).

353

The fact that neokoria was so clear an indicator, became so popular among cities in competition, and could be attained directly from the emperor, eventually changed its nature to some degree. The system of koinon cult, with its officials and temples and contributions, could only expand so far. As we shall see, it is likely that from the later second century on, Asia did not continue to create chief priests to preside in all its many neokoroi, but confined that office to five cities, known as the five metropoleis. Though the title and the temples were still technically under the aegis of the koinon, the temples outside the five metropoleis were not (to our knowledge) called ‘common,’ and evidently did not have specific chief priests of Asia assigned to them, though either of these observations may be an accident of preservation of the documents. It is no wonder that Deininger preferred to see neokoria as a municipal, not a provincial, honor, though Robert affirmed the koinon’s role in it.55 Cities that had the advantage in neokoria worked hard to preserve the pecking order. Beroia managed to hold off all competition in Macedonia until the reign of Gordian III, and then when Thessalonike finally became neokoros, Beroia kept its advantage, becoming twice neokoros. Anazarbos eventually beat Tarsos to a third neokoria, though Tarsos may never have entirely given up its dominance as metropolis of the koinon. It was likely not an accident that Neokaisareia, perhaps neokoros since Trajan, only began to put that title on its coins regularly when Amaseia began to do so. On the other hand, cities without rivals for neokoria often saw no need to advertise their status, as Perinthos did not bother to specify that it was twice neokoros until its rival Philippopolis became neokoros. Perge was long neokoros without declaring it, but Side’s becoming neokoros produced sudden and rapid escalation: both cities’ coins begin to constantly proclaim them neokoroi under Valerian, then Side became three times neokoros and Perge four times, and the evidence ends with Side (and maybe even Perge) as six times neokoros. The greatest evidence for neokoria arises wherever inter-city rivalry was strongest. It is no accident that among the first cities to gain, publicize, and multiply neokoriai were Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, whose three-way contest for primacy in Asia 55

Deininger 1965, 143 n. 5; L. Robert 1967, 44-64.

354

part ii – summary chapters

was the subject of Aelius Aristides’ lecture to their koinon. That oration, like many by Dio Chrysostomos, deplores rivalry and celebrates concord, a virtue that orators were as eager to recommend as cities were loath to practice.56 According to Aristides, the best and most cultivated of the emperors (perhaps Hadrian or Antoninus Pius) said that he would judge that city best which first willingly practiced concord, thus only changing the terms of inter-city competition to rivalry over lack of rivalry.57 Of course, this harping on concord may result from the chance survival of the speeches preserved to us. Aelius Aristides noted that it was a common practice for other orators (whom he called bad speakers) to praise the city that they were currently visiting, but then slander the same city once they left, especially if they visited her rival.58 It is likely that the cities heard as many speeches exacerbating their rivalry as smoothing it over. Occasionally cities issued coins in celebration of their concord.59 Though much is still uncertain about the occasions for these coins, they do not seem to represent formal treaties or agreements. Instead, they appear to be advertisements for a new or renewed connection of good relations between the cities in question, often in connection with cultic or festival celebrations, or in celebration of common origins or interests. It is even possible that concord coins were issued as a reflection of rivalry, especially when only one of the cities involved minted such coins, instead of both cities minting reciprocal issues. For example, only Ephesos seems to have issued coins of its concord with Pergamon and Smyrna under Antoninus Pius, and though this too may represent an accident of preservation, I have suggested that they stood as a claim to Ephesos’ winning an argument over titulature that is epigraphically documented as well. Less is known of the association of Pamphylian cities than of other koina, but 56 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.53; Dio Chrysostomos, Orations 34, 38, 40, 41. I omit many other references that concern concord within a city rather than among cities: see Plutarch, Political Precepts 32 (824). 57 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.74. 58 Ibid., Oration 23.5. 59 Pera 1984; Franke 1987; M. Nollé and J. Nollé 1994; Franke and M. Nollé 1997; Weiss 1998; Kampmann 1998; Swain 1996, 181 on concord for the elite. On the personification of Concord, specifically between cities, Thériault 1996, 81-99; a treatment which does not assume that all concords represented the settlings of (otherwise unknown) quarrels.

it is interesting to watch that association’s exchange of concord issues, and speculate on the relationships they represent. Both Perge and Side had minted coins for their mutual concord under Gordian III. In the reign of Valerian and Gallienus, however, when there is almost a war of coin types between the two cities, Perge advertised her concord only with cities outside Pamphylia, while Side not only advertised hers with even more foreign cities, but also minted concord coins with Attaleia and even with its old enemy Aspendos. Can this indicate a new voting bloc within the provincial organization, with Side and its neighbors allied against the previously dominant Perge? Certainly first Side, and then Aspendos, became neokoros in rivalry with Perge at this time. Rivalry and the Orators Some of the same orators who deprecated cities’ constant competitiveness nonetheless often chose their headquarters according to the hierarchy that competition established. Skopelianos, a chief priest of Asia and descendant of chief priests, refused the pleas of his home city Klazomenai to set up his school there, preferring the more cosmopolitan Smyrna. Most of the embassies he led were not for Klazomenai but on behalf of Smyrna, though he also represented the koinon of Asia as a whole in the matter of Domitian’s prohibition against vine-growing.60 Antonius Polemon and Aelius Aristides also set their more obcure birthplaces (Laodikeia and Hadrianoi) in the background and adopted Smyrna, which by their activities gained additional luster as a center of rhetoric; what is more, by the favors these orators obtained for their adopted city instead of their homelands, Smyrna not only gained a second koinon temple and neokoria but was swiftly rebuilt with imperial help after an earthquake. Dio Chrysostomos, on the other hand, preserved his loyalty to his home city Prusa even in the face of political opposition from his fellow citizens.61 Cities that were rivals could choose to support rival orators, as in Polemon’s battle against the Ephesian-backed Favorinus (note that Favorinus was 60 Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists 1.21 (515-516, 520); Campanile 1994a, 49-50 no. 27. On the orators in general, Bowersock 1969; Swain 1996. 61 Salmeri 2000.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

originally from Arelate in Gallia Narbonensis).62 The rivalry of two orators, if played out for an emperor’s favor, could gain not just personal wealth and honor for the winner but great honors for his city, as Polemon’s did for Smyrna. Hadrian, however, did not take his disdain of Favorinus out on Ephesos, which he eventually honored with its second neokoria. Roman Views of Rivalry One of the chief reasons that orators gave for deprecating the competition for honors among the cities was that it weakened the cities’ autonomy, not only due to faction in the koinon, but because of the reactions of the Romans. Historians also noted how the cities’ rivalry over titulature was perceived, especially in Rome, as a weakness in the moral character of the Greeks. For example, Dio Chrysostomos said that the quarrel between Nikaia and Nikomedia made them a laughing stock to the Romans, who called such disputes “Hellenic foibles.”63 Aelius Aristides called the strife a “madness” and “fighting over a shadow,” and said it annoyed the governors.64 And when Herodian wrote of a particularly vicious outbreak of rivalry during the war between Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger, he called it “the old illness of the Greeks,” which had weakened them to the point that they were open to Macedonian, and then to Roman, domination.65 The Roman overlords’ role in neokoria is covered in the next chapter, but their response specifically to Greek cities’ rivalry was probably as negative as the orators feared it would be. A letter from an emperor or other high official, set up in Laodikeia, urged an end to ‘useless contentiousness’ over the primacy of cities, and bid them be more dignified.66 The most famous case of imperial intervention in rivalry took place when Ephesos accused Smyrna of not giving its correct titulature in a decree about a joint sacrifice, and Pergamon of doing the same in a letter. The quarrel went before Antoninus Pius, who had already decreed the proper titles for Ephe62 Philostratos, Lives of the Sophists 1.8.4 (490-491); Gleason 1995, 21-29. 63 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 38.36-38. 64 Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.59, 62-64. 65 Herodian 3.2.7-8. 66 { mata¤a filonike¤a: MAMA 6.6; Corsten 1997 (= IvL) no. 10; cf. L. Robert 1969b, 287-288.

355

sos: he decided that Pergamon had not erred and Smyrna’s slight was accidental, but cautioned Ephesos and Smyrna to be more careful with each other’s titles.67 It was probably at this point that Ephesos issued the coins alluded to above, celebrating its ‘concord’ with the other two cities. And later, it may have been Ephesos that sought to retaliate for the original fault by challenging Smyrna’s temples and their rights, likely their neokoriai; a case which Polemon won, albeit posthumously, for Smyrna. But the same emperor who urged polite reciprocity on the cities himself used the hierarchy they fought over to decide their privileges. Antoninus Pius addressed a letter to the koinon of Asia that later came to universal application, alloting exemptions from liturgies for doctors and teachers according to their city’s size or rank: the smaller cities got the fewest exemptions, the greater got more, and the greatest cities got the most. This ruling was clarified by the jurist Modestinus in the early third century: he interpreted ‘the greatest’ cities to be metropoleis of provinces, ‘the greater’ as judicial district centers, and ‘the smaller’ as all the rest.68 In fact, it is clear that rivalries over hierarchy and titulature were not entirely ‘fights over a shadow.’ Witness Tacitus’ account (Annals 4.55-56) of the Senate’s debate over which of eleven Asian cities should get the temple to Tiberius, Julia, and the Senate: each city’s standing was thoroughly evaluated, as if points were allotted for resources, age, mythic ancestry, and loyalty to Rome. Pliny the Younger urged an official sent to Achaea to respect its cities for the gods their founders, their ancient glory, and their very age; while a proconsul of Asia praised Aizanoi as well born, ancient, and inferior in recent construction to none of the chief cities.69 Thus the Romans made frequent evaluations of which cities in a province were foremost in importance and honor, and it was generally those that won further and greater honors. A similar hierarchy prevailed in public building: not only were more buildings donated in the provinces that were already most urbanized, but the bigger a city was, the more and better buildings and dedications it received. Provincial centers like Ephesos received the most, 67 See chapters 4, ‘Ephesos’ and 2, ‘Smyrna’; and, in Part II, chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’ The rivalry between Ephesos and Smyrna was almost proverbial even earlier: Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 34.48. 68 Digest 27.1.6.2: Alan Watson 1985, 783. 69 Pliny the Younger, Letters 8.24.3; IGRR 4:572.

356

part ii – summary chapters

probably because that was where the propaganda value of such donations was greatest.70 “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance.”71 Rival Cities, Rival Emperors Long after Dio Chrysostomos had pointed out how Roman governors could use rivalry between the cities for their own advantage, the emperor Septimius Severus did use it, after his war for the empire against Pescennius Niger. Apparently some cities had chosen which contender to support based on their rival’s having chosen the other.72 In the aftermath, Severus deprived cities hostile to him of their titles and privileges, and rewarded his partisans, their rivals, in the same coin, with new titles and privileges. This has been discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ as well as in the chapters on Perinthos, which triumphed at the expense of Byzantion, and Nikomedia, which did the same over its old enemy Nikaia (chapters 29 and 15 respectively). It is possible that Severus also deprived Neapolis of privileges and land, to the benefit of its rival Sebaste. Severus’ actions, however, were taken at the end of a long and bitter civil war.73 By the early 200s he had abated his hostility to the punished cities, probably at the request of Caracalla, the designated successor whose popularity was to be augmented by such acts of grace. The old enemy cities were restored to civic status, and some took the name Antonineia in Caracalla’s honor, while others got imperial visits or Severeia contests. The old allies, on the other hand, received yet more titles, which both kept them ahead of their rivals and comforted them for their loss of whatever spoils they had been enjoying up to that point. Ziegler contended that the purpose of Severus’ decisions after the civil war was not only to punish enemy cities but to restore allies that had drained their treasuries in his cause.74 This is possible as regards Neapolis’ territory given to Sebaste and

70 Winter 1996, 233-234; also 54-61 on building as an instrument of rivalry. 71 Gospel According to Matthew 13:12. 72 MacMullen 1985, 73-74; J. Nollé 1998, 347-351. 73 Sünskes Thompson 1990, 137-155. 74 Ziegler 1978.

Byzantion’s to Perinthos; though whether Nikaia lost real wealth and not just titles is not yet known. But Ziegler has since extended Severus’ ‘reward/revenge’ policy to cover many less clear cases of rivalry over titulature: that is, where a city gains new titles, it must be because it supported one contender in civil war, while its rival in the province chose the other.75 If true, this would make titulature yet more dependent on particular emperors and historical events. But the tussle for empire between Philip the Arab and Trajan Decius, which Ziegler believed to account for honors granted to Thessalonike and Anazarbos and withheld from their rivals Beroia and Tarsos, was utterly unlike Severus’ civil war. That had dragged on for over two years until Byzantion finally fell, and ranged across the entire eastern empire; probably every eastern city had little option but to choose one emperor or the other. Philip’s last fight for power, however, was brief, lasting only through the summer of 249; and as was shown in chapter 22, ‘Thessalonike,’ it was probably confined to Pannonia, where Decius was declared emperor, and either northern Italy or Thrace, where the last decisive battle was fought. Why would cities in provinces far away choose to risk everything by prematurely taking sides in what was becoming a routine, albeit dangerous, way of changing emperors? And why would Cilician Anazarbos have been singled out for honors, as its partisanship likely consisted of only an embassy and the usual gifts? Nor did Aigeai have such a famous shrine of Asklepios that Decius should have sought to honor it first of all. As for the cities that were supposedly dishonored for their lack of support, Beroia’s titles and status were apparently unaffected. Decius likely did take colonial status from Neapolis, but unlike Septimius Severus, he did not strip it of civic rights, of territory, or even of its other honors, including the title ‘neokoros.’ It may just be that after the death of Philip, who granted it, the coloniate was deemed to be too extraordinary an honor for Neapolis’ place in the hierarchy. Something similar happened soon after to Thessalonike: Trajan Decius’ grant of three neokoriai probably reflected his view of the city’s importance to his Gothic wars, but after his death they were likely judged excessive. Nonetheless, only two were removed: Thessalonike was not dishonored for estab75

Ziegler 1988b, 395-401; 1993b, 145-146, 150-151, 159160; 1994, 202-204.

chapter

41

– the koina and their officials

lishing temples to Decius, but retained two neokoriai, a number equal to what its rival Beroia already had. This maneuvering hints at what was really going on, and who might have deemed certain honors excessive: not the emperors, but other cities within the koinon. After all, it was never within a new emperor’s interest to seek out cities to punish, simply because they had been loyal to his predecessor. But just as the cities and their koinon requested particular honors, leaving the emperor to grant or modify those requests, so the competitive cities operating within the koinon may have sought to restore balance when one city’s gifts brought it too far above what its fellows thought was its place. Later Developments It may be that, by late antiquity, a city’s place in the hierarchy had become more important than ever: its greatness could determine its very survival. Smaller cities lost power as the host of wealthy citizens who formerly undertook their liturgies faded away, while large cities flourished.76 Even in the third century, the Asian koinon had begun to lose some of its glory. Its chief priests and priestesses now came mostly from the great cities, there were apparantly fewer to vie for the office, and those provided fewer and less remarkable festivals and gifts to the province.77 It is even possible that the post-Diocletianic trend of dividing provinces into smaller and smaller units was encouraged by favors to various cities that wanted to preserve themselves by becoming metropoleis (and later seats of bishops). Though Asia had been divided in this way, it still managed to muster four metropoleis, one of them Ephesos, as sites for its games and providers of Asiarchs, though by an imperial decree of Valens citizens of smaller cities were also allowed to hold that office.78 Contention over titles and privileges was therefore still fierce in the fourth century, though in a Christian empire claims of neokoria likely declined along with the rest of the trappings of pagan prac-

76

Roueché 1989b, 215-221. Campanile 1994a, 171. 78 IvE 43, dated 372-378; Schulten 1906, 66, proposed the other three metropoleis as Smyrna, Sardis (now in a separate province of Lydia?), and Pergamon; Kyzikos was in the province Hellespontus. But as Deininger 1965, 60, wrote, “doch handelt es sich hierbei bereits um eine neue Institution.”

357

tice. Still, when a governor chose a Syriarch from Beroia rather than from Antioch, Libanius wrote an outraged letter addressed to the emperor Theodosius (379-395 C.E.).79 “One who pulls down a first city and raises up one not even of the second rank and allows it to insult its better, doesn’t he wrong your household? . . . He was not sent, O Emperor, to disturb the proper order of the cities, or to debase their standing or to put the lesser above the greater . . . But he . . .cried out to all that this city [Antioch] must be subordinate to that other [Beroia], must give up the title ‘metropolis’ to it, that our council must yield to theirs, our citizens to theirs, that we must acknowledge them our betters! You could recognize the insult in this from the sorrow it gave our wellwishers and the pleasure it gave our enemies.” Note that a city’s prestige had direct implications for its citizens, especially in their relations with citizens of other cities; and that a major city could still be said to have enemies and friends, probably among other cities—which may mean that there were still voting blocs in post-Diocletianic koina.80 Summary When one looks back at what we have seen of the koina, there is staggeringly little information concerning the participants, much less the practices, of institutions that lasted for three centuries and more. We can only guess at the machinations and maneuverings of the delegates at any one meeting of any one koinon, much less the fourteen directly involved in this study. Yet the koina were the major intermediaries between emperors and cities, and their temples were the reasons why the title ‘neokoros’ was initially given. The exact actions and relationships among cities in their koina are often obscure, but this study has found them to be the crucial link that brought cities to pursue, attain, and boast of the title ‘neokoros.’ Each koinon was like a web, with cities arranged in various positions on its strands. Those positions represent how ancient were the city’s origins, how notable its citizens, how divine or heroic its associations, how great its size or beauty, how strategic its

77

79 Libanius, Oration 33.22-23. Beroia was ranked well behind Laodikeia and Apamea, two cities that went before Julian to contest the rank of second in Syria: Libanius, Oration 18. 80 Deininger 1965, 183-188.

358

part ii – summary chapters

importance, how grand its temples or monuments, and how loyal it was to Rome. The cities and their citizens set and fostered this hierarchy, only trying to have their city’s position improved or their rival’s worsened. The Romans in their turn recognized the same hierarchy, basing their own actions toward the cities on their positions in the web. Those positions were signaled by titles. Honor (as represented by titles) was therefore not as intangible as ancient authors and modern scholars often portray it. It was the means of gaining favor and gifts from above, loyalty and obedience from below. Titles were often the path to further privileges, some of which

could have been very tangible indeed. A ‘first city,’ in the center of the web, could expect the highest representation or voice in the koinon, and also the highest influence, which meant more than just marching first in provincial festivals. It could sway smaller cities’ votes in the koinon, holding its own against important rivals and their supporters; or it could incur resentment and resistance. Certainly the cities desired the influx of people and of business that came to a judicial center, or the financial contribution to metropoleis. These were the incidentals, however; titles like ‘neokoros’ were ultimately sought for the sake of honor and place in the hierarchy.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

359

Chapter 42. The Roman Powers The king’s greatest payment is praises and renown among all, and obeisance for their benefactions, and whatever statues, temples, and sanctuaries they have from their subjects—these too are wages for the care and forethought they exert in always providing for the common good and making it better. Lucian, Apology 13 ...And this man Is now become a god, and Cassius is A wretched creature and must bend his body If Caesar carelessly but nod on him... Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed That he is grown so great? Shakespeare, Julius Caesar I.2

We will now attempt to look at the imperial cult practiced by the neokoroi from a Roman point of view. Sheer familiarity may blind the classicist to the oddity of the Roman situation as regards imperial cult. Though the concept that kings were outright gods (as in Egypt or Japan) has been relatively rare in human history, countless cultures across the globe had kings who were viewed as descended from gods or having special relationships to gods. But in almost all cases, the king’s divinity was especially recognized within the core region which he ruled, and manifested in his capital. The Roman emperor, however, was a different case. He could be hailed as a god by the provinces or cities or citizens of his empire, both west and east; but in Rome, the living emperor’s godhead could only be classed as problematic: accepted at some times and by some people, not by others. By the time of Augustus, Rome had been a competitive oligarchy for centuries. There were many families with as long a history and as much claim to divine and mythic ancestry as the Julii, and far more than their successors, the later Augusti. At least a segment of the elite did not have to derive its status from connections with the god-king, but possessed it on its own. More, the foundation myths of the Roman state glorified the overthrow of kings and

the beneficent rule of the Senate. That stories from Rome’s remote history had power to affect later events is shown by Julius Caesar, killed by (among others) a descendant of the original regicide Brutus. The situation is paralleled by the quandary of Alexander the Great. Macedonian kings, though they claimed descent from Herakles, had not raised themselves far above their companions in the Macedonian elite. When Alexander tried to do so, whether the objection was to deification or to Persianization, it came from Macedonians of his inner circle as well as from his own historian Kallisthenes.1 In Rome itself, the emperor could be viewed as a civic personality, a magistrate, or a benefactor, not the owner of his Empire but its patron.2 This perspective helps to explain some aspects of his persona, but not his connection to divinity. There is currently a scholarly tug-of-war over whether in Italy and the western provinces the living emperor was rarely, or constantly, treated as a god.3 These efforts to make a universal case, at least as regards geography, go back to Cassius Dio (below); but tend to efface the multifarious levels on which statements, offers, and actions took place. Simon Price recognized the problems and contradictions in the situation.4 Though there are many cases where emperors were treated as gods in Rome, in Italy, and in the western provinces, not all such instances are the same; nor were they in the East, as this work has tried to show. A synthesis between the two opposing theories is still needed, one which will treat each geographical area and each level of dedication (provincial, municipal, group, or personal) as a distinct phenomenon, with no preconceptions involved. The imperial cult was a series of behaviors and positions over time, each varying based on situation and viewpoint. Gener1

Bosworth 1996, 98-132. Veyne 1990, 346. 3 Fishwick 1987-1992; Clauss 1999. These recent works provide references and bibliography for the substance of this chapter. 4 S. Price 1984b, 1-22; idem 1987. 2

360

part ii – summary chapters

alizations in this realm must be made with caution, as they can blind as much as they explain. In this chapter, we follow the viewpoint of some of the men of Rome, at least the ones who left writings behind or whose actions were recorded by those who wrote. The constraints and biases of such writings were discussed in the introduction. In addition, it should be clear that by ‘men of Rome’ we are not discussing the racial or geographic origins of individuals, whether emperors, senators, or governors, not to mention the wide range of people who inhabited the actual city of Rome. Our interest here is in those who, by virtue of office or authority within the Roman governmental system, affected the course that provincials took in establishing worship of the emperor within their koina and their cities. And it should not be forgotten that those provincials were, increasingly over time, Roman citizens themselves. For example, C. Aulus Antius Julius Quadratus was likely instrumental in obtaining a new provincial temple and contest for Pergamon, but did he do so as proconsul of Asia, as a wealthy and eminent Pergamene risen to the highest senatorial rank, or as the ‘most illustrious friend’ of the emperor Trajan? Though the offer of worship soon became part of the dialogue between Roman authorities and provincial subjects, Romans could turn such an offer to their own purposes by needling those who made it for flattery or levitas; the contrast was usually to the advantage of Roman gravitas.5 Such adulation was held to be especially typical of Hellenes: Tacitus calls Mytilene’s voting of divine honors to its citizen Theophanes (for using his influence with Pompey) ‘Greek flattery.’6 But the charge was not limited to the Greeks. Tiberius refused a temple to his own cult offered by a Latin-speaking western province (Hispania Ulterior), saying that “the honor paid to Augustus would become empty if it were made common by indiscriminate flatteries.”7 Nonetheless, as has been shown in chapter 41, ‘The Koina,’ cities that were most dedicated to pursuing this form of ‘flattery,’ and even the ones that fell into rivalry and competition thereby, were the ones most often chosen for rewards by the same

Romans who chided them for ‘vain competitiveness.’ For the Romans, Hellenic culture could be either rewarded or derided for the same characteristics. An emperor who refused to take divine honors, or at least to take them seriously, was a desirable persona to present in Rome: a civilis princeps who had to put on a god’s dress for the provincials.8 Only a Caligula would take his deification seriously. But as we shall see, there were senators who did not hesitate to propose divine honors for the emperor before the Senate, and in Rome there were flatteries more abject than are known in any province. From the cities, whose organization was the substructure of the eastern Roman provinces, the emperors desired loyalty, peace, and taxes promptly paid. But this was not all. The cities and koina of the Empire could also offer gifts of acclaim, of crown gold, of cult in all its manifestations. We cannot attribute to them love or fear or religious awe, individual emotions that are irrecoverable and anyway inapplicable to actions taken on behalf of whole provinces. But we may conclude that provinces and cities offered such things as their role and the emperor’s right.9 On the other side, the emperor could accept cult as a recognition of his own honor, in itself a means of government;10 or could modify it to suit some purpose of his own, as we shall see. An offer of cult by the province met by a favorable reply from the emperor certainly eased the relationship between them, but even an unfavorable response clarified the nature of that relationship. Where an offer was refused, the officials of the province were forced to rethink it, and next time make one more suitable to that emperor’s persona or purposes. As well as making an imperial acceptance all the more valuable, the occasional refusal played well in Rome, especially before the Senate. Cultic honors were carefully meted out, since to accept cult in every instance would be to cheapen it.11 But the fortunate province and city from which the emperor accepted cult would be raised in the estimation of its neighbors. The result was a system in which every action and counteraction carried implications about the emperor, the provinces, the cities, the Senate, and their presentation in the wider world of the Empire at that particular time.

5

Woolf 1994. Graeca adulatio: Tacitus, Annals 6.18. On Theophanes, L. Robert 1969c; Salzmann 1985; Anastasiadis and Souris 1992. I thank Kathryn Welch for her insight on this subject. 7 Tacitus, Annals 4.37: et vanescet Augusti honor, si promiscis adulationibus vulgatur. See below. 6

8 9 10 11

Wallace-Hadrill 1982. J. Nollé 1998, 347-351. Lendon 1997, 13-27, 107-175. Ibid., 160-171.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

The way that Romans responded in the dialogue had a profound effect on the development of the provincial imperial cult, and later neokoria. Unfortunately, historically documented responses that resulted in the building of temples in cities that thus became neokoroi are actually few. Offers of provincial imperial cult seem to have become normalized in the eyes of the emperors and the Senate, until gradually the historians found them so quotidian that they ceased to discuss them at all. To supplement them, some reference will be made to cults in provinces that had no neokoroi, or to some emperors’ recorded attitudes toward their own cult. The intent is not to be encyclopedic, nor is it to trace some pattern or policy in provincial proposals or any particular emperor’s responses. In my view, our information is so fragmentary, the emperors so responsive to the needs of the moment rather than some consistent policy, Roman officials so thinly spread, and government conducted on such an ad hoc basis and so particularized to the situation in each province, that any discernable pattern is more likely to be imposed by modern scholars than practiced by the ancients. The Emperors For one last time we return to the start of the provincial imperial cult in 29 B.C.E., as documented by Cassius Dio two and a half centuries later.12 To paraphrase, the man soon to be known as Augustus gave permission that precincts be established to Rome and the hero Julius in Ephesos and in Nikaia (cities which Dio calls preeminent in Asia and in Bithynia at that time), and ordered the Romans resident there to honor those divinities. But he permitted the xenoi, whom he called Hellenes, to consecrate precincts to himself, the Asians’ in Pergamon and the Bithynians’ in Nikomedia. Dio then carries the story to his own time: from that beginning, the practice of dedicating provincial temples to living emperors has continued, not only in the Greek provinces but all others as well; while Rome and Italy only worship dead emperors who have ruled justly.

12 Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9. For an assessment of the reliability of the source, see chapter 1, ‘Pergamon’; for its place in the development of neokoria, see chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis.’

361

The scene is Asia, after Actium; recent study has clarified Augustus’ decisions, and the relative restraint of his actions toward his own glorification after that battle.13 The victorious emperor answered petitions from people he called Hellenes. In this context, Augustus’ designation does not refer to Hellenes everywhere, but to the specific koina known as the Hellenes of Asia and the Hellenes of Bithynia. Though these provincials made their petitions on their own home territory, Dio calls them xenoi, ‘strangers,’ referring to their Roman status as peregrini. But what exactly did they offer? Undoubtedly, in line with a tradition stretching back to Hellenistic times, they offered temples to the ruler himself, and likely specified that these would be in their chief cities of Hellenistic administration, Pergamon and Nikomedia. Augustus, however, seems to have manipulated this offer, adding modifications that would have played well before a Roman audience, not the Greek embassies that stood before him. Thus the first cult discussed in the passage above, and likely in the document it derived from, is probably not the one that the embassies of the two koina originally requested, which was almost undoubtedly that of the emperor himself. Instead the man soon to be named Augustus was careful to first address the establishment of shrines to the goddess Rome and to his father the deified Julius Caesar.14 This action was unlikely to have been motivated by filial piety, or concern for the sensibilities of Romans who lived in Ephesos and Nikaia. More likely, Augustus was taking the opportunity to send this message to his Roman audience: that his own cult was for the provincials, not for Romans, i.e. that he was not aiming at deified kingship. The temples for the Hellenes then follow in Dio’s account as if by afterthought, though in fact they would become the headquarters for koinon cult in Asia and Bithynia. A similar response had been given thirty years before, when Asia had offered to build a ‘temple and monument’ to Cicero and his brother Quintus. Cicero declined the honor, and wrote that he didn’t know how they were taking it in Asia, but that his refusal was earning him a lot of praise in Rome.15 Just as Cicero had kept his eye squarely on the reaction of Rome rather than that of the Asians, so 13 14 15

Gurval 1995. See ‘Introduction,’ n. 26. Cicero, Letters to Quintus his Brother 1.1.9 (26).

362

part ii – summary chapters

Augustus reacted to offers of worship by provincials with provisions of cult for Romans; though the provincials’ worship was not rejected. Had Caesar acted so circumspectly, Roman history might well have been different. But in this conjunction Hellenes and Romans were talking past one another; or rather, the Roman ruler altered a Greek cultural communication to convey an additional message to Romans: that a line was to be drawn between xenos and Roman, that that line was the worship of the living emperor, and that he was not crossing it. Augustus’ modesty was also admired by Suetonius, who wrote that the emperor accepted a temple in no province unless it was in the name of Rome as well as in his own.16 Dio did not mention this deity as Augustus’ cult partner in his account, perhaps because Rome was added to Augustus’ cult as well as Caesar’s sometime after Augustus accepted the temples at Pergamon and Nikomedia (but before 19 B.C.E., when cistophori of Asia show both Rome and Augustus in the temple at Pergamon); or because of Dio’s own interpretation of Augustus’ action as the precedent for later developments which would not include the goddess. In any case, apparently Augustus never imposed his worship, nor even accepted an offer of cult too baldly; though he allowed such honors to be showered upon him, he seems to have modified many or most. On the other hand, we have no record of his outright refusal, as has been postulated from later refusals by his successors.17 As his own account boasts (Res Gestae 24), he had eighty silver statues of himself converted into golden offerings to Apollo—which means that he had previously accepted, or at least allowed, eighty silver statues of himself. It is no accident that the sources that report a clear division between cults for Romans and for nonRomans, like most historical writings, emanate from the (usually senatorial) upper class. That Romans and Italians by definition only worshipped the emperors when they were dead and deified was apparently an important part of senatorial self-presentation down to the time of Cassius Dio. But not everyone in that class believed in Augustus’ unwillingness to accept divine honors; Tacitus presented a pro and (mainly) con analysis of Augustus’ reign after his death: “Nothing was left as an honor for 16 Suetonius, Augustus 52; see also Tacitus, Annals 4.37.3 above. 17 Charlesworth 1939.

gods, since he wanted to be worshipped in temples and in the image of divinities by flamines and priests.”18 The next dialogue of offer and acceptance was transacted solely between Asia and Rome. In 23 C.E., after winning two prosecutions of former governors before the Senate, the cities of Asia decreed a temple to Tiberius, his mother, and the Senate, and permission was granted by the emperor and Senate.19 Likely due to a deadlock in the koinon, the decision of which city should get the new temple came back to the Senate, with Tiberius himself in attendance.20 There eleven cities contended on the basis of their antiquity, noble ancestry, and loyalty to Rome, but most were rejected outright as parum validi, ‘not up to it.’ Of the major cities, Pergamon argued its possession of the temple to Augustus, but was ruled out on that very count (one was enough), while Ephesos and Miletos were also too wholly devoted to cults of patron gods to get a new one. After a long debate between Sardis and Smyrna, the Senators voted overwhelmingly for Smyrna, later a contender for primacy in the province. In due course of time a delegation from Hispania Ulterior used the Asian temple as a precedent to ask permission to build its own shrine to Tiberius and his mother. Refusing it gave Tiberius a platform to state before the Senate his opposition to any extension of divine honors for himself beyond Augustus’ limits. He justified his permission for the Asian temple in this way: “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 deeds and words have followed his example all the more readily because reverence for the Senate was joined with my own cult.”21 Again, the emperor’s response to a province’s petition was aimed primarily at a Roman audience, in this case, the Senate which heard the embassy from Spain. What mattered to Tiberius, whether personally, politically, or both, was obedience to Augustus’ precedent and expression to the Senate of his own modesty in Augustus’ wake; thus both the acceptance of one cult and the refusal of another were part of

18 Tacitus, Annals 1.10.6: Nihil deorum honoribus relictum, cum se templis et effigie numinum per flamines et sacerdotes coli vellet. 19 Tacitus, Annals 4.15. 20 Ibid., 4.55-56. 21 Ibid., 4.37-38: in 25 C.E. See Charlesworth 1939.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

his imperial persona. The Asians’ temple had also given him the opportunity to trumpet his association with, and exaltation of, the Senate, a motive that may have been sincere on his part, though Tacitus always interprets it for the worst. The choice of the personified Senate as a cult partner in the proposed temple was thus uncommonly fortunate for, or percipient of, the Asians. The introduction of the goddess Rome to Augustus’ cult had likely taught them that it was prudent to include a personification of Roman power in their petition for a temple of the living emperor; and in this instance, they were able to show their gratitude toward the Senate in particular. The Spanish province, however, overlooked that part of the message, making its petition easier to reject. The attitude of Gaius (Caligula) toward acceptance of cult was rather different from those of his predecessors. Though at first he followed Tiberius’ pattern of modest refusal of cultic honors, later he was eager to see his worship established, and not just by the provincials but in Rome itself. There some hailed him as divus and some deus, and the Senate went so far as to vote him a temple, in addition to another that he established for himself on the Palatine.22 In comparison with this and his attempt to commandeer the temple in Jerusalem, his demand for a temple in Miletos, even such a great one as the Didymaion, does not appear to have provoked indignation. But in Rome Gaius was the first to break through the persona of the civilis princeps, and though the Senate gave him divine honors of various sorts in his lifetime, they ended by hailing his murder and condemning his name thereafter. Claudius is not known to have granted temples that later made their cities neokoroi. While he probably emphasized the distinction between his own character and that of Gaius by frequently refusing cult, as Tiberius had to Hispania Ulterior, he seems to have had a temple in Britain, possibly since the province was conquered under his auspices.23 Nero, though often assimilated to Apollo, was portrayed by historians as more interested in being an artist than a god. In 65, in the aftermath of the Pisonian conspiracy, a consul designate made a motion in the 22 Cassius Dio 59.4.4, 59.26.5, 59.28.2; Suetonius, Caligula 22.3-4; Barrett 1989, 140-153. 23 Seneca, Apocolocyntosis 8.3; pace Fishwick 1995. See S. Price, review of Fishwick 1987-1992, in Phoenix 42 (1988) 371-374, esp. 373.

363

Senate that a temple to divus Nero, presumably in Rome itself, be built as soon as possible from public funds.24 According to Tacitus Nero refused because such a temple could have been interpreted as an omen of his death, but the episode shows that an eminent Senator could think it proper (or at least expedient) to make such a proposal to a living emperor at that time. Nero may have also granted a provincial temple to Asia, which made Ephesos, at least until his death, one of the first cities to call itself neokoros; but the grant is anything but certain, and the circumstances unknown. There are few documents to record what the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty meant regarding worship of the living emperor. Certainly Galba’s taking the names Caesar and Augustus smoothed the transition. In Galatia, coins issued under Galba may show the temple at Ankyra, but call it ‘of the Augusti,’ no doubt including the current emperor with his predecessors. Perhaps under Vespasian, and certainly by the time of Domitian, a provincial temple in Ephesos (perhaps one originally allowed by Nero) was called ‘of the Augusti,’ centered on the new Flavian dynasty, with no sign of gods, personifications, or even Julio-Claudian predecessors to share the cult. A colossus of Titus stood there, and surely another of Domitian, who was remembered with hatred by the Senate for being called dominus et deus, though perhaps more for being ‘master’ than ‘god.’25 Trajan, however, returned to Augustus’ precedent in Asia explicitly: his temple was built in Pergamon like that of Rome and Augustus, and he too shared it with a cult partner, Zeus Philios. In Dacia, however, the province he conquered, later inscriptions record only provincial priests of the Augustus, with no cult partner mentioned, so it is likely that his modesty was not doctrinaire. Hadrian’s travels and enthusiasm for fostering Hellenic and other cities resulted in his being worshipped in many parts of the Empire. He was generous with his attention and with benefactions, and had no disinclination to be honored or worshipped in return. He was identified with Zeus Olympios, and occasionally Eleutherios, among the Hellenes, especially once he promoted Athens as the seat of a panhellenic council and completed the temenos of its Olympieion. For sites of his own provincial cult

24 25

Tacitus, Annals 15.74.3. Suetonius, Domitian 13.2; Cassius Dio 67.13.3-4.

364

part ii – summary chapters

he was careful to accept cities among the greatest in their koina: Kyzikos, Smyrna, Ephesos, and possibly Nikaia, Nikopolis and Tarsos. One important refusal of cult is known: he did not permit Pergamon to build a (municipal?) temple to him, but modified the Pergamenes’ request by allowing them to put his statue in their provincial temple to Zeus Philios and Trajan. This occurred at the end of his reign, and his relationship with the Senate was then so bad that even a modest refusal of cult may not have impressed them; after his death, they would not deify him until his successor Antoninus Pius insisted on it.26 But Hadrian was so concerned for the cities that his refusal may not have been even intended to impress the Senate, but simply to restrain spending at Pergamon, where they were still working on the porticoes around Trajan’s temple. Antoninus Pius’ attitude toward his own cult is not expressed in what is preserved of the historians, but he saw to it that both his adoptive father Hadrian and his wife Faustina were deified after death, and after his own he joined Faustina in her temple in the Roman Forum. His successor Marcus Aurelius took the same care for him and for his other adopted son, Lucius Verus. The Antonine rulers and their consorts were also enshrined in the temple of Artemis at Sardis, which had probably gained the second neokoria for the city from Antoninus Pius. Marcus Aurelius leaves us little in his own writings regarding ruler cult, but he and his son Commodus wrote to the gerousia of Athens in 179 to modify its offer of gold or silver statues as honors more suited to the gods, accepting bronze busts of a size that could be transported on festal occasions.27 As it happens, one of the few solid gold busts of an emperor preserved to us is of Marcus Aurelius.28 The context of the modest reply to the gerousia is unknown, but it certainly harks back to Julio-Claudian precedents, and possibly was intended to reflect well on the good character of the new Augustus, Commodus. Commodus’ behavior as sole ruler was not to be so considerate. He and the Senate first granted a second provincial temple and a sacred contest to Nikomedia thanks to the influence of his chamberlain Saoteros, and then withdrew them at Saoteros’ 26 Cassius Dio ep. 69.23.3, ep. 70.1.2-3; Historia Augusta, Hadrian 27. 27 Oliver 1989, no. 196. 28 From Aventicum (Avenches in Switzerland); Fishwick 1987-1992, 535-536.

fall. Again the situation at Rome, specifically who was in favor or not, was more determinative of provincial cult than the situation of the bewildered or disappointed Bithynians. Indeed, Nikomedia may have been punished further for its citizen’s presumption when its rival Nikaia was given the Kommodeia festival that it had lost. Commodus’ identification as a god, specifically as the Roman Hercules, is played up in historical accounts.29 Mitchell therefore attributed Commodus’ grant of a second provincial temple to Tarsos to its fame as a cult center of Herakles/Sandan, and thought that Nikaia received a contest in the emperor’s name because it was founded by Herakles.30 But the grant to Tarsos was not out of line with its position in the province, and we have seen that the festival at Nikaia was mainly a way of abasing Nikomedia. In chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ are listed the many cities unconnected with Herakles who nonetheless celebrated festivals in Commodus’ name, while many cities closely associated with or even founded by Herakles (eight or more Herakleias, Perinthos, Kallatis, Kios, and Nakoleia) received no known favors from Commodus. Though it is tempting to attribute particular grants to emperors’ interests, a look at the broader picture shows that Commodus did not necessarily focus his favors in this way. In any case, cults were probably still initiated by the provincials, not by the emperor. It is important to note, however, that Cassius Dio’s mention (ep. 73.12.2) of Nikomedia’s ill-fated temple and contest in honor of Commodus is the last explicit citation by a historian of the grant of a provincial imperial temple that made its city neokoros. This may simply be due to the fact that we have so few historical sources for the time subsequent to Commodus, as well as the confused, incomplete, or downright fictitious state of what we do have. But it is also likely that such honors were being taken for granted by the historians as nothing out of the ordinary; indeed, Dio would probably not have mentioned Nikomedia’s case had it not been so unusual and so tied up with the fate of Saoteros. Historians do document how Septimius Severus used the grant and withdrawal of honors as a weapon in his first contest for the Empire. His 29 Cassius Dio ep. 73.15.2-16.1; Historia Augusta, Commodus 8.9, 9.2. 30 S. Mitchell 1993, 1:220-221.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

message was simple: his friends would be rewarded with the spoils taken from their rivals, his enemies. Neokoria was simply one of the many rights and honors that cities desired; when granted to his allies it was an impressive reward, when taken from his enemies a sign of their disgrace. So far as is known, Severus acted directly upon the provincial cities, with no byplay towards the Senate, to Roman sensibilities, or even to the koina involved. Thus Severus reinforced his newly gained power (“the lord giveth, the lord taketh away”) in provinces recently unsettled, and doubly delighted those that had chosen correctly when they saw their rivals’ fall.31 Later in the reign, his son and successor Caracalla took the role of asking mercy for former enemies and smoothing over his father’s harsh policy. Since mercy to enemies deprived friends of their rivals’ goods, the friends were also compensated with further honors. Cities like Perinthos and Anazarbos likely got two neokoriai each, one for their loyalty early in Severus’ reign, another later, perhaps for the joint cult of Caracalla and his brother Geta. Once Caracalla and Geta inherited the Empire, their mutual hatred drove each to try to convince the Roman Senate, people, and army that his brother was dangerous and that he was the only hope. The sources, though confused and partial, nonetheless contain accounts of Caracalla’s refusing to be called by the name of Hercules or that of any other god.32 The mention of Hercules recalls that god’s imitator Commodus, officially deified but still of unpleasant memory to the Senate (if Cassius Dio’s attitude be taken as typical). Caracalla’s refusal of cult, especially if enacted in Rome, recalls Tiberius’ conspicuous modesty, and was also likely aimed at a Roman audience. Caracalla also redirected the neokoria which was offered to him to the cult of Artemis at Ephesos, and probably used the occasion to impute the worst motives to his brother’s acceptance of cult there.33 Certainly the Senate and soldiers went along with the propaganda and considered Geta a public enemy, once Caracalla had killed him.34 Though grants of neokoria have been associated with Caracalla’s visits to eastern cities on the way 31

J. Nollé 1998. Herodian 4.3.1-2; Cassius Dio ep. 78.5, probably preferable to Historia Augusta, Caracalla 5, where the scene is Raetia. 33 See ‘Ephesos,’ chapter 4. 34 Cassius Dio ep. 78.3; Herodian 4.5; Historia Augusta, Caracalla 2-3. 32

365

to his Parthian war, many of his neokoriai are traced in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ to other motives. Some were apparently personal favors (as at Philadelphia), others reflected rivalries within the koinon of Asia. Macrinus’ removal of titles such as ‘neokoros’ can also be seen as a response to specific local situations, implying little about his own attitude toward the grant or the withdrawal of rights to worship the emperor. The flawed sources on Elagabalus’ reign emphasize his concern with the cult of the sun god of Emesa, rather than with his own. Certainly he granted many neokoriai, some of which can be associated with his route to Rome at the outset of his reign. The rest cannot be pinned to any particular imperial interest, such as cults of other sun gods or of goddesses for his god to marry; there were few ancient cities that could not boast one or the other such cult. Though historians undoubtedly played up (and in some cases fictionalized) Severus Alexander’s character as a contrast to Elagabalus’, he does seem to have chosen a persona of youthful Roman modesty with regard to imperial cult.35 He withdrew all the neokoriai that Elagabalus had granted, and seems to have been quite judicious in granting any more. He may have allowed himself to be worshipped with or as Asklepios at Aigeai, and permitted Magnesia to become neokoros for its patron goddess Artemis Leukophryene. But the supposition that he winnowed the ranks of the deified Augusti from twenty down to twelve would have been out of character, and is based on an error.36 The onslaught of civil and military emergencies that followed Severus Alexander’s reign left the emperors little time for debate in the Senate regarding their own cult; and if there were such, they are not well preserved in our scanty historical sources 35 For the fiction, Historia Augusta, Alexander Severus 18; on the sources, Bertrand-Dagenbach 1990. 36 Usener 1902, resurrected by Clauss 1999, 375. When John Chrysostomos (on 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4-5: J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca Prior 61 [Paris 1862] 580-581) stated that the Senate considered Alexander the thirteenth god, he certainly meant Alexander the Great, not Severus Alexander, since he also mentioned his conquests and that his empire collapsed upon his death. The Saint was condemning pagan attitudes, not listing the Senate’s declarations of divi; he also said that Hadrian’s beloved Antinoös was deified, which the Senate never officially did. Adding one to the canonical Olympians implied that their number was under human, not divine, control, a favorite theme of Christian authors: for another ‘thirteenth god,’ Hadrian at Kyzikos, see Sokrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 3.23.59.

366

part ii – summary chapters

for the period. Nonetheless, some trends are discernible, especially through the coinage.37 The emperor was often portrayed as appointed by Jupiter or other gods in the roles of patron, preserver, and companion, while his rule was foreordained by fate, omens, and the stars. Since few emperors received the throne from their fathers, the dynastic principle of deification became secondary, and the divi became a college of forerunners whose aura bolstered the latest Augustus. Trajan Decius, for example, issued coins for eleven of the divi, including Commodus; so far as is known, he left out Julius Caesar, Claudius, Lucius Verus, Pertinax, Caracalla, and all the women. Decius also attempted to restore the Empire by declaring a universal supplicatio, though this act is best known from the resultant martyrdoms and vituperations of the Christians.38 As regards the neokoroi, probably the most significant events of the time up to Valerian were that Gordian III extended the neokoria to Thessalonike, and Trajan Decius jumped that city from being neokoros to four times neokoros. This honor probably reflects the city’s strategic importance to the Empire’s northern front, and expedience, not religious policy, on the part of the emperors. Valerian, like Decius, issued a call for sacrifice that resulted in the persecution of Christians, though his son and co-ruler Gallienus apparently abated it after his father’s capture by the Sassanians.39 Gallienus also seems to have identified himself with the traits of various divinities on the Roman coinage. As is discussed in chapter 38, ‘Historical Analysis,’ the actions of Valerian and Gallienus in restoring neokoriai previously lost, and raising one city to balance another, were not meant to influence a Roman audience, but the cities of the East, where Valerian was fighting. The grants were probably meant to bolster the morale of cities under threat (and not just those in the theater of war) with restorations of good things past. The promised ‘new age’ did not come on just yet, however, and would not until Diocletian initiated the ceremonious Tetrarchy under the aegis of Jupiter and of Hercules. Aurelian and the emperors who followed him continued to make grants of multiple neokoriai, as Trajan Decius had to Thessalonike. In this later period the strategic area was Pamphylia, 37 38 39

Turcan 1978. Selinger 1994. De Blois 1976, 148-185.

with Perge and Side racing to see which could cram in more neokoriai. Again, the action was seemingly of purely local importance. In retrospect, it becomes clear that an offer of cult was one of the ways in which an emperor was recognized by subject cities. In the acceptance, modification, or rejection of this honor, the emperor could clarify his own personality, policies, and relationship to the cities, the Senate, and Rome. Emperors like Augustus and Tiberius addressed themselves to Roman audiences, while Septimius Severus and Valerian paid more attention to the cities directly. Unfortunately, historians did not record all the cases in which a plain offer met a plain acceptance; this routine was soon taken for granted, and can be traced in the steady rise in numbers of neokoriai. But just as the rulers of the third century sought to ally themselves with their deified predecessors, they must also have welcomed the sign of recognition and honor conferred by the offer of provincial temples to their cult. This honor would have been especially valued by those whose descent from a previous emperor was merely a matter of rumor, or who had no dynastic connection at all. In a similar fashion Henry I of England and his son Henry II both claimed a connection with their hallowed predecessor Edward the Confessor not by lineage, but by power of healing.40 When the emperors of Rome accepted cult and granted the title ‘neokoros,’ they put themselves in the line of all the legitimate rulers who had done so previously. The Augusti It is important, then, to define who was part of the imperial line, the Augusti (Greek Sebastoi). As has been mentioned, at the break in the Julio-Claudian dynasty, after the death of Nero, Galba had adopted the names Caesar and Augustus, and all subsequent rulers did as well. Thus all the emperors, including the reigning one, were Augusti; empresses, especially those named Augustae, were included.41 We have noted that coins of Galatia issued under Galba illustrate a temple ‘of the Augusti,’ which may mean that as early as that time the cult of subsequent emperors had been introduced into what was origi40

Bloch 1973, 21-27. E. Meyer 1975; Clauss 1999, 523-525. For groups of statues of Augusti, Pekáry 1985, 92-96. 41

chapter

42

– the roman powers

nally the temple ‘of the god Augustus and the goddess Rome’ at Ankyra. Indeed the process may have begun well before Galba, since a Galatian priest of Augustus and Rome is recorded as having dedicated statues of ‘(Tiberius) Caesar and Julia Sebaste’ in ca. 23 C.E., though these were not necessarily cult statues within the temple. The Augusti worshipped in the eastern provinces were not confined to those who became divi at Rome. For example, Asia’s temple at Smyrna had Tiberius as its principal object of cult, and he is shown within it on coins as late as the time of Caracalla, though he was never deified. The provincial temples were dedicated to the living emperor, and it is likely that as a new emperor took the old one’s place, his cult, and perhaps that of his consort, was introduced into the temple. There they would stay, unless their memories were condemned and their statues removed. The result was likely a gallery of Augusti in each provincial temple. But subsequent references to Tiberius’ temple at Smyrna also prove that the original emperor worshipped was never quite lost in a crowd of Augusti. There would have been inscriptions and dedications to him, and his cult statue undoubtedly held the most prominent place within the temple, especially if it was colossal. Pergamon’s temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan was celebrated on coins issued over a century after its dedication, to flatter Trajan Decius; there are late but specific references to the temple of Hadrian at Kyzikos; and Ephesos’ temple of the Augusti was probably later known as the temple of Vespasian. A colossal statue of Titus was found in that temple, and there were likely colossi of Vespasian and of Domitian as well, as the temple was completed in the latter’s reign. Hadrian gave explicit permission to the Pergamenes to have his statue stand in the temple of his adoptive father Trajan. In the temple of Artemis at Sardis were at least six colossi including Antoninus Pius, his wife Faustina, and likely their two adopted sons with their consorts. The latter were probably introduced after their succession rather than included among the original cult statues during Pius’ reign; Lucius Verus, at least, became Augustus unexpectedly, and got married well after his father’s death. Though the original objects of cult were not forgotten, it became a matter of course that provincial imperial temples, and the neokoriai that resulted from them, could be called ‘of the Augusti.’ As early as Nerva, Beroia requested a ruling about its single

367

neokoria ‘of the Augusti,’ and we do not even know which emperor was the original object of cult there. Ephesos’ first neokoria was for its ‘common temple of the Augusti.’ Nikaia’s and Miletos’ inscriptions and the coins and inscriptions of Tralles call each of those cities ‘(once) neokoros of the Augusti.’ And where cities like Pergamon had several provincial temples, all neokoriai that were not of gods could be lumped together as ‘of the Augusti.’ The Senate The Roman Senate traditionally received embassies, a role that, though diminished, was not entirely eliminated under the Empire.42 Thus, even though communities tended to refer their petitions concerning imperial cult to the emperor himself, the Senate became the site of hearings and the issuer of decrees concerning provincial imperial temples, and later, the affirmer of rights to neokoria.43 This is ironic, considering that it was the senatorial sensitivity toward treating the emperor as a god that has colored all subsequent accounts of imperial cult in Rome. The Senate, however, was not a monolith, but a gathering of men. For each Thrasea Paetus, stalwart in his pursuit of republican dignity, there was at least one flattering Lucius Vitellius, and very likely more.44 The honors voted to emperors by senators in some cases were more adulatory than those offered by Greek cities or provinces. And an emperor declared who he was and what he wanted by what he accepted, refused, and modified, just as he did with the offers of provinces and cities. The senators did not fail to heed his desires, as those desires had direct implications for their careers as well. The first temples for provincial imperial cult were granted by Augustus while he was still in Asia, and no consultation of the Senate was mentioned by Cassius Dio. But the second temple granted to Asia, under Tiberius, closely connects the Senate with the procedure of gaining a provincial imperial temple.45 Permission was granted by (or at least thanks were offered to) both emperor and Senate. When the time 42

Talbert 1984, 411-425, esp. 417. Ibid., 420-423. 44 E.g. Cassius Dio ep. 62.15.1-4, 59.27.2-6. 45 Tacitus, Annals 4.15, 4.55-56; see above, and chapter 2, ‘Smyrna.’ 43

368

part ii – summary chapters

came to decide which city in Asia would receive the temple, embassies of the various cities presented their cases before the Senate, with the emperor looking on. The senators seem to have chosen by process of elimination, first of the cities that were not large or rich enough, then of cities with prominent cults of other deities. Finally, in a deadlock between two cities of comparable grandeur and antiquity, Smyrna’s conspicuous and long-held devotion to Rome won the senators over, by a vote of four hundred to seven. They then sent one of their members to Asia as commissioner to oversee the work of construction. That senators were deliberating over the proper form of cult for Tiberius in the presence of Tiberius himself doubtless made them all the more careful in expressing opinions, though reports would have gotten back to the emperor even had he not attended. But the position of the Senate in these and subsequent proceedings was a peculiar one. The emperor, in his modesty, could refuse or downplay his own cult, but the Senate never could. If the emperor was in favor of accepting cult, the Senate had to approve as well, or risk implying that the emperor was overreaching himself. And it was not the Senate’s role to say ‘remember that thou art mortal.’ When offered a decision, it devoted its attention to seeing that the cult accepted (as at Smyrna) was suitable to the emperor’s honor, probably as magnificent as precedent allowed. That the personified Senate should share the cult with Tiberius and his mother at Smyrna, as Rome had with Augustus at Pergamon, does not seem unnatural, since the Senate’s favorable decisions had first won Asia’s gratitude. Indeed Tiberius harped on this very fact in a later speech before the Senate itself, mentioned above. But the cult partnership may not have been without precedent, as Hadrianic coins of Nikomedia imply that the Senate and People of Rome may have long been worshipped alongside Augustus in Bithynia’s first provincial temple, established in 29 B.C.E.46 The Senate also issued decrees concerning the status of contests associated with neokoriai. At Pergamon, a senatus consultum on the festival for Zeus Philios and Trajan was contained in the foundation dossier of inscriptions around the temple. As is discussed in chapter 40, ‘The Cities,’ such contests

could be granted to honor a provincial temple, but probably had to be requested separately by the city involved. The Senate also granted (and later withdrew) one to Nikomedia, for Commodus (below). As well as worshipping the Senate in its first provincial temple, Smyrna mentioned that body’s role in its second neokoria, though not perhaps as most senators would have wished. An inscription of Smyrna, in listing the gifts that Hadrian gave on account of the orator Polemon, includes “a second decree of the Senate, by which we became twice neokoros.” Though the Senate’s decree was apparently what made the neokoria official, it is portrayed here as being entirely within the emperor’s gift. Senatorial decisions confirmed neokoria not only in provinces with proconsular governors, such as Asia. Though at the time of Hadrian Bithynia may already have been governed by an imperial legate, the only inscription that calls Nikaia neokoros acknowledges the Senate’s role. This inscription also couples decisions of the Senate with decisions of the emperors concerning the city’s titles.47 The latter conforms with the famous letter of Antoninus Pius to Ephesos, in which Antoninus says that he had decided what titles were proper to that city. Bithynia was certainly governed by an imperial legate under Commodus, when the chamberlain Saoteros was said to have used his influence to get his city, Nikomedia, the Senate’s permission to hold a contest and build a temple to Commodus (Cassius Dio 73.12.1-2). The Senate may also have taken the initiative to rescind these grants at Saoteros’ fall, though certainly not without Commodus’ (and his new chamberlain’s) permission. Cities begin to mention the Senate’s confirmation of neokoria more frequently in their inscriptions of the early third century.48 Perhaps the first city to take it up as a formula was Ephesos, at a time when it was undergoing great uncertainty regarding its neokoriai. The city cited the Senate’s approval in inscriptions set up in and after 211, when Ephesos was granted two neokoriai at once, one neokoria was diverted from Caracalla to Artemis, and then both were endangered with the subsequent death of Geta. That this grueling process involved the Senate is clear, since Caracalla’s letter to Asia refers to ‘the 47

L. Robert 1977b, 18. This date for the majority of citations is not noted by Bowersock 1995, 85-98; for a critique, see SEG 45 (1995) no. 2353. 48

46

Not noted by Kienast 1985, 256-261.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

leading men at Rome’—indeed, his modest diversion of the neokoria for himself to Artemis may have been acted out partially for the Senate’s benefit, as mentioned above. Another Ephesian inscription, initially inscribed before Geta was killed, said that Ephesos’ neokoria of Artemis and its three neokoriai of the emperors were “by decrees of the sacred Senate and by imperial decision.” Later inscriptions have the formula of Senatorial approval modifying ‘twice neokoros of the Augusti’ but not ‘neokoros of Artemis.’ Likely the neokoria for Artemis could stand outside the normal formula of Senatorial decree, as it was the result of the emperor’s diversion of the grant. Ephesos inscription 125, however, modifies the entire group of neokoriai for Artemis and the Augusti with mention of the Senate’s decrees. Smyrna, for whose first two neokoriai the Senate’s debate and approval have been amply documented, simply made that approval a part of its titular formula sometime after it became three times neokoros under Caracalla, and used that formula down to the reign of Valerian and Gallienus. So did Sardis after 211, though at that point its last neokoria was for Antoninus Pius, and despite its subsequent gain and loss of a neokoria for Elagabalus. In the formula used by all these cities, the words ‘according to decrees of the sacred (or most sacred) Senate’ are placed directly after the word ‘neokoros.’ Tralles, however, apparently attributed not just neokoria but its titles in general (especially ‘shrine of Zeus Larasios’) to decrees of the Senate. In the reign of Elagabalus, Laodikeia and Ephesos went so far as to squeeze the Senate’s affirmation onto their coinage. Some coins of Laodikeia read ‘temples, games, by decree of the Senate, worldwide’ and ‘the Laodikeians neokoroi of Commodus and Antoninus by decree of the Senate.’ The city’s motive might have been a special senatorial decree for its (single) neokoria of Commodus and Caracalla; such an oddity may have been challenged by rivals. At the same time Ephesos also declared the Senate’s approval on its coins and at least one inscription; its coin type 24 shows all four of the temples for which it was neokoros, and proclaims: “these temples of the Ephesians by decree of the Senate!” But the temples and neokoriai for Elagabalus were not shielded by the Senate’s approval from the condemnation of his memory. In Severus Alexander’s reign, neokoriai of Elagabalus were withdrawn. But Sardis continued to use the formula even on an inscription of this very time: it could not yet state

369

whether it had retained or lost its neokoria for Elagabalus, but affirmed that it was ‘many times neokoros of the Augusti according to decrees of the sacred Senate.’ The last word comes from Pamphylia, whose cities declared their rival claims to increasing numbers of neokoriai at the end of the third century. Perge’s acclamation under Tacitus lists all the city’s titles and honors, including four neokoriai, and then proclaims as a proof of the city’s veracity that ‘all the rights are by decree of the Senate.’ The rival most likely to have claimed that Perge was false in its titles was Side, and its inscription claiming six neokoriai is found on a statue base of the personified Roman Senate, whose role in confirming titulature was presumably here invoked. The Senate’s confirmation of provincial temples to the emperors, and thus the neokoroi, was longstanding. Though Augustus may have bypassed the Senate in allotting temples in Asia and Bithynia, Tiberius let it take a greater role regarding the temple to his (and its own) cult at Smyrna. But he and his successors were privy to the Senate’s debates, and no senator could have forgotten that the emperor, object of the proposed cult, would note every item in their deliberations, and judge every speaker and every vote. So it is not unexpected that the Senate’s role could be seen as a rubber stamp of the emperor’s decision, even by far-off provincials: thus Smyrna lists the second decree of the Senate, by which it became twice neokoros, among the gifts of Hadrian. Worse, under Commodus, the Senate’s grant of a temple and festival to Nikomedia was seen as due not even to the emperor, but to his chamberlain. The sudden growth of third-century references to the Senate’s role in confirming neokoria parallels a growth in the number of cities that put the image of the ‘sacred Senate’ on the obverse of some of their coins.49 This is unlikely to have been due to some generalized respect for the Senate (whose role in provincial administration continued to decrease), or for the number of easterners who had now advanced to senatorial rank. Perhaps, as Kienast believed, it was part of imperial propaganda to ally honors to the Senate with honors to the emperor and his house. But the wording of the inscriptions and coins seems to indicate that the Senate’s approval was 49

Kienast 1985, 266-277; Talbert 1984, 95-97 also noted this, though he found no obvious explanation.

370

part ii – summary chapters

important in putting the seal on titles like neokoria at a time when those titles were most in escalation and often in question. The cities cited the Senate’s decrees when there was concern over their titles’ legality, as did Ephesos when its neokoriai for Caracalla and Geta were threatened. The formula was also picked up by Smyrna, a city whose troubles began later, when neokoriai for Caracalla may have been challenged in the reign of Macrinus. In contrast to these cities, Pergamon, the prime object of Macrinus’ wrath, is not known to have named the Senate in proof of its titles, and no challenge of Tralles’ titles is documented, though less is known of it in general. Laodikeia would claim the Senate’s approval for its unusual neokoria for Commodus and Caracalla, while Sardis cited it even on the verge of losing its third neokoria for Elagabalus. At Perge, the Senate was invoked as the final guarantor that the city’s titles were genuine. Considering the claims and counterclaims that rivalry could induce, the Senate’s authorization of titulature was probably the most important role that it played for provincial cities in the third century. Provincial Officials The Roman authorities with whom the cities and koina had most direct contact were their provincial governors. Governors probably had no official role in the koinon; indeed, one of the concerns of the koinon was prosecution of corrupt governors, or conferral of honors on favored ones.50 But in a system where a governor’s responsibilities in his province were universal, with few checks on his actions, many are known to have taken a hand in koinon affairs, including the imperial cult. For example, when the unwilling Aelius Aristides was selected for the chief priesthood of Asia, an obliging governor exempted him from service at that time, though other governors and legati would continue to try to make him take city offices.51 The performance of certain religious honors for the emperor was part of the governor’s own sphere of activity.52 He officiated at the vows taken for the 50

Deininger 1965, 40-41, 146-147, 150-151, 161-169. Aelius Aristides, Oration 50 (Sacred Tales 4).71-104. For the identity of the governor who exempted him, Swain 1996, 272-273. 52 S. Price 1984b, 69-71; Eck 1997a, 203-217. 51

emperor’s health and safety by the soldiers and provincials at the start of the Roman year, on the emperor’s birth or accession day, and on other special occasions. He also sacrificed and set up dedications for the emperor at visits to the shrines in cities of his province. Some governors showed extra zeal. For example, P. Cornelius Scipio, quaestor pro praetore of Achaea in 2/3 C.E., not only spared no expense in his celebration of the Kaisareia but made a special sacrifice for Augustus’ (grand)son, Gaius Caesar, and ordered all in the cities he governed to wear wreaths and sacrifice too.53 Influence on the imperial cult has been attributed to P. Vedius Pollio, an equestrian friend of Augustus whom he sent on a special mission, probably to reform the finances of major temples in the East, ca. 27-25 B.C.E.54 Though Pollio is not known to have held any provincial office, regulations he made were confirmed by Augustus. But his sole explicit connection with the imperial cult was personal: he built a Caesareum in his home town Beneventum. His regulations were cited as precedents in an edict of Paullus Fabius Persicus, proconsul of Asia under Claudius, who regulated sacred expenses at Ephesos (especially at the Artemision) and by extension in the other cities of Asia. But Pollio was deferred to only in regard to certain expenditures: the amount to be paid back to someone who had bought a priesthood; the payments due to victors in sacred contests; and the maximum amount to be paid for pentaeteric contests.55 None of these was specific to imperial cult. Perhaps the most crucial document of a governor’s direct influence on imperial cult in his province is the edict of Paullus Fabius Maximus, proconsul of Asia.56 Around the time that Augustus gave the Asians permission to found temples at Pergamon and Ephesos, the koinon, meeting at Smyrna, declared its intention of awarding a crown to whomever could devise the greatest honor for the emperor. This prize was not awarded until 9 B.C.E., when Maximus, the current governor, issued an edict declaring that the start of the official year for each city in Asia should be Augustus’ birthday. His 53 Documented on an inscription from Messene: Année Epigraphique 1967 no. 458; SEG 23 (1968) no. 206. 54 Scherrer 1990 collects the evidence, but would have Pollio promoting the building of altars as Sebasteia/Augousteia in each city where he was commemorated, and would redate the Hellenistic altar of Artemis Ephesia to that purpose. 55 IvE 17-19: 18c lines 8-11, 17 lines 46-48, 18d lines 2-4. 56 Laffi 1967; Bickerman 1980, 48-50.

chapter

42

– the roman powers

tone is hortatory rather than imperative, and he begins with a panegyric in praise of Augustus and the good fortune that brought him to the world. The koinon’s decree awarding the crown to Maximus is engraved after his edict, and like it begins with praise for Augustus as savior and benefactor. Copies of these documents were to be set up in the sanctuary of Rome and Augustus at Pergamon and in Kaisarea in judicial centers, and have in fact been found in five separate cities. Maximus’ triumph was also to be proclaimed at the Rhomaia Sebasta at Pergamon and at Kaisarea festivals in each city. Here the governor, who was “sent from (Augustus’) right hand and judgement,” showed the koinon how best to honor the emperor. The award of the crown was doubtless helpful in pleasing the governor too, and the fact that the calendar for all magistracies in the province was now regularized would not have come amiss to him either. When Pliny the Younger governed the cities in Bithynia and Pontus, his main concern was regulating and restoring their finances. He wrote to Trajan for instructions on diverse matters: the rights of cities and individuals, all sorts of building projects, the proper numbers of soldiers to accompany officials, and even, like Vedius Pollio, on awards for the winners of sacred games (Letters 10.118, 119). He was confronted with two cases involving the imperial cult. In the first, the question was whether a derelict house with a shrine to the emperor Claudius in it could be rebuilt as a bath; the answer was, if the shrine had actually been built, it was still sacred to Claudius’ cult (Letters 10.70, 71). In the second, Pliny became embroiled in the quarrel over a public portico that the orator Dio Chrysostomos had built at

371

Prusa (Letters 10.81, 82). Dio’s accusers implied treason because the building included both a statue of Trajan (in the library) and the graves of Dio’s wife and son, but Trajan, like a good princeps, rejected this charge. In this case, Pliny’s usual caution is yet more understandable, as the emperor had to be the ultimate arbiter of what attitude subjects should take with regard to his own image; the ruler himself could be clement where a governor, for the sake of his own good standing vis-a-vis the emperor, would necessarily be severe. Thus provincial officials often interfered with (or, to put it more diplomatically, guided) the provincials’ practice of the imperial cult; and they were often themselves guided from above. But there was almost no limit to what Roman officials could take (or get) as their business. Just as Pliny wrestled with the problem of Claudius’ shrine, he was also confronted with moving a temple to Magna Mater and even the graves of private persons (Letters 10.49, 50, 68, 69). Arrian, as governor of Cappadocia, wrote asking Hadrian to send a better statue of himself for Trapezous; but it is seldom noted that he also asked the emperor to send better cult statues for the city’s temple of Hermes as well, and specified the sizes.57 The regulation of imperial cult in the provinces was not a special mission for provincial governors, any more than any other aspect of civic life. Nonetheless, governors had the direct line to the emperor’s attention, and their guidance, encouragement, and decisions helped determine the path that provincial worship would take.

57

Arrian, Periplous 1.3-2.1.

372

part ii – summary chapters

Chapter 43. Conclusion We have documented a title, and through it an institution, that developed and changed over time. This approach contrasts with that of earlier authorities, who amassed a range of phenomena across time in a search for the ‘true nature’ of neokoria. Thus the long-drawn debate over whether ‘neokoros’ was a title of municipal or provincial nature can now be seen as an artifact of oversimplification. The concepts ‘municipal’ and ‘provincial’ do not now seem so mutually exclusive, for although the koinon was technically proprietor and administrator of its temples within a province, the neokoroi, as temple wardens, gradually absorbed the temples as aspects of their own civic pride; and direct communication between city and emperor could bypass the koinon. When chronology and historical context are considered, we can see that neokoria evolved according to the demands and desires of those most concerned with it: the cities, the koina, and the Roman authorities, especially the emperors. Such gradual change in response to demands was typical of Roman provincial administration in general. There was little attempt to impose overarching rules or wholesale change, but instead a patchwork of solutions to immediate and particular problems that might also be applied to similar problems in other regions as required. The end product could be a radically different entity from the original form, much as Valerian and Gallienus’ scattering of neokoriai from Thessalonike to Ephesos to Aspendos was different from Augustus’ original acceptance of two temples to his cult in the great cities of Asia and Bithynia, before the title ‘neokoros’ was even thought of. A recent theme in historical studies has been the search for root causes and unitary explanations for historical phenomena. Many city gates were built to welcome Hadrian; when we find such a gate in an area Hadrian passed through, the assumption is that it must have been built for Hadrian. Titles and honorifics were often given for imperial visits, especially in strategic areas; so if a title was given, it must

have been given for such a visit; and if such a visit cannot be documented, it must have been planned but not carried out. If this study makes any contribution, it is a reemphasis on the diversity of cause, and change of situation, in the explication of a single phenomenon, the granting of the title ‘neokoros.’ Roman administration up to the end of the third century was not a unitary and rule-ridden bureaucracy, but operated under different laws and precedents for each province, as well as being subject to the changing priorities of individual emperors and officials. The koina of the various provinces were culturally distinct from one another, and under no compulsion to act in similar ways. We should not imagine them as walking in lockstep. In the eastern provinces’ worship of the living emperor, diversity and change were part of the process from the start. Once Augustus set the precedent of allowing one temple for a major city in one province, Bithynian cities apparently were content with their temple to Rome and Augustus, while Asian cities large and small were at odds over who was to build a temple for Tiberius. That emperor responded in his typical fashion, by making Augustus’ actions the model for his own. The Senate contributed its ideas as well: once the preconditions of importance, antiquity and lack of other influential cults were met, cities were judged on their loyalty and devotion to Rome. Tiberius’ famous refusal of a cult on the model of Asia’s to the province of Hispania Ulterior (Tacitus, Annals 4.37-38) was not due to some conviction that the cult of the living emperor should be confined to the Greeks of the East. Instead there was a dual motivation: Tiberius’ own strict adherence to Augustus’ pattern (the key to the persona he presented in Rome), and a general reluctance to apply the institutions of one province to others without demonstrated need. If we then ask why neokoria is indeed only found in the East, and only in certain provinces at that, a variety of factors may be considered. First, the nature of the cities and of the

chapter provincial organizations in East and West were basically different. The cities of Asia were poleis, not town centers of tribal regions. They had long histories of basic internal autonomy and competition with one another, though their koinon bound them together and allowed some corporate action. They also had a history of making powerful men and rulers from outside the polis objects of worship within it. But it is no accident that rivalry immediately surfaced in the competition for Tiberius’ temple. One of the conditions that fostered the multiplication of neokoroi, and neokoriai, in certain provinces (notably Asia) was the koinon’s tendency to break up into its quarreling components. There can be little doubt that Asia was the birthplace of ‘neokoros’ as a title. At least two cities, Kyzikos and Ephesos, were using it informally in the mid-first century, and by the reign of Domitian it had become official: Ephesos was neokoros by grace of the koinos (‘common,’ i.e. provincial) temple of the Augusti. Unfortunately we have no direct evidence as to what happened in the interval to bring on this change. Perhaps it began with Ephesos’ request to make official the title which the city was already using unofficially. However it was done, use of the title spread by emulation, especially among the largest cities; Pergamon and Smyrna, the only other cities in Asia known to have had provincial temples, began to use it on their inscriptions by the end of the first century C.E. Neokoria then moved, or already had moved, to other provinces. Beroia staked its claim to be the only neokoros in Macedonia as early as the reign of Nerva. The context is again one of intercity jealousies, which may be why a title that was thus far only used in Asia penetrated into Macedonia. Outside the confines of Ephesos, Pergamon, and Smyrna, the title appeared only occasionally on inscriptions and coins. The activities of Trajan and of Hadrian focused attention on neokoria and took it in a new direction. Trajan allowed a duplication of provincial temples, giving the great cities hope of becoming twice neokoros. Hadrian scattered temples throughout the provinces, with at least three in Asia alone. It was after the reign of Hadrian that the title began to be used more widely on inscriptions and coins. Coins, of course, could circulate at least some distance; citizens of neighboring cities might see the titles on them and wish to make similar claims.

43

– conclusion

373

Furthermore, coins of smaller cities were generally provided by mints centered in larger and more important cities, so the emulation of coin types and titles could have been fostered by that means as well. The effect is that of a stone thrown into a pond. Frequent issues featuring the title began under Antoninus Pius at Ephesos (newly twice neokoros), Kyzikos (newly neokoros) and Nikomedia. Under Marcus Aurelius, Pergamon and Amaseia took it up. A slight setback occurred when Nikomedia lost its neokoria for Commodus, but under the Severi the use of the title burgeoned. In Cilicia, Tarsos had begun to apply the title more frequently under Commodus, so Anazarbos also began, probably as soon as it could, under Septimius Severus; so did Kaissareia in Cappadocia. Perinthos apparently started using the title as soon as Severus granted it. With Caracalla’s reign, Smyrna, which had confined itself to issuing coins with temple-bearing divinities instead of stating its title openly, finally celebrated its third neokoria by beginning to issue coinage that featured the title frequently. Philadelphia, Laodikeia, Antandros, and Tralles may have minted coins proclaiming themselves neokoroi as soon as Caracalla gave or confirmed the title, though the latter two were never frequent, and Elagabalus provoked the same response from Hierapolis and Philippopolis (with Perinthos now claiming two), though Miletos appears to have been a trifle jaded about its unfortunate history as neokoros. Of course, all during this time cities that had begun to put ‘neokoros’ on their coins long since were gaining further neokoriai. The post-Elagabalan slump reduced the number somewhat, but by that time it was more typical to see ‘neokoros’ on the coins of the neokoroi than not to see it. And finally, just before all civic coinage was to end for good, the Pamphylian cities entered the arena, Side to declare a new neokoria and Perge to counter with proclamation of its old one. The more widespread the use of neokoria, the more diverse the demand for it; the more it was granted, however, the less it meant.1 Cassius Dio, in relating how in 15 B.C.E. it had taken a Senatorial decree to get Paphos the title ‘Augusta,’ wrote that in his own (and Severus Alexander’s) time the cities had only to make out a list of whatever imperial names they liked.2 This may have been an overstatement, but Dio’s 1 Dio Chrysostomos, Oration 31.109-110, on the cheapening of honors granted too widely. 2 Cassius Dio 54.23.7-8.

374

part ii – summary chapters

disillusion reflects the real proliferation, and consequent devaluation, of titles in his time. There is no evidence for the end of neokoria; at last sight at Side, it had been undergoing rapid escalation in the chaotic years at the end of the third century. The last mention of neokoria, on an inscription at Sardis, is more a sign that by the fifth century the title had lost its meaning rather than that it still retained any. A logical time to situate the cessation of grants of neokoria would be after the reign of Constantine. It is difficult to imagine the Christian emperors doing much more than tolerat-

ing temples to their own cult; and the ‘Historical Analysis’ of chapter 38 traces the gradual process that led to elimination of pagan temples. It is also difficult to imagine the cities, already under pressure from an imperial bureaucracy that was increasingly and then almost exclusively Christian, seeking further neokoriai. Offering a temple to the emperor, like pursuing an elite civic career, no longer gave the advantage it once did, but could indeed become a real disadvantage. Perhaps those who were most aggressively pagan still thought of seeking neokoria for their cities. If so, they have left little sign.

references

375

REFERENCES

COLLECTIONS OF COINS CITED BUT NOT YET PUBLISHED IN CORPORA: Berlin: Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen (with source collection name). Boston: Classical Department, Museum of Fine Arts. London: British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals (subsequent to BMC). New York: American Numismatic Society. Oxford: Heberden Coin Room, Ashmolean Museum. Paris: Cabinet des Médailles, Bibliothèque Nationale. Vienna: Münzkabinett, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Warsaw: Narodowe Museum. ABBREVIATIONS: Adana (with coin no.) = D. Cox. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 92. New York 1941. AMNG = H. Gaebler. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1. Berlin 1906. ANRW = H. Temporini and W. Haase, eds. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Berlin 1972-. Arslan (with coin number) = M. Arslan. ‘The Roman Coinage of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111-156. Milan 1997. AUB (with catalogue number) = D. Baramki. The Coin Collection of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia. Beirut 1974. AvH = C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin 1898. AvP = F. Winter. Altertümer von Pergamon 7: Die Skulpturen, mit Ausnahme der Altarreliefs, 2. Berlin 1908. Aykay = Y. Aykay. “‘Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’ Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14 (1967): 242-276. Ayvagedigi hoard = F. Rebuffat. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris 1994. BMC (followed by coin number of each city’s entry) = British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. Catalogue of Greek Coins. BMCRE = British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. CIG = A. Boeckh, ed. Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin 18251877. CIL = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum. CT (cited by book, title and section) = C. Pharr. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton 1952. FdD = Fouilles de Delphes. FdXL = A. Balland. Fouilles de Xanthos 7. Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létoön. Paris 1981. FiE = Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna 1906-. Harl (with catalogue number) = K. Harl. ‘The Coinage of

Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 244-53.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 29 (1984): 61-97. IdA = C. Habicht. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.3. Berlin 1969. IG = J. Kirchner, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae 2-3. Inscriptiones Atticae Euclidis anno posteriores. Berlin 1913. IGBR = G. Mihailov, ed. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Sofia 1956-1961. IGRR = R. Cagnat et al. Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Paris 1906-1927. IGUrbRom = L. Moretti. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome 1968. IvE = H. Wankel, ed. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn 1979-1981. IvL = T. Corsten. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn 1997. IvM 6.1 = A. Rehm et al. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin 1997. IvP = M. Fränkel, ed. Inschriften von Pergamon, Altertümer von Pergamon 8.2. Berlin 1895. IvPerge = S. ”ahin. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn 1999. IvS = G. Petzl. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 24.1. Bonn 1987. IvT = F. Poljakov. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn 1989. KP = K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, eds. Der Kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike. Stuttgart 1964-1975. Köln = T. Corsten. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2. Opladen1996. LeBas-Waddington = P. Le Bas and W. Waddington. Voyage archéologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris 1847-1877. LIMC = Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. Zürich 19811997. MAMA = Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua. MvS = D. Klose. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1987. OGIS = W. Dittenberger, ed. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae. Lipsiae 1903-1905. PECS = R. Stillwell, ed. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton 1976. PIR = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 1st ed. Berlin 1897-1898. PIR2 = Prosopographia imperii Romani saec. I. II. III. 2nd ed. Berlin 1933- . RE = A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds. Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart 1894-. 2d ed. completed in 1980. RECAM = Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor. RIC = H. Mattingly et al. The Roman Imperial Coinage. London 1923- . Rosenberger (with catalogue number) = M. Rosenberger. CityCoins of Palestine: The Rosenberger Israel Collection 3. Jerusalem 1977.

376

references

RPC 1: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, P. Ripollès. Roman Provincial Coinage 1. London/Paris 1992. RPC 2: A. Burnett, M. Amandry, I. Carradice. Roman Provincial Coinage 2. London/Paris 1999. Sardis = H. W. Bell. Sardis 11: Coins. Part 1: 1910-1914. Leiden 1916. Schede (with type letters) = D. Krencker and M. Schede. Der Tempel in Ankara, 40-42. Berlin 1936. SEG = Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum. S-G (with coin numbers) = E. Schönert (-Geiss). Die Munzprägung von Perinthos. Berlin 1965. SiA = J. Nollé. Side im Altertum 1-2. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 43-44. Bonn 1993-2001. Side Coins = S. Atlan. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Elde Edilen Sikkeler. Ankara 1976. SIG4 = W. Dittenberger. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed. Hildesheim 1960. S/M (with coin numbers) = E. Sydenham, rev. A. Malloy. Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia. New York 1978. SNGANS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Collection of the American Numismatic Society. New York 1969-. SNGBraun = W. Leschhorn, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. Katalog der griechischen Münzen. Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum Braunschweig. Braunschweig 1998. SNGCop = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum. The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals. Danish National Museum. Copenhagen 1942-. SNGFitzw = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 4. Fitzwilliam Museum. Leake and General Collections. London 1940-. SNGLevante = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Switzerland. LevanteCilicia. Berne 1986-. SNGLewis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum 6. Lewis Collection in Corpus Christi College. Cambridge 2. Greek Imperial Coins. London 1972-. SNGLeypold = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Österreich. Sammlung Leypold 1. Vienna 2000. SNGMil = N. Vismara, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3. Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan 2000. SNGMün = D. Klose, ed. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland: Staatliche Munzsammlung München 20.1. Ionia. Munich 1995. SNGParis = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum France. Bibliothèque nationale. Cabinet des médailles 2: Cilicie. 3: Pamphylie, Pisidie, Lycaonie, Galatie. 5: Mysie. Paris 1983-. SNGPfPS = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Pfälzer Privatsammlungen. Munich 1993-2001. SNGRighetti = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Schweiz 2. Katalog der Sammlung Jean-Pierre Righetti im Bernischen Historischen Museum. Berne 1993. SNGTüb = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Munzsammlung der Universität Tübingen. Berlin 1981-. SNGvA = Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Deutschland. Sammlung von Aulock. Berlin 1957-. T (with coin numbers) = I. Touratsoglou. Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin 1988. TAM = Tituli Asiae Minoris. Tokat (with coin no.) = M. Amandry, B. Remy, B. Özcan. ‘La circulation monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale à travers les collections numismatiques du Musée de Tokat.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34. Paris 1994. Weber = L. Forrer. The Weber Collection. London 1922-1929. Ziegler Sammlungen (with coin no.) = R. Ziegler. Münzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Munich 1988. WORKS CITED: Aalders, G. 1986. ‘Cassius Dio and the Greek World.’

Mnemosyne 39: 282-304. Abbasoglu, H. 2001. ‘The founding of Perge and its development in the Hellenistic and Roman periods’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 173-188. Portsmouth RI. Adak, M. 1996. ‘Claudia Anassa —eine Wohltäterin aus Patara.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 127-142. Adams, J. 1984. ‘The Maritime Cities of the Greco-Roman East Using the Title NAUARXIS. Evidence and False Leads.’ The Ancient World 10: 111-126. Akurgal, E. 1990. ‘Grundzüge der hermogeneischen Architektur.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 123-127. Mainz. Alföldi, G. 1972. ‘Der Sturz des Kaisers Geta und die antike Geschichtsschreibung.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1970, 19-51. Bonn. Alzinger, W. 1970. ‘Nachträge: Ephesos.’ RE Supplement 12, 1588-1704. Amandry, M., B. Remy, and B. Özcan. 1994. ‘La circulation monétaire dans le Pont à l’époque impériale à travers les collections numismatiques du Musée de Tokat.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds. Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 119-130, pls. 27-34. Paris. (= Tokat with coin no.). Ameling, W. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio und Bithynien.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 4: 123-138. ———. 1985. Die Inschriften von Prusias ad Hypium: Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 27. Bonn. ———. 1994. ‘Prosopographia Heracleotica.’ In L. Jonnes, The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47: 115-168. Bonn. Anabolu, M. 1970. ‘Küçük Asya’da bulunan imparator tapÌnaklarÌ.’ Anadolu SanatÌ AraâtÌrmalarÌ 2: 31-54. Anastasiadis, V., and G. Souris. 1992. ‘Theophanes of Mytilene: A New Inscription Relating to his Early Career.’ In Chiron 22: 377-383. Anderson, G. 1993. The Second Sophistic. London. Andreae, B. 1990. ‘Der Asklepios des Phyromachos.’ In B. Andreae, ed. Phyromachos-Probleme, 45-100. Mainz. ———. 1993. ‘Laurea coronatur.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 100: 83-106. Arslan, M. 1991. ‘The Coinage of Ancyra in the Roman Period.’ In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numismatic Studies, 3-42 and 333. Oxford. ———. 1997. ‘The Roman Coinage of Ancyra in Galatia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 111156 . Milan. (= Arslan with number.) Ashmole, B. 1956. ‘Cyriac of Ancona and the Temple of Hadrian at Cyzicus.’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 19: 179-191. Atlan, S. 1976. 1947-1967 Yillari Side Kazilari Sirasinda Elde Edilen Sikkeler. Ankara. (= Side Coins.) Aurenhammer, M. 1997. ‘Das Porträt eines Kaiserpriesters.’ In H. Thür, ed., ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 41-53. Vienna. Aykay, Y. 1967. ‘“Hecht Definesinde” Perge âehir sikkeleri.’ Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri yÌllÌgÌ 13-14: 242-276. (=Aykay.) Babelon, E. 1898. Inventaire sommaire de la collection Waddington. Paris. Baharal, D. 1996. ‘The Emperor Marcus Opellius Macrinus and the gens Aurelia.’ In R. Katzoff, ed., Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, 415-432. Ramat-Gan. ———. 1999. ‘The Emperor Macrinus: Imperial Propaganda and the gens Aurelia.’ In E. dal Covolo and G. Rinaldi, eds.,

references Gli Imperatori Severi: Storia Archeologia Religione, 47-65. Rome. Balland, A. 1981. Fouilles de Xanthos 7: Inscriptions d’époque impériale du Létoön. Paris. (= FdXL.) Bammer, A. 1972. Die Architektur des jüngeren Artemision von Ephesos. Wiesbaden. ———. 1972-75. ‘Architektur.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 50: Beibl. 386-389. ———. 1978-1980. ‘Elemente flavisch-trajanischer Architekturfassaden aus Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 52: 67-90. ———. 1984. Das Heiligtum der Artemis von Ephesos. Graz. ———. 1988. Ephesos: Stadt an Fluss und Meer. Graz. ——— and U. Muss. 1996. Das Artemision von Ephesos. Mainz. Bar, M. 1985. ‘Les monnaies grecques de Césarée de Cappadoce, Ier–IIIe s. ap. J.C., trouvées en Europe.’ Bulletin, Cercle d’Études Numismatiques 22 no. 3: 53-65. Baramki, D. 1974. The Coin Collection of the American University of Beirut Museum: Palestine and Phoenicia. Beirut. (= AUB with catalogue number.) Barattolo, A. 1995. ‘The Temple of Hadrian-Zeus at Cyzicus.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 45: 57-108. ———. 1998. ‘Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli ed il tempio di “Proserpina” a Cizico: Per una nuova lettura della descrizione dell’ Anconitano.’ In G. Paci and S. Sconocchia, eds., Ciriaco d’Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell’Umanismo, 103-140. Reggio Emilia. Barbieri, G. 1952. L’Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino. Rome. Barnes, T. 1969. ‘In Attali Gratiam.’ Historia 18: 383-384. ———. 1972. ‘Ultimus Antoninorum.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1970, 53-74. Bonn. Barrett, A. 1989. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. London. Bartels, J. and G. Petzl. 2000. ‘Caracallas Brief zur Neokorie des lydischen Philadelpheia—Eine Revision.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 32: 183-189. Bartman, E. 1999. Portraits of Livia. Cambridge. Bartoccini, R. 1931. ‘L’Arco quadrifronte dei Severi a Lepcis (Leptis Magna).’ Africa Italiana 4: 32-152. Bastien, P. 1972. ‘Une nouvelle monnaie d’argent de Pescennius Niger émise à Césarée de Cappadoce.’ Bulletin, Cercle d'Études Numismatiques 9 no. 4: 69-71. ———. 1992. Le buste monétaire des empereurs romains. Wetteren. Baydur, N. 1989. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1988.’ XI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 161-177. ———. 1990a. ‘Ein römischer Tempel in Tarsos.’ Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, 541-543. Mainz. ———. 1990b. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1989.’ XII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 377-390. ———. 1992. ‘Tarsus—Donuktaâ KazÌsÌ 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 415-430. Bean, G. 1965. Side Kitabeleri. Ankara. ———. 1966. Aegean Turkey. London. ———. 1971. Turkey Beyond the Maeander. London. ———. 1976a. ‘Akalissos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 23. Princeton. ———. 1976b. ‘Aspendos.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 101-103. Princeton. Behr, C. 1968. Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales. Amsterdam. Bejor, G. 1991. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 3: Le statue. Rome. Bell, H. W. 1916. Sardis 11.1: Coins, 1910-1914. Leiden. Bell, H. I. 1924. Jews and Christians in Egypt. London. Belke, K. and N. Mersich. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 7: Phrygien und Pisidien. Vienna. Benjamin, A. 1963. ‘The Altars of Hadrian in Athens and

377

Hadrian’s Panhellenic Program.’ Hesperia 32: 57-86. Bennett, J. 1997. Trajan: Optimus Princeps. Bloomington. Bergemann, J. 1990. Römische Reiterstatuen. Mainz. Berghaus, P. 1978. ‘Erasionen auf Münzen von Pergamon.’ In S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 158162. Leiden. Bergmann, M. 1998. Die Strahlen der Herrscher. Mainz. Bergquist, B. 1998. ‘Feasting of Worshippers or Temple and Sacrifice? The Case of Herakleion on Thasos.’ In R. Hägg, ed., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence, 57-72. Stockholm. Bernhardt, R. 1971. Imperium und Eleutheria. Hamburg. ———. 1982. ‘Immunität und Abgabenpflichtigkeit bei römischen Kolonien und Munizipien in den Provinzen.’ Historia 31: 343-352. Bertrand-Dagenbach, C. 1990. Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste. Brussels. Beurlier, E. 1877-1910. ‘Neocorus.’ In C. Daremberg and E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines 4.1: 5559. Paris. Bickerman, E. 1980. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. London. Bingöl, O. 1999. ‘Epiphanie an den Artemistempeln von Ephesos und Magnesia am Mäander.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 233-240. Vienna. Birley, A. 1988. The African Emperor Septimius Severus. 2nd ed. London. ———. 1997. Hadrian: The Restless Emperor. London. Bittel, K. and A. Schneider. 1941. ‘Archäologische Funde aus der Türkei 1940: E. Galatien.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 286293. Bittner, A. 1998. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontika. Asia Minor Studien 30. Bonn. Bland, R. 1991. ‘The Last Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia.’ In R. Martini and N. Vismara, eds., Ermanno A. Arslan Studia Dicata 1: 213-252. Milan. Bleckmann, B. 1992. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Munich. Bloch, M. 1973. The Royal Touch, trans. J. Anderson. London. Bloesch, H. 1965. ‘Caracalla in Aigeai.’ Congresso internazionale di numismatica 1961. Atti 2: 307-312. Rome. ———. 1989. Erinnerungen an Aigeai. Winterthur. Blum, G. 1914. ‘Numismatique d’Antinoös.’ Journal International d’Archéologie Numismatique 16: 33-70. Boatwright, M. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton. ———. 1997. ‘Italica and Hadrian’s Urban Benefactions.’ In A. Caballos and P. León, eds., Italica MMCC, 115-135. Seville. ———. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton. Bodnar, E. and C. Mitchell. 1976. Cyriacus of Ancona’s Journeys in the Propontis and the Northern Aegean 1444-1445. Philadelphia. Boëthius, A. and J. Ward-Perkins. 1970. Etruscan and Roman Architecture. Harmondsworth. Börker-Klähn, J. 1989. ‘Mons Argaius und “papana,” die “Berge”.’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, 237-255. Ankara. Boholm, A. 1996. ‘Political Ritual as Image-making: Medieval Rome and the Charisma of Cola di Rienzo.’ In A. Boholm, ed., Political Ritual, 158-192. Gothenburg. Bol, R. 1984. Olympische Forschungen 15: Das Statuenprogramm des Herodes-Atticus-Nymphäums. Berlin. Bonz, M. 1998. ‘Beneath the Gaze of the Gods: The Pergamon

378

references

Evidence for a Developing Theology of Empire.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 251-275. Harrisburg. Borchhardt, J. and B. Borchhardt-Birbaumer. 1992. ‘Zum Kult der Heroen, Herrscher und Kaiser in Lykien.’ Antike Welt 23 no. 2: 99-116. Bosch, C. 1935. Die kleinasiatischen Münzen der römischen Kaiserzeit. 2.1.1. Einzeluntersuchungen: Bithynien. Stuttgart. Bosch, E. 1967. Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum. Ankara. Bosworth, A. 1996. Alexander and the East. Oxford. Botusarova, L. 1972. ‘ÉArxiereÊw di' ˜plvn à Philippopole’ (in Bulgarian; French summary). Arkheologicheski Institut. Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Izvestiia 33: 159-164. Boulanger, A. 1923. Aelius Aristide. Paris. Bourget, E. 1929. Fouilles de Delphes 3.1. Paris. Bowersock, G. 1967. ‘The proconsulate of Albus.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72: 289-294. ———. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford. ———. 1973. ‘Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens 19: 179-206. Geneva. ———. 1975. ‘Herodian and Elagabalus.’ Yale Classical Studies 24: 229-236. ———. 1985. ‘Hadrian and Metropolis.’ In Bonner HistoriaAugusta Colloquium 1982/83, 75-88. Bonn. ———. 1995. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge. Bowie, E. 1971. ‘The “Temple of Hadrian” at Ephesus.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 8: 137-141. Bracke, H. 1993. ‘Pisidia in Hellenistic Times.’ In M. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos 1: 15-35. Leuven. Brandt, H. 1988. ‘Kulte in Aspendos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 38: 237-250. Brocas-Deflassieux, L. 1999. Beroia, cité de Macédoine. Beroia. Broderson, K. 1992. Reiseführer zu den Sieben Weltwundern. Frankfurt. Broughton, T. 1938. ‘Roman Asia.’ In T. Frank, ed., An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome 4: 499-916. Baltimore. Brunet, S. 1997. ‘The Date of the First Balbilleia at Ephesos.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117: 137-138. Brunt, P. 1961. ‘Charges of Provincial Maladministration under the Early Principate.’ Historia 10: 189-227. ———. 1990. ‘The Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire.’ In Roman Imperial Themes, 267-281. Oxford. Buckler, W. 1923. ‘Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia.’ In Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 27-50. Manchester. ———. 1935. ‘Auguste, Zeus Patroös.’ Revue de philologie 61: 177-188. ——— and D. Robinson. 1932. Sardis 7.1. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions. Leiden. Buechner, G. 1888. De neocoria. Giessen. Bull, R. 1997. ‘Ras, Tell er-.’ In E. Myers, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 4:407-409. New York. Bürchner. 1927. ‘Smyrna. 3’ in Paulys Real-encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ser.2 vol. 5: 730-765. Stuttgart. Burckhardt, J. 1998. The Greeks and Greek Civilization, trans. S. Stern, ed. O. Murray. London. Buresch, K. 1894. ‘Zur lydischen Epigraphik und Geographie.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 19: 102-132. ———. 1898. Aus Lydien. Leipzig. Burnett, A. 1999. ‘Buildings and Monuments on Roman Coins.’ In G. Paul, ed., Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire,

137-164. Ann Arbor. Burnett, A., M. Amandry, and P. Ripollès. 1992. Roman Provincial Coinage 1. London/Paris. (= RPC 1.) ———, ———, and I. Carradice. 1999. Roman Provincial Coinage 2. London/Paris. (= RPC 2.) Burton, G. 1975. ‘Proconsuls, Assizes and the Administration of Justice under the Empire.’ Journal of Roman Studies 65: 92-106. Butcher, K. 1988. Roman Provincial Coins. London. ———. 1991. ‘Some Cilician Coins in the Hatay Museum.’ In C. Lightfoot, ed., Recent Turkish Coin Hoards and Numismatic Studies, 181-200. Oxford. ———. 1996. ‘Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine to the Reign of Gallienus.’ In C. King and D. Wigg, eds., Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, 101-112. Berlin. ——— and M. Ponting. 1997. ‘Silver Standards at Caesarea in Cappadocia.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 167-171. Milan. Butler, H. 1925. Sardis 2.1: The Temple of Artemis. Leiden. Buttrey, T., A. Johnston, K. MacKenzie, and M. Bates. 1981. Greek, Roman and Islamic Coins from Sardis. Sardis Monograph 7. Cambridge, MA. Cadoux, C. 1938. Ancient Smyrna. Oxford. Cagnat, R. 1913. ‘Note sur deux inscriptions d’Algérie.’ Revue des études anciennes 15: 38-46. Callu, J.-P. 1969. La politique monetaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311. Paris. Cameron, A. 1993. The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. London. Campanile, M. 1993. ‘Il koinÒn di Bitinia. Beiyuniãrxai e êrxontew toË koinoË t«n §n Beiyun¤& ÑEllÆnvn.’ Studi Classici e Orientali 43: 345-357. Pisa. ———. 1994a. I sacerdoti del koinon d’Asia. Pisa. ———. 1994b. ‘I sommi sacerdoti del koinòn d’Asia: Numero, rango e criteri di elezione.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 100: 422-426. Carroll, K. 1982. The Parthenon Inscription. Durham, NC. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. 1914-1927. Dio’s Roman History, ed. and trans. E. Cary. Loeb Classical Library. London. Cavuoto, P. 1983. Macrino. Naples. Cerfaux, L., and J. Tondriau. 1957. Un concurrent de christianisme: Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation greco-romaine. Tournai. Chantraine, P. 1968-1980. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris. Chapouthier, F. 1938. ‘La coiffe d’Artemis dans Éphèse trois fois neocore.’ Revue des études anciennes 40: 125-132. Charlesworth, M. 1939. ‘The Refusal of Divine Honours.’ Papers of the British School at Rome 15: 1-10. Chehab, M. 1977. Monnaies greco-romaines et phéniciennes du Musée national, Beyrouth, Liban. Paris. Christol, M. and T. Drew-Bear. 1995. ‘Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus et Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, proconsuls d’Asie.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 67-93. Chuvin, P. 1987. ‘Observations sur les reliefs du théatre de Hiérapolis.’ Revue archéologique, 1987: 97-108. Cichorius, C. 1889. ‘Inschriften aus Kleinasien.’ In Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philosophisch-historische Klasse no. 23: 365-378. Çizmeli, Z., M. Amandry, and B. Remy. 1995. ‘Monnaies pontiques d’époque romaine au musée d’Istanbul.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 99-108. Clauss, M. 1996. ‘Deus praesens. Der römische Kaiser als Gott.’ Klio 78: 400-433. ———. 1999. Kaiser und Gott. Stuttgart.

references Clerc, M. 1885. ‘Inscription de Nysa.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 9: 124-131. ———. 1886. ‘Inscriptions de Thyatire et des environs.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 10: 398-423. Cohen, G. 1995. The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands, and Asia Minor. Berkeley. Colin, J. 1981. Cyriaque d’Ancone. Paris. Collas-Heddeland, E. 1995. ‘Le culte impérial dans la compétition des titres sous le haut-empire.’ Revue des études grecques 108: 410-429. Contoleon, A.-E. 1902. ‘Inscriptions de la Grèce d’Europe.’ Revue des études grecques 15: 132-142. Conze, A. et al. 1912-1913. Altertümer von Pergamon 1: Stadt und Landschaft. Part 2. Berlin. Cook, J. 1973. The Troad. Oxford. Cormack, J. 1940. ‘The Nerva Inscription in Beroia.’ Journal of Roman Studies 30: 50-52. Corso, A. 1991. Prassitele: Fonti epigrafiche e letterarie, Vita e Opere. Vol. 3 (Xenia 10.3). Rome. Corsten, T. 1996. Katalog der bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln 2. Opladen. ———. 1997. Die Inschriften von Laodikeia am Lykos 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 49. Bonn. (= IvL.) ———. 1999. ‘Die Amtszeit des Proconsul Asiae P. Petronius.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 94. ——— and U. Huttner. 1996. ‘Münzen aus Laodikeia am Lykos (Phrygien).’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 43-51. Cox, D. 1941. A Tarsus Coin Collection in the Adana Museum. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 92. New York. (= Adana with coin no.) Croke, B. 1990. ‘Malalas, the Man and His Work.’ In E. Jeffreys, ed., Studies in John Malalas, 1-25. Sydney. Cross, T. and G. Leiser. 2000. A Brief History of Ankara. Vacaville, CA. Crown, A. 1989. ‘The Byzantine and Moslem Period.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 55-81. Tübingen. Cuinet, V. 1891. La Turquie d’Asie: Geographie administrative 2. Paris. Cumont, F. 1903. ‘La Galatie maritime de Ptolémée.’ Revue des études grecques 16: 25-27. ——— and E. Cumont. 1906. Studia Pontica 2. Brussels. Dagron, G. and D. Feissel. 1987. Inscriptions de Cilicie. Paris. Daltrop, G., U. Hausman, and M. Wegner. 1966. Die Flavier. Berlin. D’Andria, F. 2001. ‘Hierapolis of Phrygia: its evolution in Hellenistic and Roman times’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 94-115. Portsmouth RI. Danov, C. 1979. ‘Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos. Zur Geschichte und Kultur der bedeutendsten Städte Thrakiens von Alexander d. Gr. bis Justinian.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 241300. De Bernardi Ferrero, D. 1993. ‘Hierapolis.’ In Arslantepe Hierapolis Iasos Kyme: Scavi archeologici italiani in Turchia, 104187. Venice. De Blois, L. 1976. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden. ———. 1978/1979. ‘The Reign of the Emperor Philip the Arabian.’ Talanta 10-11: 11-43. ———. 1984. ‘The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite in the Roman Empire.’ Historia 33: 358-377. de Hoz, M. 1991. ‘Theos Hypsistos in Hierokaisareia.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 18: 75-77. Deininger, J. 1965. Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit. Munich. ———. 1983. ‘Zu einer neuen Hypothese über die Pontarchie im westpontischen Koinon.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

379

Epigraphik 51: 219-227. Delorme, J. 1960. Gymnasion. Paris. de Luca, G. 1990. ‘Asklepios in Pergamon.’ In B. Andreae, ed., Phyromachos-Probleme, 25-40. Mainz. Des Gagniers, J., ed. 1969. Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Campagnes 1961-1963. Quebec. Despinis, G. 1975. ÉAkrÒliya. Athens. Deubner, O. 1937. ‘Zu den grossen Propyläen von Eleusis.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 62: 73-81. Devesne, A. 1982. La frise du temple d’Artemis à Magnesie du Meandre. Paris. Devijver, H. 1993. ‘The Inscriptions of the Neon-Library of Roman Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 2: 107-123. Leuven. ——— and M. Waelkens. 1995. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the Upper Agora at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 3: 115-125. Leuven. ——— and ———. 1997. ‘Roman Inscriptions from the Fifth Campaign at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 4: 293-314. Leuven. Devreker, J. 1982. ‘Les Orientaux au Sénat romain d’Auguste à Trajan.’ Latomus 41: 492-516. ——— and J. Strubbe. 1996. ‘Greek and Latin Inscriptions from Pessinus.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 53-66. ———, H. Thoen and F. Vermeulen. 1995. ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus and its Predecessors: A Revision.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 125-144. ——— and M. Waelkens. 1984. Les fouilles de la Rijksuniversiteit te Gent a Pessinonte. Bruges. Diakonoff, I. 1979. ‘Artemidi Anaeti anestesen.’ Bulletin antieke beschaving: babesch 54: 139-188. di Filippo Balestrazzi, E. 1997. ‘Roma.’ In LIMC 8: 1048-1068. Dittenberger, W. 1960. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 4th ed. Hildesheim. (= SIG4.) Dodgeon, M. and N. Lieu. 1994. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars A.D. 226-363. London. Dörner, F. 1941. Inschriften und Denkmäler aus Bithynien. Istanbuler Forschungen 14. Donohue, A. 1988. Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture. Atlanta. ———. 1997. ‘The Greek Images of the Gods.’ Hephaistos 15: 31-45. Dräger, M. 1993. Die Städte der Provinz Asia in der Flavierzeit. Frankfurt. ———. 2000. ‘Überlegungen zu den Reisen Hadrians durch Kleinasien.’ Klio 82: 208-216. Drake, H. 2000. Constantine and the Bishops. Baltimore. Drew-Bear, T. 1974. ‘Representations of Temples on the Greek Imperial Coinage.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 19: 27-63. Duke, T. 1953. ‘The Festival Chronology of Laodicea ad Lycum.’ In Studies Presented to D.M. Robinson 2: 851-857. St. Louis. Dumont, A. 1876. ‘Inscriptions et monuments figurés de la Thrace.’ Archives des missions scientifiques3 3: 117-200. Dusanic, S. 1976. ‘The End of the Philippi.’ Chiron 6: 427-439. Eck, W. 1970. Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian. Munich. ———. 1972. ‘Die Laufbahn des L. Antonius Albus, Suffektkonsul unter Hadrian.’ Epigraphische Studien. Sammelband, 17-23. Bonn. ———. 1980. ‘Die Präsenz senatorischer Familien in den Städten des Imperium Romanum bis zum späten 3. Jahrhundert.’ In W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds., Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, 283-322. Cologne.

380

references

———. 1982. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/39.’ Chiron 12: 281-362. ———. 1983. ‘Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139.’ Chiron 13: 147-237. ———. 1997a. Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen Kaiserzeit 2. Basel. ———. 1997b. ‘Zu kleinasiatischen Inschriften (Ephesos; Museum Bursa).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 117: 107-116 . ———. 1999. ‘A. Iunius Rufinus, proconsul Asiae unter Marc Aurel, und seine Familie.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 299-302. Vienna. Eckhel, J. 1792-1839. Doctrina numorum veterum. 8 vols. Vienna. Edson, C. 1972. Inscriptiones Graecae 10: Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Part 2.1. Berlin. Ehrhardt, N. 1995. ‘Ktistai in den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3, 23-46. Bonn. Elliger, W. 1992. Ephesos—Geschichte einer antiken Weltstadt. Stuttgart. Engelmann, H. 1972. ‘Eine Prägung des ionischen Bundes.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 9: 188-192. ———. 1993. ‘Zum Kaiserkult in Ephesos.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 97: 279-289. ———. 1996. ‘Das Grab des Androklos und ein Olympieion.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 112: 131-133. ———. 1998. ‘Ephesiaca.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 121: 305-311. ———. 1999. ‘Archäologie und Epigraphik in Ephesos.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 157-160. Vienna. ———. 2000. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132: 173-175. ——— and D. Knibbe. 1989. Das Zollgesetz der Provinz Asia. Epigraphica Anatolica 14. Erkelenz, D. 1999. ‘Cicero, Pro Flacco 55-59, Zur Finanzierung von Statthalterfesten in der Frühphase des Koinon von Asia.’ Chiron 29: 43-57. Errington, R. 1987. ‘Yeå ÑR\mh und römischer Einfluss südlich des Mäanders im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’ Chiron 17: 97-118. Ertüzün, R. 1964. KapÌdagÌ YarÌmadasÌ ve Çevresindeki Adalar. Ankara. Evers, C. 1994. Les portraits d’Hadrien. Brussels. Fant, J. 1993. ‘Ideology, Gift and Trade: A Distribution Model for the Roman Imperial Marbles.’ In W. Harris, ed., The Inscribed Economy, 145-170. Ann Arbor. Fayer, C. 1976. Il culto della dea Roma. Chieti. Felten, F. 1980. ‘Römische Architektur in Pergamon.’ In J. Dalfen, K. Forstner, M. Fussl, and W. Speyer, eds., Symmicta Philologica Salisburgensia, 207-231. Rome. Fischler, S. 1998. ‘Imperial Cult: Engendering the Cosmos.’ In L. Foxhall and J. Salmon, eds., When Men Were Men, 165-183. London. Fishwick, D. 1987-1992. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Leiden. ———. 1995. ‘The Temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum.’ Britannia 26: 11-27. ———. 1998. ‘Our First High Priest: A Gallic Knight at Athens.’ Epigraphica 60: 83-112. Fittschen, K. 1985. ‘Zur Datierung des Augustus-RomaTempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 309-315. ——— and P. Zanker. 1983. Katalog der römischen Porträts in dem Capitolinischen Museen 3-4. Mainz. Fleischer, R. 1973. Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien. Leiden.

———. 1978. ‘Artemis von Ephesos und verwandte Kultstatuen aus Anatolien und Syrien—Supplement.’ In S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 1: 324358. Leiden. ———. 1984a. ‘Artemis Ephesia.’ In LIMC 2.1: 755-763. ———. 1984b. ‘Artemis Leukophryene.’ In LIMC 2.1: 764765. ———. 1984c. ‘Artemis Sardiane.’ In LIMC 2.1: 766-767. ———. 1999. ‘Neues zum Kultbild der Artemis von Ephesos.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 605-609. Vienna. Fontani, E. 1996. ‘I Vedii di Efeso nel II secolo d.C.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 110: 227-237. Fontenrose, J. 1988. Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult and Companions. Berkeley. Forrer, L. 1922-1929. The Weber Collection. London. (= Weber.) Foss, C. 1976. Byzantine and Turkish Sardis. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1977a. ‘Bryonianus Lollianus of Side.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 26: 161-171. ———. 1977b. ‘Late Antique and Byzantine Ankara.’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31: 29-87. ———. 1979. Ephesus after Antiquity. Cambridge. ———. 1986. ‘Appendix: Inscriptions Related to the Complex.’ In F. Yegül, The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis, 169-172. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1990. History and Archaeology of Byzantine Asia Minor. Aldershot. ———. 1996. Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor. Aldershot. Fränkel, M., ed. 1895. Inschriften von Pergamon. Altertümer von Pergamon 8.2. Berlin. (= IvP.) Franke, P. 1987. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens.’ In E. Olshausen, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 1: 1980, 81-102. Bonn. ——— and M. Nollé. 1997. Die Homonoia-Münzen Kleinasiens 1. Saarbrücken. French, D. 1981. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc. 1. Oxford. ———. 1988. Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor. Fasc. 2: An Interim Catalogue of Milestones. Oxford. ———. 1992. ‘Roads in Pisidia.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien, 167-175. Bonn. ———. 1996a. ‘Amasian Notes, 4. Cults and Divinities: The Epigraphic Evidence.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 26: 87-98. ———. 1996b. ‘Amasian Notes, 5. The Temenos of Zeus Stratios at Yassiçal.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 27: 75-92. Frey, L. 1982. ‘Das Bildnis eines Kaiserpriesters aus Pompeiopolis in Kilikien.’ Antike Welt 13 no. 3: 27-39. Frey, M. 1989. Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal. Stuttgart. Freyberger, K. 1992. ‘Die Bauten und Bildwirke von Philippopolis.’ Damaszener Mitteilungen 6: 293-311. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. 1997. Aspects du vocabulaire politique et institutionnel de Dion Cassius. Paris. Friesen, S. 1993. Twice Neokoros. Leiden. ———. 1999a. ‘Asiarchs.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 126: 275-290 . ———. 1999b. ‘Highpriests of Asia and Asiarchs: Farewell to the Identification Theory.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 303-307. Vienna. Friesinger, H., and F. Krinzinger, eds. 1999. 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos. Vienna. Frolova, N. 1983. Coinage of the Kingdom of Bosporus A.D. 242341/342. Oxford.

references Frova, A. 1976. ‘Philippopolis.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton. Gaebler, H. 1904. ‘Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens IV.’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 24: 245-338. ———. 1906. Die antike Münzen Nord-griechenlands 3.1. Berlin. (= AMNG with coin number.) ———. 1907. ‘Beroia.’ Nomisma 1: 23-28. ———. 1929. ‘Das koinoboÊlion §leÊyeron in Tarsos und Anazarbos.’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 39: 313-331. ———. 1935. Die antike Münzen Nord-Griechenlands 3.2. Berlin. Gagé, G. 1968. Basiléia. Paris. ———. 1975. ‘Alexandre le Grand en Macédoine dans la Ière moitié du IIIe. siècle ap. J.-C.’ Historia 24: 1-16. Gajdukevic, V. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich. Berlin. Galsterer-Kröll, B. 1972. ‘Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Städte des Imperium Romanum.’ Epigraphische Studien 9: 44-145. Garzetti, A. 1974. From Tiberius to the Antonines, trans. J. Foster. London. Gascó, F. 1988. ‘Casio Dion y la rivalidad de las ciudades griegas.’ In G. Pereira Menaut, ed., Actas, 1er Congreso Peninsular de Historia Antigua 1: 135-145. Santiago de Compostela. ———. 1989. ‘The Meetings Between Aelius Aristides and Marcus Aurelius in Smyrna.’ American Journal of Philology 110: 471-478. ———. 1990. Ciudades griegas en conflicto. Madrid. ———. 1992. ‘Septimio Severo en Anazarbo.’ Emerita 60: 235239. Gates, M.-H. 1997. ‘Archaeology in Turkey.’ American Journal of Archaeology 101: 241-305. Gauthier, P. 1989. Nouvelles Inscriptions de Sardes II. Geneva. ——— and M. Hatzopoulos. 1993. La loi gymnasiarchique de Beroia. Athens. Geertz, C. 1973. ‘Religion as a cultural system.’ In The Interpretation of Cultures, 87-125. New York. Geissen, A. 1992. ‘Die ältere Faustina auf alexandrinischen Tetradrachmen.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 92: 177-178. Gerasimov, T. 1966. ‘Edna moneta na gr. Augusta Trajana s neokorija ot Geta (209-212)’ (in Bulgarian; French summary). Arkheologicheski Institut. Bulgarska Akademiia na Naukite. Izvestiia 29: 217-219. Gill, D. and C. Gempf, eds. 1994. The Book of Acts in its GraecoRoman Setting. Grand Rapids. Giraud, D. 1989. ‘The Greater Propylaia at Eleusis, a Copy of Mnesikles’ Propylaia.’ In S. Walker and A. Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, 69-75. London. Gleason, M. 1995. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton. Gough, M. 1952. ‘Anazarbus.’ Anatolian Studies 2: 85-150. Gounaropoulou, L. and M. Hatzopoulos, eds. 1998. EPIGRAFES KATV MAKEDONIAS, TEUXOS A': EPIGRAFES BEROIAS. Athens. Grant, M. 1950. ‘The Official Coinage of Tiberius in Galatia.’ Numismatic Chronicle6 10: 43-48. Greenewalt, C., Jr. and M. Rautman. 2000. ‘The Sardis Campaigns of 1996, 1997, and 1998.’ American Journal of Archaeology 104: 643-681. Grégoire, H. 1909. ‘Rapport sur un voyage d’exploration dans le Pont et en Cappadoce.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 33: 3-147. Gros, P. 1996-2001. L’architecture romaine. 2 vols. Paris. Gross, M. 1940. Bildnisse Traians. Berlin. Gruben, G. 1961. ‘Beobachtungen zum Artemis-Tempel von

381

Sardis.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 76: 155-196. ———. 1976. Die Tempel der Griechen. 2nd ed. Munich. Guarducci, M. 1969-1975. Epigrafia Greca 2. Rome. Günther, W. 1985. ‘Inschriften von Didyma.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 181193. Güterbock, H. 1989. ‘The Temple of Augustus in the 1930s.’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, 155-157. Ankara. Guidoboni, E. with A. Comastri and G. Traina. 1994. Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the Tenth Century. Rome. Guinea Díaz, P. 1997. Nicea: Cuidad y territorio en la Bitinia Romana. Huelva. Gurval, R. 1995. Actium and Augustus. Ann Arbor. Habicht, C. 1959/1960. ‘Zwei neue Inschriften aus Pergamon.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 9/10: 109-127. ———. 1969. Die Inschriften des Asklepieions, Altertümer von Pergamon 8.3. Berlin. (= IdA.) ———. 1970. Gottmenschentum und griechische Städte. 2nd ed. Munich. ———. 1973. ‘Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt.’ In W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des souverains dans l’empire romain. Fondation Hardt. Entretiens 19: 39-88. Geneva. ———. 1975. ‘New Evidence on the Roman Province of Asia.’ Journal of Roman Studies 65: 64-91. Haenchen, E. 1965. Die Apostelgeschichte. Göttingen. Hänlein (-Schäfer), H. 1981. ‘Zur Datierung der Augustustempels in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 511-513. ———. 1985. Veneratio Augusti. Rome. Haensch, R. 1997. Capita Provinciarum. Mainz. Hahn, U. 1994. Die Frauen des römischen Kaiserhauses und ihre Ehrungen. Saarbrücken. Halfmann, H. 1979. Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n. Chr. Göttingen. ———. 1982. ‘Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Kaiserhauses.’ Chiron 12: 217-235. ———. 1986a. Itinera Principum. Stuttgart. ———. 1986b. ‘Zur Datierung und Deutung der Priesterliste am Augustus-Roma-Tempel in Ankara.’ Chiron 16: 35-42. ———. 1990. ‘Hymnoden von Asia in Kyzikos.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien 1: 21-26. Bonn. Hall, B. 1989. ‘From John Hyrcanus to Baba Rabbah.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 32-54. Tübingen. Hamblenne, P. 1968. ‘La légende d’Oppien.’ L’Antiquité classique 37: 589-619. Hanell, K. 1935. ‘Neokoroi.’ In RE 16.2: 2422-2428. Hanfmann, G. 1983. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Cambridge, MA. ——— and N. Ramage. 1978. Sculpture from Sardis: Sardis Report 2. Cambridge, MA. Hanslik, R. 1965. ‘M. Ulpius Traianus 1a.’ In RE Supplement 10: 1035-1102. Hanson, J. 1959. Roman Theater-Temples. Princeton. Harl, K. 1984. ‘The Coinage of Neapolis in Samaria, A.D. 24453.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 29: 61-97. (= Harl with catalogue number.) ———. 1987. Civic Coins and Civic Politics. Los Angeles. Harper, R. 1970. ‘Podandus and the Via Tauri.’ Anatolian Studies 20: 149-153. Harris, B. 1964. Bithynia under Trajan. Auckland. Hartmann, F. 1982. Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise. Frankfurt.

382

references

Hasebroeck, J. 1921. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Septimius Severus. Heidelberg. Hasluck, F. 1910. Cyzicus. Cambridge. ———. 1913-1914. ‘The “Tomb of S. Polycarp” and the Topography of Ancient Smyrna.’ Annual of the British School at Athens 20: 80-93. Head, B. 1911. Historia Numorum. Oxford. Heberdey, R., and E. Kalinka. 1896. ‘Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien.’ Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 45 I, 157. Hecht, R. 1964. ‘Some Coins of Asia Minor in Boston.’ Numismatic Chronicle 7 4: 159-168. ———. 1968. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins in my Collection.’ Numismatic Chronicle 7 8: 27-35. Heinze, T. 1995. ‘Ailios Aristeides. Festrede in Kyzikos anlässlich der Einweihung des Kaisertempels.’ In E. Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor Studien 16: 63-100. Bonn. Hepding, H. 1907. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1904-1905, II. Die Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 32: 241-377. ———. 1910. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1908-1909, II. Die Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 35: 401-493. Herkenrath, E. 1902. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia. Berlin. Herrmann, P. 1975. ‘Ein Kaiserurkunde der Zeit Marc Aurels aus Milet.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 25: 149-166. ———. 1979. ‘Schiedsgericht zwischen Temnos und Klazomenai.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 29: 249-271. ———. 1980. ‘Kaiserliche Garantie für private Stiftungen.’ In W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, eds., Studien zur antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff, 339-356. Cologne. ———. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten römischen Bühne in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed., Milet 1899-1980, 175189. Tübingen. ———. 1989a. ‘Ein Tempel für Caligula in Milet?’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 39: 191-196. ———. 1989b. ‘Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer.’ Chiron 19: 127-158. ———. 1992. ‘Epigraphische Notizen 4-9.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 20: 69-74. ———. 1993a. ‘Epigraphische Forschungen in Lydien: Polybios aus Sardeis.’ In G. Dobesch and G. Rehrenböck, eds., Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 211-219. Vienna. ———. 1993b. ‘Inschriften von Sardeis.’ Chiron 23: 233-266. ———. 1995. ‘Sardeis zur Zeit der iulisch-claudischen Kaiser.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Lydien. Asia Minor Studien 17: 21-36. Bonn. ———. 1997. Milet 6.1.B: Inschriften von Milet, Nachträge. Berlin. ———. 1998. Milet 6.2: Inschriften von Milet 2. Berlin. ——— with S. Greger. 1994. ‘Milet unter Augustus. C. Iulius Epikrates und die Anfänge des Kaiserkults.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 44: 203-236. ——— with D. McCabe. 1986. ‘Die Weihinschrift der ersten römischen Bühne in Milet.’ In W. Müller-Wiener, ed., Milet 1899-1980 , 175-189. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 31. Tübingen.

Herz, P. 1990. ‘Die musische Agonistik und der Kunstbetrieb der Kaiserzeit.’ In J. Blänsdorf, ed., Theater und Gesellschaft im Imperium Romanum, 175-195. Tübingen. ———. 1992. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereiai.’ Tyche 7: 93-115. ———. 1998. ‘Addenda Agonistica I.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 30: 133-136. Heubeck, A. 1968. ‘Da-mo-ko-ro.’ In Atti e memorie del 1.o Congresso internazionale di micenologia 2: 611-615. Rome. Hijmans, S. 1996. ‘The Sun Which Did Not Rise in the East: The Cult of Sol Invictus in the Light of Non-Literary Evidence.’ Bulletin antieke beschaving: babesch 71: 115-150. Hild, F. and H. Hellenkemper. 1986. Neue Forschungen in Kilikien. Vienna. ——— and ———. 1990. Tabula Imperii Byzantini 5: Kilikien und Isaurien. Vienna. Hill, G. 1923. ‘Some Coins of Southern Asia Minor.’ In W. Buckler and W. Calder, eds., Anatolian Studies Presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, 207-224. Manchester. Hirschfeld, G. 1888. ‘Inschriften aus dem Norden Kleinasiens besonders aus Bithynien und Paphlagonien.’ In Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 22: 863-892. ———. 1893. The Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum 4.1. Oxford. ———. 1894. ‘Antandros (1).’ In RE 1: 2346. Hobsbawm, E. 1983. ‘Introduction: Inventing Tradition.’ In E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition, 1-14. Cambridge. Hoepfner, W. 1989. ‘Zu den grossen Altären von Magnesia und Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 601-634. ———. 1990a. ‘Bauten und Bedeutung des Hermogenes.’ In W. Hoepfner and E. Schwandner, Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 1-34. Mainz. ———. 1990b. ‘Von Alexandria über Pergamon nach Nikopolis. Städtebau und Stadtbilder hellenistischer Zeit.’ In Akten des XIII. internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988, 275-285. Mainz. Holtzmann, B. 1984. ‘Asklepios.’ In LIMC 2.1: 863-897. Hommel, P. 1954. Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit. Berlin. Houston, G. 1972. ‘M. Plancius Varus and the Events of A.D. 69-70.’ Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 103: 167-180. Howe, T. 1983. ‘The Temple of Artemis.’ Sardis Guides 6. ———. 1986. ‘The Artemis Temple at Sardis and the End of the Late Hellenistic Tradition of Temple Design.’ American Institute of Archaeology Abstracts 11: 3. Hueber, F. 1997. ‘Zur städtebaulichen Entwicklung des hellenistisch-römischen Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 47: 251-269. Humann, C. 1904. Magnesia am Maeander. Berlin. ———, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter. 1898. Altertümer von Hierapolis. Berlin. (= AvH.) Imhoof-Blumer, F. 1901-1902. Kleinasiatische Münzen. Vienna. ———. 1911. ‘Aedicula als Kopfschmuck der Artemis Ephesia.’ Nomisma 6:11-12. Inan, J. 1993. ‘Neue Forschungen zum Sebasteion von Boubon und seinen Statuen.’ In J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch, eds., Akten des II. internationalen Lykien-Symposions 1: 213-239. Vienna. ——— and E. (Alföldi-) Rosenbaum. 1966. Roman and Early Byzantine Portrait Sculpture in Asia Minor. London. ——— and ———. 1979. Römische und frühbyzantinische Porträtplastik aus der Türkei. Mainz. Ippel, A. 1912. ‘Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910-1911, II. Die Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts.

references Athenische Abteilung 37: 277-303. Ireland, S. 2000. Greek, Roman and Byzantine Coins in the Museum at Amasya (Ancient Amaseia), Turkey. London. ——— with S. Atesogullari. 1996. ‘The Ancient Coins in Amasya Museum.’ In R. Ashton, ed., Studies in Ancient Coinage from Turkey, 115-137. London. Isaac, B. 1992. The Limits of Empire. Rev. ed. Oxford. IâÌk, F. 1990. ‘Patara 1989.’ XII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 2955. ———. 1991. ‘Patara. Dünü bugünü ve gelecegi.’ Türk arkeoloji dergisi 29: 35-69. ———. 2000. Patara: The History and Ruins of the Capital City of Lycian League. Antalya. ——— and H. YÌlmaz. 1989. ‘Patara 1988.’ XI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 1-21. Jacoby, F. 1950. Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Reprint. Leiden. Jakobek, R., and A. Dinstl, eds. 1990. Götter, Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien. Vienna. Jalabert, L., R. Mouterde, and C. Mondésert. 1959. Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 5: Émésène (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 66). Paris. Jameson, S. 1970. ‘Aspendos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 99-109. ———. 1980. ‘The Lycian League: Some Problems in its Administration.’ In ANRW 2.7.2: 832-855. Jeffreys, E. 1990. ‘Chronological Structures in Malalas’ Chronicle.’ In E. Jeffreys, ed.. Studies in John Malalas, 111166. Sydney. ———, M. Jeffreys, and R. Scott. 1986. The Chronicle of John Malalas. Melbourne. Jobst, W. 1980. ‘Zur Lokalisierung des Sebastion-Augusteum in Ephesos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 30: 241-260. Johnson, A., P. Coleman-Norton, and F. Bourne. 1961. Ancient Roman Statutes. Austin. Johnson, S. 1960. ‘Preliminary Epigraphic Report on the Inscriptions Found at Sardis in 1958.’ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 158: 6-11. Johnston, A. 1982. ‘Caracalla or Elagabalus? A Case of Unnecessarily Mistaken Identity.’ American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 27: 97-147. ———. 1983. ‘Caracalla’s Path: The Numismatic Evidence.’ Historia 32: 58-76. ———. 1984. ‘Hierapolis Revisited.’ Numismatic Chronicle 144: 52-80. ———. 1989. ‘The Coinage of Smyrna.’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 2:319-325. Jones, A. 1973. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. Reprint. Oxford. ———. 1977. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. 2nd ed. Oxford. Jones, B. 1992. The Emperor Domitian. London. Jones, C. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1993. ‘The Olympieion and the Hadrianeion at Ephesos.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 113: 149-152. ———. 1996. ‘The Panhellenion.’ Chiron 26: 29-56. ———. 1998. ‘Aelius Aristides and the Asklepieion.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 63-76. Harrisburg. ———. 1999a. ‘A Decree of Thyatira in Lydia.’ Chiron 29: 121. ———. 1999b. ‘Old and New in the Inscriptions of Perge.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 31: 8-17. ———. 2001. ‘Cities, Villages and Sanctuaries in the Reign

383

of Hadrian.’ Journal of Roman Archaeology 14: 651-654. Jonnes, L. 1994. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 47. Bonn. Jost, M. 1994. ‘The Distribution of Sanctuaries in Civic Space in Arkadia.’ In S. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., Placing the Gods, 217-230. Oxford. Judeich, W. 1898. ‘Inschriften.’ In C. Humann, C. Cichorius, W. Judeich, and F. Winter, Altertümer von Hierapolis, 67202. Berlin. Jürging, A. 1991. ‘Unedierte Stadtmünzen der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 31: 41-50. Kadar, Z. 1986. ‘L’importance religieuse et artistique du culte d’Asklepios-Aesculapius sur les médailles de Caracalla à Pergamon.’ Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 22: 31-35. Kalinka, E. 1926. ‘Altes und Neues aus Thrakien.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 23: Beibl. 117-208. Kampmann, U. 1996. Die Homonoia-Verbindungen der Stadt Pergamon. Saarbrücken. ———. 1997. ‘Eine gemeinsame Emission der Städte Pergamon und Ephesos für das Koinon der 13 ionischen Städte.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 83-91. Milan. ———. 1998. ‘Homonoia Politics in Asia Minor: The Example of Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 373-393. Harrisburg. Kanatsoulis, D. 1956. ‘TÚ koinÚn t«n MakedÒnvn.’ MAKEDONIKA 3 (1953-55): 27-102. Karl, H. 1975. Numismatische Beiträge zum Festwesen der kleinasiatischen und nordgriechischen Städte im 2/3 Jahrhundert. Diss. Saarbrucken. Karwiese, S. 1982-1985. ‘Koressos—Ein fast vergessener Stadtteil von Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro Arte Antiqua 2: 214-225. Vienna. ———. 1985. ‘Das Beben unter Gallien und seine anhaltenden Folgen.’ In M. Kandler, S. Karwiese, and R. Pillinger, Lebendige Altertumswissenschaft: Festgabe zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres von Hermann Vetters, 126-131. Vienna. ———. 1989. Erster vorläufiger Gesamtbericht über die Wiederaufnahme der archäologischen Untersuchung der Marienkirche in Ephesos. Vienna. ———. 1990. ‘Keine Kaiserhochzeit in Ephesos.’ In B. Otto and F. Ehrl, eds., Echo: Johannes B. Trentini, 171-178. Innsbruck. ———. 1995a. ‘The Church of Mary and the Temple of Hadrian Olympios.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 311-319. Valley Forge. ———. 1995b. Gross ist die Artemis von Ephesos. Vienna. ———. 1999. ‘Artemis Ephesia ‘Sebasteia’: Ein Entzifferungsbeitrag.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 61-75. Vienna. Kaster, R. 1983. ‘The Date of FD III 1.206.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 131-132. Kaygusuz, I. 1984. ‘Perge: Unter Kaiser Tacitus Mittelpunkt der Welt.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 4: 1-4. Kearsley, R. 1986. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and the Archiereiai of Asia.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 27: 183-192. ———. 1987a. ‘M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles of Aezani.’ Antichthon 21: 49-56. ———. 1987b. ‘Some Asiarchs of Ephesus.’ In G. Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 4: 46-55. Sydney. ———. 1988a. ‘Asiarchs: Titulature and Function: A Reap-

384

references

praisal.’ Studii Clasice 26: 57-65. ———. 1988b. ‘A Leading Family of Cibyra and Some Asiarchs of the First Century.’ Anatolian Studies 38: 43-51. ———. 1990. ‘Asiarchs, Archiereis and Archiereiai of Asia: New Evidence from Amorium in Phrygia.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 16: 69-80. ———. 1994. ‘The Asiarchs.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 363-376. Grand Rapids. ———. 1996. ‘The Asiarchs of Cibyra Again.’ Tyche 11: 129155. ———. 1999. ‘Bilingual Inscriptions from Ephesos: The Statue Bases from the Harbour Gymnasium.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 147-155. Vienna. ———. 2001. Greeks and Romans in Imperial Asia: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 59. Bonn. Keil, B. 1897. ‘Kyzikenisches.’ Hermes 32: 497-508. Keil, J. 1908. ‘Zur Geschichte der Hymnoden in der Provinz Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 11: 108-110. ———. 1915. ‘Die dritte Neokorie von Ephesos.’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 48: 125-130. ———. 1919. ‘Die erste Kaiserneokorie von Ephesos.’ Numismatische Zeitschrift 52: 115-120. ———. 1931/32. ‘XVI. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Ephesos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 27: Beibl. 51-60. ———. 1956. ‘Ein ephesicher Anwalt des 3. Jahrhunderts durchreist das Imperium Romanum.’ in Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, München. Philosophischhistorische Klasse no. 3: 3-10. Kennedy-Bailie, J. 1846. Fasciculus inscriptionum Graecarum potissimum 2. Dublin. Kern, O. 1900. Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin. Kettenhofen, E. 1982. Die römische-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Wiesbaden. Kienast, D. 1971. ‘Ein vernachlässigtes Zeugnis für die Reichspolitik Trajans: Die zwiete tarsische Rede des Dion von Prusa.’ Historia 20: 62-80. ———. 1985. ‘Der heilige Senat: Senatskult und “kaiserlicher” Senat.’ Chiron 15: 253-282. ———. 1995. ‘Zu den Homonoia-Vereinbarungen in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109: 267-282. ———. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. 2nd ed. Darmstadt. Kindler, A. 1980. ‘Was There a Detachment of the Third Legion Cyrenaica at Neapolis in A.D. 251-253?’ Israel Numismatic Journal 4: 56-58. ———. 1982-1983. ‘The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected by their Coins.’ Israel Numismatic Journal 6-7: 79-87. Kinney, D. 1997. ‘Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae.’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42: 117-148. Kippenberg, H. 1971. Garizim und Synagoge. Berlin. Klose, D. 1987. Die Münzprägung von Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. (= MvS.) ———. 1996. ‘Münzprägung und städtische Identität: Smyrna in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ In W. Leschhorn, A.V. Miron, and A. Miron, eds., Hellas und der griechischen Osten, 53-63. Saarbrücken. ———. 1997. ‘Münz- oder Gruselkabinett?’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 253-264. Milan. ——— and G. Stumpf. 1996. Sport Spiele Sieg. Munich. Knackfuss, H. 1924. Milet 1.7: Der Südmarkt. Berlin.

———. 1942. Didyma 1. Die Baubeschreibung. 3 vols. Berlin. Knibbe, D. 1970. ‘Ephesos.’ In RE Suppl. 12: 248-297. ———. 1995a. ‘Die statuarische Wiederauferstehung des Kaiserpriesters Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantus unter dem christlichen Statthalter Fl. Anthemius Isidorus.’ In D. Knibbe and H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 100-102. Vienna. ———. 1995b. ‘Die zweite Kaiserneokorie und der Wandel des Erscheinungsbildes der Artemis Ephesia: Die Via Sacra in der Bildersprache ihres Polos?’ In D. Knibbe and H. Thür, Via Sacra Ephesiaca II, 96-99. Vienna. ———. 1999. ‘Via Sacra Ephesiaca.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 449-454. Vienna. ——— and B. Iplikçioglu. 1981/82. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos VIII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 53: 87-150. ———, H. Engelmann and B. Iplikçioglu. 1989. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XI.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 59: Beibl. 162-238. ———, ——— and ———. 1993. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Ephesos XII.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 62: Beibl. 113-150. Knoepfler, D. 1993. ‘Le temple du Métroön de Sardes et ses inscriptions.’ Museum Helveticum 50: 26-43. Koçhan, N. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1989 KazÌsÌ HadrÌan TapÌnagÌ Mimari Bezemeleri.’ Türk arkeoloji dergisi 29: 119-132. Koester, H. 1982. Introduction to the New Testament 2. Philadelphia. ———. 1995. ‘Ephesos in Early Christian Literature.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 119-140. Valley Forge. Kolb, F. and B. Kupke. 1992. Lykien. Mainz. Kolendo, J. 1992. ‘Les noms dynastiques de villes, Philippe l’Arabe et Philippopolis de Thrace et d’Arabie.’ Index 20: 51-55. Kolev, K. 1991. ‘Kopien griechischer Skulpturen auf Münzen von Philippopolis.’ Klio 73: 510-525. Kornemann. 1924. ‘koinÒn.’ In RE Suppl. 4: 914-941. Kourouniotes , K. 1921-22. ‘ ÉAnaskafa‹ §n NÊs_ tª §p‹ Maiãndrƒ.’ Archaiologikon Deltion 7: 1-88. Kraft, K. 1972. Das System der kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung in Kleinasien. Berlin. Kranz, P. 1990. ‘Zeugnisse hadrianischer Religionspolitik im Osten.’ In C. Borker and M. Donderer, eds., Das antike Rom und der Osten: Festschrift für Klaus Parlasca, 125-141. Erlangen. Krautheimer, R. 1986. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. 4th ed. Harmondsworth. Kreeb, M. 1990. ‘Hermogenes—Quellen- und Datierungsprobleme.’ In W. Hoepfner and E.-L. Schwandner, eds., Hermogenes und die hochhellenistische Architektur, 103-113. Mainz. Kreikenbom, D. 1992. Griechische und römische Kolossalporträts. Berlin. Kremydi-Sicilianou, S. 1997. ‘Zeus—Coins.’ In LIMC 8: 362371. Krencker, D. and M. Schede. 1936. Der Tempel in Ankara. Berlin. Kroll, J. 1997. ‘The Athenian Imperials: Results of Recent Study.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 61-73. Milan. Kromann, A. 1989. ‘Marks of Value on Greek Imperials from Side.’ In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, Kraay-Morkholm Essays, 149-158. Louvain. Kruse, G. 1939. ‘Olympios. 55.’ In RE 18.1: 251-257.

references Kuhoff, W. 1979. Herrschertum und Reichskrise. Bochum. Kunckel, H. 1974. Der römische Genius. Heidelberg. Kunisz, A. 1986. ‘Le monnayage d’argent de Césarée de Cappadoce sous les règnes de Trajan et d’Hadrien.’ In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Numismatics, 201206. London. Kuttner, A. 1995. Dynasty and Empire in the Age of Augustus. Berkeley. Lämmer, M. 1967. Olympien und Hadrianeen im antiken Ephesos. Diss. Cologne. Laffi, U. 1967. ‘Le iscrizioni relative all’introduzione nel 9 A.C. del nuovo calendario della provincia d’Asia.’ Studi Classici e Orientali 16: 5-98. ———. 1971. ‘I terreni del tempio di Zeus ad Aizanoi.’ Athenaeum 49: 3-53. Laminger-Pascher, G. 1974. ‘Kleine Nachträge zu kilikischen Inschriften.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 15: 3168. Lanckoronski, K. 1890-1892. Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens. Vienna. Langer, P. 1981. Power and Propaganda: Relations between Rome and Bithynia under the Empire, 27 B.C.-260 A.D. Diss. University of Virginia. Latyschev, B. 1890. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini. St. Petersburg. Laubscher, H. 1967. ‘Zum Fries von Hadrianstempels in Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 17: 211-217. Lauritsen, F. 1979. ‘The Greek Imperial Coins of Pamphylia and Evidence for the Monetary Crisis of the Third Century A.D.’ In M. Powell Jr. and R. Sack, eds., Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones, 277-287. Kevelaer. Le Bas, P. and W. Waddington. 1847-1877. Voyage archéologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure. Paris. (= LeBas-Waddington.) Le Glay, M. 1976. ‘Hadrien et l’Asklépieion de Pergame.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 100: 347-372. Le Guen-Pollet, B. 1990. ‘Une inscription d’Héraclée du Pont de 130 ap. J.-C.?’ In Ikinci Tarih Boyunca Karadeniz Kongresi Bildirileri, 668-680. Samsun. Lehmann, C., and K. Holum. 2000. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima. Boston. Lehmann, P. 1973. ‘Cyriacus of Ancona’s Visit to Samothrace.’ In P. Lehmann and K. Lehmann, Samothracian Reflections, 45-50. Princeton. Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus Principis. Frankfurt. Lendon, J. 1997. Empire of Honour. Oxford. LeRider, G. 1991. ‘Les trouvailles monétaires dans le temple d’Artémis à Sardes.’ Revue numismatique 33: 71-88. Leschhorn, W. 1992. ‘Die Anfänge der Provinz Galatia.’ Chiron 22: 315-336. ———. 1993. Antike Ären. Stuttgart. ———. 1998. ‘Griechische Agone in Makedonien und Thrakien.’ In U. Peter, ed., Stephanos nomismatikos: Edith Schönert-Geiss, 399-415. Berlin. Letta, C. 1994a. ‘Il dossier di Opramoas e la serie dei legati e degli archiereis di Licia.’ In B. Virgilio, ed., Aspetti e problemi dell’Ellenismo, 203-246. Pisa. ———. 1994b. ‘Il “naufragio” di Caracalla in Cassio Dione, nell’ Historia Augusta e nei commentari degli Arvali.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 103: 188-190. Levick, B. 1967. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford. ———. 1969. ‘Caracalla’s Path.’ In Hommages à Marcel Renard 2: 426-446. Brussels. ———. 1982. ‘Domitian and the Provinces.’ Latomus 41: 5073. ———. 1987. ‘Aspects of Social Life at Aezani.’ In E. Frézouls,

385

ed., Sociétés urbaines, sociétés rurales dans l’Asie Mineure et la Syrie hellénistiques et romaines, 259-270. Strasbourg. ———. 1999. Vespasian. London. ———, S. Mitchell, and J. Potter. 1988. Monuments from the Aezanitis Recorded by C.W.M. Cox, A. Cameron and J. Cullen. MAMA 9. London. Levine, L. 1975. Caesarea Under Roman Rule. Leiden. Lewin, A. 1995. Assemblee popolari e lotta politica nelle città dell’impero Romano. Florence. Lewis, R. 1991. ‘Sulla and Smyrna.’ Classical Quarterly 41: 126129. Leypold, F. 1983. ‘Unedierte Münzen aus Pamphylien.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 23: 21-27, 38-43. ———. 1989. ‘Unedierte Provinzialprägungen aus Kilikien.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 29: 85-91. ———. 1991. ‘Unedierte Provinzialmünzen aus Kilikien.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 31: 71-76. ———. 1998. ‘Seltenere Provinzialbronzen aus Ephesus.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 38 no. 2: 32-34. Liampi, K. 1997. ‘Imperialforschung in Griechenland.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 75-81. Milan. LiDonnici, L. 1992. ‘The Images of Artemis Ephesia and Greco-Roman Worship: A Reconsideration.’ Harvard Theological Review 85: 389-415. Liebenam, W. 1900. Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche. Leipzig. Liljenstolpe, P. 1996. ‘De ornamentis templi urbis: Reconstructing the Main Order of the Temple of Venus and Rome.’ Opuscula Romana 20: 47-67. Lindner, R. 1994. Mythos und Identität. Stuttgart. L’Orange, H. 1947. Apotheosis. Oslo. Lyttelton, M. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. Ithaca, NY. ———. 1987. ‘The Design and Planning of Temples and Sanctuaries in Asia Minor in the Roman Imperial Period.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 38-49. London. MacDonald, W. 1986. The Architecture of the Roman Empire, 2: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven. MacMullen, R. 1959. ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 64: 207-235. ———. 1974. Roman Social Relations. New Haven. ———. 1976. The Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235337. New Haven. ———. 1985. ‘How to Revolt in the Roman Empire.’ Rivista storica dell’antichità 15: 67-76. ———. 1986. ‘Frequency of Inscriptions in Roman Lydia.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 65: 237-238. ———. 1990. Changes in the Roman Empire. Princeton. ———. 1997. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. New Haven. Magen, I. 1993. ‘Mount Gerizim.’ In E. Stern, A. LewinsonGilboa, and J. Aviram, eds., New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 2: 484-492. Jerusalem. Magie, D. 1950. Roman Rule in Asia Minor. Princeton. Malavolta, M. 1976-1977. ‘Ludi III-V.’ In Dizionario epigrafico di antichità Romane 4 fasc. 64-66 : 2025-2097. Rome. Mansel, A. 1963. Die Ruinen von Side. Berlin. ———. 1965. ‘Side.’ In RE Suppl. 10: 879-918. ———, E. Bosch, and J. Inan. 1951. 1947 senesi Side kazilarina

386

references

dair Önrapor. Ankara. Marek, C. 1993a. ‘1992 ÇankÌrÌ ve Kastamonu’da AraâtÌrmalar, Kaunos ve Patara KazÌlarÌnda Epigrafik AraâtÌrma.’ XI. AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 85-104. Ankara. ———. 1993b. Stadt, Ära und Territorium in Pontus-Bithynia und Nord-Galatia. Tübingen. Mason, H. 1974. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions. Toronto. Mastino, A. 1978/79. ‘L’ erasione del nome di Geta dalle iscrizioni.’ In Annali della Facoltà di Littere e Filosofia della Università di Cagliari 2: 47-81. Publ. 1981. ———. 1981. Le titolature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni. Bologna. McCann, A. 1968. The Portraits of Septimius Severus. Rome. McDonald, T., ed. 1996. The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor. Meckler, M. 1994. Caracalla and his Late-Antique Biographer. Diss. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Mellor, R. 1975. YEA RVMH. Göttingen. Mendel, G. 1909. ‘Catalogue des monuments grecs, romains et byzantins du Musée Impérial de Brousse.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 33: 245-435. Meriç, R. 1985. ‘Rekonstruktionsversuch der Kolossalstatue des Domitian in Ephesos.’ In W. Alzinger and G. Neeb, Pro Arte Antiqua 2: 239-241. Vienna. Merkelbach, R. 1971. ‘M’. Acilius Glabrio in Hierapolis.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 7: 43-44. ———. 1978. ‘Der Rangstreit der Städte Asiens und die Rede des Aelius Aristides über die Einheit.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32: 287-296. ———. 1979. ‘Ephesische Parerga 25: Commodus als Bruder des Septimius Severus.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33: 189-191. ———. 1985. ‘Eine Inschrift des Weltverbandes der dionysischen Technitai (CIG 6829).’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 58: 136-138. ———. 1987. ‘Nikaia in der römischen Kaiserzeit.’ RheinischWestfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vorträge G 289, 12. ——— and S. ”ahin. 1988. ‘Die publizierten Inschriften von Perge.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 11: 97-170. ———, ——— and J. Stauber. 1997. ‘Kaiser Tacitus erhebt Perge zur Metropolis Pamphyliens und erlaubt einen Agon.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 29: 69-74. Meshorer, Y. 1985. City-Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem. ———. 1989. ‘Three Interesting Cults at Neapolis in Samaria.’ In G. Le Rider, K. Jenkins, N. Waggoner, and U. Westermark, eds., Kraay–Morkholm Essays, 173-177. Louvain. ———. 1993. ‘New Discoveries in the Coinage of the Cities of Roman Palestine.’ In A. Biran and J. Aviram, eds., Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990, 141-146. Jerusalem. Metcalf, W. 1980. The Cistophori of Hadrian. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Studies 15. New York. ———. 1996. The Silver Coinage of Cappadocia, Vespasian-Commodus. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 166. New York. ———. 1997. ‘Notes on the Coinage of Severan Caesarea.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 173181. Milan. ———. 1999. ‘Coins as Primary Evidence.’ In G. Paul, ed., Roman Coins and Public Life Under the Empire, 1-17. Ann Arbor. Meyer, E. 1975. ‘Augusti.’ Chiron 5: 393-402. Meyer, H. 1991. Antinoös. Munich. Michel, D. 1967. Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius. Brussels.

Mihailov, G. 1956-1961. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae. Sofia. (= IGBR.) Mikocki, T. 1995. Sub specie Deae: Les impératrices et princesses romaines assimilées à des déesses. Rome. Mileta, C. 1990. ‘Zur Vorgeschichte und Entstehung der Gerichtsbezirke der Provinz Asia.’ Klio 72: 427-444. Millar, F. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY. ———. 1983. ‘Empire and City, Augustus to Julian: Obligations, Excuses and Status.’ Journal of Roman Studies 73: 7696. ———. 1987. ‘Introduction.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, ix-xv. London. ———. 1990. ‘The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: A Study of Cultural Relations.’ In H. Solin and M. Kajava, eds., Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, 758. Helsinki. ———. 1993. The Roman Near East. Cambridge, MA. Milne, J. 1947. ‘Some Greek Coins in Oxford.’ Numismatic Chronicle6 7: 52-61. Miltner, F. 1958a. Ephesos, Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes. Vienna. ———. 1958b. ‘Die neuen Artemisstatuen aus Ephesos.’ Anatolia 3: 21-34. Mingazzini, P. 1976. ‘La datazione della base di Pozzuoli.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 83: 425-429. Mionnet, T. 1806-1808. Description des médailles antiques. Paris. Miranda, E. 1992-1993. ‘Testimonianze sui Kommodeia.’ Scienze dell’Antichità 6-7: 69-88. Mitchell, C. 1960. ‘Archaeology and Romance in Renaissance Italy.’ In E. Jacobs, ed., Italian Renaissance Studies, 455-483. London. Mitchell, S. 1977. ‘Inscriptions of Ancyra.’ Anatolian Studies 27: 63-103. ———. 1980. ‘Population and the Land in Roman Galatia.’ In ANRW 2.7.2: 1053-1081. ———. 1984. ‘The Greek City in the Roman World: The Case of Pontus and Bithynia.’ In A. Kalogeropoulou, ed. Praktikå toË H' DieynoËw Sunedr¤ou ÑEllenik}w ka‹ Latinik}w Epigrafik}w 1: 120-133. Athens. ———. 1986. ‘Galatia under Tiberius.’ Chiron 16: 17-33. ———. 1987. ‘Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 18-25. London. ———. 1990. ‘Festivals, Games and Civic Life in Roman Asia Minor.’ Journal of Roman Studies 80: 183-193. ———. 1993. Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor. 2 vols. Oxford. ———. 1999. ‘The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians.’ In P. Anthanassiadi and M. Frede, eds., Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, 81-148. Oxford. ——— with D. French and J. Greenhaigh. 1982. Regional Epigraphic Catalogues of Asia Minor, 2: The Ankara District. Oxford. (= RECAM 2.) ——— with E. Owens and M. Waelkens. 1989. ‘Ariassos and Sagalassos 1988.’ Anatolian Studies 39: 63-77. ——— and M. Waelkens. 1998. Pisidian Antioch. London. Molthagen, J. 1991. ‘Die ersten Konflikte der Christen in der griechisch-römischen Welt.’ Historia 40: 42-76. Monceaux, P. 1885. De communi Asiae provinciae. Paris. Mor, M. 1989a. ‘The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 1-18. Tübingen. ———. 1989b. ‘The Samaritans and the Bar Kokhbah Revolt.’ In A. Crown, ed., The Samaritans, 19-31. Tübingen. Mordtmann, J. 1881. ‘Zur Epigraphik von Kyzikos.’ Mitteilungen

references des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 6: 40-55. ———. 1889. ‘Nachträge zu Bd. XII S. 168 ff.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 14: 314-317. Moretti, L. 1953. Iscrizione agonistiche greche. Rome. ———. 1954. ‘KOINA ASIAS.’ Rivista di filologia classica n.s. 32: 276-289. ———. 1959. Review of Rehm 1958. Rivista di filologia e istruzione classica n.s. 37: 199-206. ———. 1968. Inscriptiones Graecae urbis Romae. Rome. (= IGUrbRom.) ———. 1990. Tra epigrafia e storia. Rome. Moutsoupoulos, N. 1977. ‘Contribution à l’étude du plan de ville de Thessalonique à l’époque romaine.’ In L’Archittetura in Grecia: Atti del XVI Congresso di Storia dell’Architettura, 187263. Rome. Müller, C. 1878-1885. Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum. Paris. Müller, H. 1992. ‘Phyromachos im pergamenischen Nikephorion?’ Chiron 22: 195-226. ———. 2000. ‘Der hellenistische Archiereus.’ Chiron 30: 519542. Münsterberg, R. 1985. Die Beamtennamen auf den greichischen Münzen. Reprint. Hildesheim. Mutafian, C. 1988. La Cilicie au carrefour des empires. Paris. Nafissi, M. 1995. ‘Tiberius Claudius Attalos Andragathos e le origini di Synnada.’ Ostraka 4: 119-136. Naster, P. 1987. ‘Monnaies impériales de Pamphylie et de Pisidie sous Claude II le Gothique et Aurélien.’ In H. Huvelin, M. Christol, and G. Gautier, eds., Mélanges de numismatique offerts à P. Bastien, 131-143. Wetteren. Naumann, F. 1985. ‘Ulpii von Aizanoi.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 35: 217-226. Naumann, R. 1979. Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi. Berlin. ———. 1986. ‘Zeustempel und Kybeleheiligtum in Aizanoi.’ Anadolu Araâtirmalari 10: 503-509. Naveh, J. 1998. ‘Scripts and Inscriptions in Ancient Samaria.’ Israel Exploration Journal 48: 91-100. Nawotka, K. 1997. The Western Pontic Cities. Amsterdam. Niemeyer, H. 1968. Studien zur statuarischen Darstellung der römischen Kaiser. Berlin. Nigdelis, P. 1995. ‘Oberpriester und Gymnasiarchen im Provinziallandtag Makedoniens: Eine neue Ehreninschrift aus Beroia.’ Klio 77: 170-183. ———. 1996. ‘Geminii und Claudii: Die Geschichte zweier führender Familien von Thessaloniki in der späteren Kaiserzeit.’ In A. Rizakis, ed., Roman Onomastics in the Greek East: Social and Political Aspects, 129-141. Athens. Nock, A. 1930a. ‘A Diis Electa: A Chapter in the Religious History of the Third Century.’ Harvard Theological Review 23: 251-274. ———. 1930b. ‘SUNNAOS YEOS.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 41: 1-62. Nohlen, K. 1984. ‘Planung und Planänderung am Bau zum Gewinnen räumlicher Vorstellung im Bauverlauf des Traianeum in Pergamon.’ In Bauplanung und Bautheorie der Antike, 238-249. Berlin. ———. 1985. ‘La conception d’un projet et son évolution: L’example du Trajaneum de Pergame.’ In Le dessin d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 26-28 janvier 1984, 269-276. Leiden. Nollé, J. 1986a. ‘Die Blütezeit der Stadt Side in der 2. Hälfte des 3. Jhdts. n. Chr.’ IV AraâtÌrma SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ, 269272. Ankara. ———. 1986b. ‘Pamphylische Studien.’ Chiron 16: 199-212. ———. 1987. ‘Pamphylische Studien 6-10.’ Chiron 17: 235-265.

387

———. 1990. ‘Side.’ Antike Welt 21.4: 244-265. ———. 1992. ‘Zur Geschichte der Stadt Etenna in Pisidien.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien, 61-141. Bonn. ———. 1993. ‘Die feindlichen Schwestern—Betrachtungen zur Rivalität der pamphylischen Städte.’ In G. Dobesch and G. Rehrenböck, eds., Die epigraphische und altertumskundliche Erforschung Kleinasiens: Hundert Jahre kleinasiatische Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 297-317. Vienna. ———. 1993-2001. Side im Altertum 1 and 2: Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 43, 44. Bonn. (= SiA.) ———. 1995. ‘Colonia und Socia der Römer.’ In C. Schubert and K. Broderson, eds., Rom und der griechische Osten: Festschrift H. Schmitt, 350-359. Stuttgart. ———. 1997. ‘Zur neueren Forschungsgeschichte der kaiserzeitliche Stadtprägungen Kleinasiens.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 11-26. Milan. ———. 1998. ‘EÈtux«w to›w kur¤oiw—feliciter dominis!’ Chiron 28: 323-354. ——— and H. Zellner. 1995. ‘Von Anazarbos nach Mopsuhestia.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 45: 39-49. M. Nollé and J. Nollé. 1994. ‘Vom feinen Spiel stadtischer Diplomatie.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 102: 241-261. Nony, D. 1971. ‘Le monnayage de Pescennius Niger à Césarée de Cappadoce.’ Latomus 30: 345-351. Oberleitner, W. 1999. ‘Das Partherdenkmal von Ephesos.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 619-631. Vienna. Özgan, R. 1995. Die griechischen und römischen Skulpturen aus Tralleis. Asia Minor Studien 15. Bonn. Özgür, E. 1993. ‘Aspendos örenyeri 1991 yÌlÌ kazÌ onarÌm ve çevre düzenleme çaliâmalarÌ.’ In III. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ Semineri, 251-261. Ankara. Ohlemutz, E. 1940. Kulte und Heiligtümer der Götter in Pergamon. Würzburg. Oliver, J. 1970. Marcus Aurelius: Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East. Hesperia suppl. 13. Princeton. ———. 1978. ‘The Piety of Commodus and Caracalla.’ Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 19: 375-385. ———. 1989. Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions and Papyri. Philadelphia. Olivier, J.-P. 1967. ‘Le damokoro: Un fonctionnaire mycénien.’ Minos 8: 118-122. With commentary by L. Palmer, 123124. Olshausen, E. 1990. ‘Götter, Heroen, und ihre Kulte in Pontos.’ In ANRW 2.18.3: 1865-1906. Outschar, U. 1999. ‘Zur Deutung des Hadrianstempels an der Kuretenstrasse.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 443-448. Vienna. Pace, B. 1916-1920. ‘La zona costiera da Adalia a Side.’ Annuario 3: 29-71. Pantel, P. 1992. La cité au banquet. Rome. Paoletti, O. 1988. ‘Gorgones Romanae.’ In LIMC 4: 345-362. Papazoglou, F. 1979. ‘Quelques aspects de l’histoire de la province de Macédoine.’ In ANRW 2.7.1: 302-369. ———. 1988. Les Villes de Macédoine a l’Époque Romaine. Paris. Parke, H. 1985. The Oracles of Apollo. London. Peachin, M. 1990. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284. Amsterdam. ———. 1991. ‘Philip’s Progress.’ Historia 40: 331-342. Pekáry, T. 1978. ‘Statuen in kleinasiatischen Inschriften.’ In S. ”ahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, eds. Studien zur

388

references

Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festchrift… F. K. Dörner 2: 727744 . Leiden. ———. 1985. Das römische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft. Berlin. Penn, R. 1994. Medicine on Ancient Greek and Roman Coins. London. Pensabene, P. 1992. ‘Il tempio della Gens Septimia a Cuicul (Gemila).’ In L’Africa Romana, Atti del IX convegno di studio...1991, 771-802. Sassari. Pera, R. 1984. Homonoia sulle monete da Augusto agli Antonini. Genoa. Perrot, G. 1876a. ‘Inscriptions de Cyzique: Les fouilles de M. Carabella.’ Revue archéologique 32: 264-272. ———. 1876b. ‘Note sur la Situation de Synnada.’ Revue archéologique 31: 190-203. Petrusevki, M. 1965. ‘Aukewa damokoro.’ Ziva Antika 15: 12. Petzl, G. 1987. Die Inschriften von Smyrna 2.1: Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 23. Bonn. (= IvS.) Pflaum, H.-G. 1972. ‘La valeur de l’information historique de la vita Commodi à la lumière des personnages nommément cités par le biographe.’ In Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1970, 199-247. Bonn. Pharr, C. 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions. Princeton. Piatkowski, A. 1984. ‘Cassius Dio über den Kaiserkult.’ Klio 66: 599-604. Pick, B. 1904. ‘Die tempeltragenden Gottheiten und die Darstellung der Neokorie auf den Münzen.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 7: 1-41. ———. 1906. ‘Die Neokorien von Ephesos.’ In Corolla Numismatica: numismatic essays in honour of Barclay V. Head, 234244. Oxford. ———. 1914. ‘Un monnaie du KOINON ARMENIAS.’ Revue des études anciennes 16: 283-289. Pickard-Cambridge, A. 1988. The Dramatic Festivals of Athens. 2nd ed. revised. Oxford. Platner, S. and T. Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London. Pleket, H. 1965. ‘An Aspect of the Imperial Cult: Imperial Mysteries.’ Harvard Theological Review 58: 331-347. ———. 1973. ‘Some Aspects of the History of the Athletic Guilds.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 10: 196-227. ———. 1976. ‘Olympic Benefactors.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 20: 1-6. ———. 1981. ‘A Free DHMOSIOS.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 42: 167-170. Pohl, D. 2002. Kaiserzeitliche Tempel in Kleinasien under besonderer Berücksichtigung der hellenistischer Vorläufer. Asia Minor Studien 43. Bonn. Pohlsander, H. 1982. ‘Did Decius Kill the Philippi?’ Historia 31: 214-222. Poland, F. 1934. ‘Technitai.’ In RE 5A.2. Nachträge: 24732558. Poljakov, F. 1989. Die Inschriften von Tralleis und Nysa, 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 36.1. Bonn. (= IvT.) Potter, D. 1990. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. Oxford. Preger, T. 1889. De epigrammatis Graecis meletemata selecta. Diss. Monaco. Price, M. and B. Trell. 1977. Coins and their Cities. London. Price, S. 1980. ‘Between Man and God.’ Journal of Roman Studies 70: 28-43. ———. 1984a. ‘Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult.’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 104: 79-95. ———. 1984b. Rituals and Power. Cambridge.

———. 1987. ‘From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: The Consecration of Roman Emperors.’ In D. Cannadine and S. Price, eds., Rituals of Royalty , 56-105. Cambridge. ———. 1988. Review of D. Fishwick, Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Phoenix 42: 371-374. Prickartz, C. 1993. ‘La chute de Philippe l’Arabe.’ Les Études classiques 61: 51-64. Prokesch von Osten, A. 1834. ‘Smyrna.’ Jahrbücher der Literatur 68: Anzeige-Blatt 55-86. ———. 1836. Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen aus dem Orient. Stuttgart. Pülz, S. 1989. Untersuchungen zur kaiserzeitlichen Bauornamentik von Didyma. Tübingen. Quass, F. 1993. Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens. Stuttgart. Rabe, H. 1906. Scholia in Lucianum. Lipsiae. Radt, W. 1978. ‘Pergamon, Vorbericht 1977: Trajaneum.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 426-433. ———. 1982. ‘Pergamon 1981: Trajaneum.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 522-561. ———. 1988. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten, Funde und Erforschung einer antiken Metropole. Cologne. ———. 1993. ‘Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 347-379. ———. 1999. Pergamon, Geschichte und Bauten einer antiken Metropole. Darmstadt. ———. 2001. ‘The urban development of Pergamon’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 43-56. Portsmouth RI. Raeck, W. 1993. ‘Zeus Philios in Pergamon.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 381-387. ———. 1999. ‘Untersuchungen zur Vorgängerbebauung des Trajaneums von Pergamon I: Überblick. Obere Hangstufe.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 49: 333-361. Ramsay, W. 1882. ‘Inscriptions of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Pontus.’ Journal of Philology 11: 142-160. ———. 1883a. ‘Inscriptions de la Galatie et du Pont.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 7: 15-28. ———. 1883b. ‘Unedited Inscriptions of Asia Minor.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 7: 258-278, 297-328. ———. 1895-1897. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford. Ratté, C., T. Howe, and C. Foss. 1986. ‘An Early Imperial Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis.’ American Journal of Archaeology 90: 45-68. Rebuffat, F. 1994. ‘Le trésor de Ayvagedigi.’ In M. Amandry and G. Le Rider, eds., Trésors et circulation monétaire en Anatolie antique, 73-118. Paris. (= Ayvagedigi hoard.) Rehm, A. 1924. ‘Inschriften.’ In H. Knackfuss, Milet 1.7: Der Südmarkt, 281-360. Berlin. ———. 1958. Didyma 2: Die Inschriften. Berlin. ——— et al. 1997. Milet 6.1: Inschriften von Milet. Berlin. (= IvM 6.1.) Reinach, T. 1890. ‘Lettre à M. le commandeur J.B. de Rossi au sujet du temple d’Hadrien à Cyzique.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 14: 517-545. Reinhold, M. 1988. From Republic to Principate. Atlanta. Remy, B. 1986. L’évolution administrative de l’Anatolie aux trois premiers siècles de notre ère. Lyons. ———. 1989. Les Carrières sénatoriales dans les provinces romaines d’Anatolie au Haut-Empire. Istanbul. ———. 1990. ‘Trouvailles de monnaies romaines et byzantines dans les cités de Neocaesarea et de Sebastopolis du Pont.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 16: 81-90. ———. 1991. ‘L’activité des fonctionnaires sénatoriaux dans la province de Lycie-Pamphylie au Haut-Empire d’après les inscriptions.’ In De Anatolia Antiqua/Eski Anadolu 1: 151-

references 182. Paris. ———, M. Amandry, and B. Özcan. 1995. ‘Un monnaie inédite de Neocaesarea.’ Anatolia Antiqua 3: 95-97. Reynolds, J. 1981. ‘New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in JulioClaudian Aphrodisias.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 43: 317-327. ———. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London. ———. 1999. ‘Ephesus in the Inscriptions of Aphrodisias and Aphrodisians.’ In H. Friesinger and F. Krinzinger, eds., 100 Jahre österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 133-137. Vienna. Rheidt, K. 1995. ‘Aizanoi.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 693-718. Riccardi, L. 1996. Roman Imperial Portraiture in the Eastern Provinces, A.D. 235-270. Diss. Boston University, Boston. Rich, J., ed. 1990. Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement. Warminster. Richter, F. 1884-1937. ‘Roma.’ In W. Roscher, Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie 4: 130-164. Leipzig. Ridgway, B. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II: the Styles of ca. 200100 B.C. Madison WI. Rigsby, K. 1996. Asylia. Berkeley. Ritti, T. 1979. ‘Due iscrizioni di età augustea da Hierapolis.’ Epigraphica 41: 183-187. ———. 1983a. ‘Epigrafie dedicatorie imperiali di Hierapolis di Frigia.’ Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38: 171-182. ———. 1983b. ‘I pyxia della gerusia a Hierapolis di Frigia.’ Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 38: 221-230. ———. 1985. Hierapolis, Scavi e Richerche 1: Fonti Letterarie ed Epigrafiche. Rome. ———. 1988. ‘Il sophista Antipatros di Hierapolis.’ Miscellanea Greca e Romana 13: 71-128. ———. 1989-1990. ‘Hierapolis di Frigia: Santuari e dediche votive.’ Scienze dell’Antichità 3-4: 861-874. Robert, J. and L. Robert. 1948. Inscriptions grecques de Lydie. Hellenica 6. Paris. ——— and ———. 1961. ‘Bulletin Épigraphique.’ Revue des études grecques 74: 119-268. Robert, L. 1929. ‘Études d’épigraphie grecque.’ Revue de philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 55: 122-158. ———. 1930. ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient.’ Hermes 65: 106-122. ———. 1937. Études Anatoliennes. Paris. ———. 1938. ‘Les Aelius Alcibiade de Nysa.’ In Études épigraphiques et philologiques, 45-53. Paris. ———. 1939. ‘Hellenica III: Inscriptions de Beroia.’ Revue de philologie, de litterature et d’histoire anciennes 65: 12-132. ———. 1940. ‘La titulature de la ville de Sardes.’ Hellenica 1: 56-59. ———. 1943. ‘Voyages épigraphiques en Asie Mineure.’ Revue de philologie 17: 170-201. ———. 1946. ‘Le dieu Fulvus a Thessalonique.’ Hellenica 2: 37-42. ———. 1949. ‘Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province d’Asie.’ Hellenica 7: 206-238. ———. 1960a. ‘Inscription agonistique d’Ancyre, concours d’Ancyre.’ Hellenica 11-12: 350-368. ———. 1960b. ‘Monnaies et divinités d’Aspendos.’ Hellenica 11-12: 177-188. ———. 1960c. ‘Recherches épigraphiques.’ Revue des études anciennes 62: 278-361. ———. 1961. ‘Voyage en Grèce et en Cilicie.’ Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 173-179. ———. 1964. ‘La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala a l’époque gréco-romaine.’ In A. Dupont-Sommer and L. Robert,

389

La déesse de Hiérapolis Castabala (Cilicie), 17-99. Paris. ———. 1967. ‘Sur des inscriptions d’Éphèse.’ Revue de philologie 41: 7-84. ———. 1968. ‘Les épigrammes satiriques de Lucillius sur les athlètes.’ In A. Dihle, ed., L’Epigramme Greque. Entretiens Hardt 14: 179-295. Geneva. ———. 1969a. ‘Inscriptions d’Athènes et de la Grèce Centrale.’ Archaiologike Ephemeris, 1-58. ———. 1969b. ‘Les Inscriptions.’ In J. Des Gagniers, ed., Laodicée du Lycos: Le Nymphée. Campagnes 1961-1963, 247389. Quebec. ———. 1969c. ‘Théophane de Mytilène a Constantinople.’ In Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 42-64. ———. 1970. ‘Deux concours grecs à Rome.’ Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions, 6-27. ———. 1971. Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec. Amsterdam. ———. 1973. ‘De Cilicie à Messine et à Plymouth.’ Journal des savants, 161-211. ———. 1975. ‘Nonnos et les monnaies d’Akmonia de Phrygie.’ Journal des savants, 153-192. ———. 1976. ‘Monnaies grecques de l’époque imperiale.’ Revue numismatique6 18: 25-56. ———. 1977a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 101: 43-132. ———. 1977b. ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomédie: la gloire et la haine.’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 81: 1-39. ———. 1978a. ‘Documents d’Asie Mineure.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 102: 395-545. ———. 1978b. ‘Monnaies et textes grecs I: Retour à Aigeai de Cilicie.’ Journal des savants, 145-150. ———. 1980a. À travers l’Asie Mineure. Paris. ———. 1980b. ‘Deux poètes grecs à l’époque imperiale.’ In STHLH. TOMOS EIS MNHMHN NIKOLAOU KONTOLEONTOS, 1-20. Athens. ———. 1981a. ‘Documents d’Asie mineure 18: Fleuves et cultes d’Aizanoi.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 105: 331-360. ———. 1981b. ‘Une épigramme satirique d’Automédon.’ Revue des études grecques 94: 338-361. ———. 1984. ‘Discours d’ouverture.’ In Praktika tou 8. Diethnous Synedriou Hellenikes kai Latinikes Epigraphikes, 35-45. Athens. Rockwell, P. 1990. ‘Finish and Unfinish in the Carving of the Sebasteion.’ In C. Roueché and K. Erim, eds., Aphrodisias Papers, 100-118. Ann Arbor. Roesch, P. 1984. ‘L’Amphiaraion d’Oropos.’ In Temples et sanctuaires. Séminaire de recherche 1981-1983, 173-184. Lyons. Rogers, G. 1988. ‘The Crisis of the Third Century A.D.’ In Belleten 52.2: 1509-1526. ———. 1991. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. London. ———. 1999. ‘The Philosebastoi Kuretes of Ephesos.’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 125-130. Vienna. Roller, L. 1999. In Search of God the Mother. Berkeley. Rose, C. 1997a. Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge. ———. 1997b. ‘The Imperial Image in the Eastern Mediterranean.’ In S. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East, 108-120. Oxford. Rosenberger, M. 1977. City-Coins of Palestine (The Rosenberger Israel Collection) 3. Jerusalem. (= Rosenberger, with catalogue number.) Rossner, M. 1974. ‘Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias.’ Studii Clasice 16: 101-142. Roueché, C. 1989a. Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity. London. ———. 1989b. ‘Floreat Perge.’ In M. Mackenzie and C.

390

references

Roueché, eds., Images of Authority, 206-221. Cambridge. ———. 1993. Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias. London. Rouvier, J. 1903. ‘Numismatique des villes de la Phénicie: Tripolis.’ Journal international d’ archéologie numismatique 6: 17-46. Rügler, A. 1988. Die Columnae caelatae des jüngeren Artemisions von Ephesos. Tübingen. Ruijgh, C. 1986. ‘Observations sur kor°sai, kor°v, myc. dako-ro dakÒrow, etc.’ In A. Etter, ed., O-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, 376-392. Berlin. Rumscheid, J. 2000. Kranz und Krone. Tübingen. ”ahin, S. 1978. Bithynische Studien. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 7. Bonn. ———. 1979. Katalog der antiken Inschriften des Museums von Iznik (Nikaia). Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 9. Bonn. ———. 1994. ‘Ein Vorbericht über den Stadiasmus Provinciae Lyciae in Patara.’ Lykia 1: 130-137. ———. 1995. ‘Studien zu den Inschriften von Perge II.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 25: 1-24. ———. 1999. Inschriften von Perge 1. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 54. Bonn. (= IvPerge). Salamon, M. 1971. ‘The Chronology of Gothic Incursions into Asia Minor in the Third Century A.D.’ Eos 59: 109-139. Saller, R. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge. Salmeri, G. 2000. ‘Dio, Rome, and the Civic Life of Asia Minor.’ In S. Swain, ed. Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters, and Philosophy, 53-92. Oxford. Salmon, E. 1969. Roman Colonization Under the Republic. London. Salzmann, D. 1985. ‘Cn. Pompeius Theophanes.’ In Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 95: 245260. Sartre, M. 1995. L’Asie mineure et l’Anatolie. Paris. Savelkoul, A. 1988. ‘Un néocore de Zénoposéidon à Mylasa.’ L’Antiquité classique 57: 274-279. Savio, A. 1994-1995. ‘Intorno ai medaglioni talismanici di Tarso e di Aboukir.’ Rivista italiana di numismatica 96: 73103. Sayar, M. 1991. ‘Equites singulares Augusti in neuen Inschriften aus Anazarbos.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 17: 19-38. ———. 1998. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereglisi) und Umgebung. Vienna. ———. 2000. Die Inschriften von Anazarbos und Umgebung. Inschriften griechischer Stadte aus Kleinasien 56. Bonn. Scalamonti, F. 1996. Vita viri clarissimi et famosissimi Kyriaci Anconitani, ed. C. Mitchell and E. Bodnar. Philadelphia. Schäfer, J., ed. 1981. Phaselis. Tübingen. Schäfer, P. 1995. The History of the Jews in Antiquity. Luxembourg. Scherrer, P. 1990. ‘Augustus, die Mission des Vedius Pollio und die Artemis Ephesia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 60: 87-101. ———. 1995a. ‘The City of Ephesos from the Roman Period to Late Antiquity.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 1-25. Valley Forge. ———, ed. 1995b. Ephesos: Der neue Führer. Vienna 1995. ———. 1997. ‘Anmerkungen zum städtischen und provinzialen Kaiserkult.’ In H. Thür, ed. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27: 93112. Vienna. ———. 1999. ‘Am Olympieion vorbei...?’ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 137-144. Vienna. ———. 2001. ‘The historical topography of Ephesos’ in D. Parrish, ed., Urbanism in Western Asia Minor, 57-93. Portsmouth RI. Schindler, F. 1972. Die Inschriften von Bubon (Nordlykien). Vienna.

Schlüter, R. 1971. Bildnisse der Kaiserin Julia Domna. Diss. Münster. Schlumberger, J. 1974. Die Epitome de Caesaribus. Munich. Schmaltz, B. 1995. ‘“Aspectus” und “effectus,” Hermogenes und Vitruv.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Rom 102: 133-140. Schneider, R. 1986. Bunte Barbaren. Worms. Schönert (-Geiss), E. 1965. Die Munzprägung von Perinthos. Berlin. (= S-G with coin numbers.) ———. 1989. ‘Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana.’ Altertum 35: 166-170. ———. 1991. Griechisches Münzwerk. Die Münzprägung von Augusta Traiana und Traianopolis. Berlin. Schorndorfer, S. 1997. Öffentliche Bauten hadrianischer Zeit in Kleinasien. Münster. Schott, H. 1891. De septem orbis spectaculis quaestiones. Ansbach. Schowalter, D. 1998. ‘The Zeus Philios and Trajan Temple: A Context for Imperial Honors.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 231-249. Harrisburg. Schulte, C. 1994. Die Grammateis von Ephesos. Stuttgart. Schulten, A. 1906. ‘Zwei Erlasse des Kaisers Valens über die Provinz Asia.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 9: 40-70. Schultz, H.-D. 1995. ‘Falschungen ephesischer Münzen.’ Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft 35 no. 1: 7-14. ———. 1997. ‘Das Ende der städtischen Münzprägung von Ephesos und Samos.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 231-252. Milan. Schultz, S. 1975. Die Münzprägung von Magnesia am Mäander. Berlin. (= S#.) Schulz, A. 1995. ‘Bonsignore Bonsignori in Kyzikos.’ In E. Winter, ed., Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3. Asia Minor Studien 16: 113-125. Bonn. ——— and E. Winter. 1990. ‘Historisch-archäologische Untersuchungen zum Hadrianstempel von Kyzikos.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Mysische Studien. Asia Minor Studien 1: 33-82. Bonn. Schwabl, H. 1972. ‘Zeus I. Epiklesen.’ In RE 10A/R. 2: 253376. ———. 1978. ‘Zeus. Nachträge.’ In RE Suppl. 15: 1441-1488. Schwertheim, E. 1983. Die Inschriften von Kyzikos und Umbegung 2. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 26. Bonn. ———. 1996. ‘Neue Inschriften aus Alexandria Troas, Antandros, Skepsis und Kebren.’ In E. Schwertheim and H. Wiegartz, eds., Die Troas: Neue Forschungen zu Neandria und Alexandria Troas 2. Asia Minor Studien 22: 99-124. Bonn. Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture. Ithaca, NY. Selinger, R. 1994. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Decius. Frankfurt. Setton, K. 1941. Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century. New York. Seure, G. 1912. ‘Archéologie Thrace.’ Revue archéologique4 19: 319-336. Shelton, J. 1979. ‘Commodus’ Name in CPR 1.174.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: 103. Sheppard, A. 1984-1986. ‘Homonoia in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire.’ Ancient Society 15-18: 229-252. Smallwood, E. 1966. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva Trajan and Hadrian. Cambridge. Smith, R. 1987. ‘The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 77: 88-138. ———. 1988. ‘Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias.’ Journal of Roman Studies 78: 50-77. Southern, P. 1997. Domitian: Tragic Tyrant. London.

references ———. 1998. Augustus. London. Spawforth, A. 1999. ‘The Panhellenion Again.’ Chiron 29: 339352. ——— and S. Walker. 1985. ‘The World of the Panhellenion.’ Journal of Roman Studies 75: 78-104. Sperti, L. 2000. ‘Ricognizione archeologica a Laodicea di Frigia: 1993-1998.’ In G. Traversari, ed. Laodicea di Frigia 1. Rome. Steinby, E. 1993-2000. Lexicon topographicum urbis Romae. Rome. Stemmer, K. 1978. Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Chronologie und Ikonographie der Panzerstatuen. Berlin. Stenhouse, P. 1985. The Kitab al-Tarikh of Abu ’l-Fath. Sydney. Stewart, A. 1979. Attika. London. Stichel, R. 1982. Die römische Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike. Rome. Stiller, H. 1895. Das Trajaneum, Altertümer von Pergamon 5.2. Berlin. Strocka, V. 1981. Das Markttor von Milet: 128. Winckelmannsprogramm der archäologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 1-55. ———. 1988. ‘Wechselwirkung der stadtrömischen und kleinasiatischen Architektur unter Trajan und Hadrian.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 38: 291-307. ———. 1989. ‘Zeus, Marnas und Klaseas.’ In N. Basgelen and M. Lugal, eds., Festschrift für Jale Inan, 77-92. Istanbul. Strong, D. 1953. ‘Late Hadrianic Architectural Ornament in Rome.’ Papers of the British School at Rome 21: 118-151. ———. 1960. ‘Some Early Examples of the Composite Capital.’ Journal of Roman Studies 50: 119-128. Struve, V. 1965. Corpus inscriptionum regni Bosporani. Moscow/ Leningrad. Stumpf, G. 1991. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien. Saarbrücken. Sünskes Thompson, J. 1990. Aufstände und Protestakionen im Imperium Romanum. Bonn. Sutherland, C. 1970. The Cistophori of Augustus. London. Swain, S. 1996. Hellenism and Empire. Oxford. Swan, P. 1987. ‘Cassius Dio on Augustus: A Poverty of Annalistic Sources?’ Phoenix 41: 272-291. Sydenham, E., rev. A. Malloy. 1978. Coinage of Caesarea in Cappadocia. New York. (= S/M with coin numbers.) Syme, R. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford. ———. 1980. ‘An eccentric patrician.’ Chiron 10: 427-448. ———. 1983. ‘The Proconsuls of Asia under Antoninus Pius.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 51: 271. Szubert, W. 1978. ‘On the Depictions of Sacred Architecture on Coins from Lower Moesia and Thrace.’ Archeologia 29: 35-45. Taeger, F. 1960. Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes 2. Stuttgart. Talbert, R. 1980. ‘Pliny the Younger as Governor of BithyniaPontus.’ Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 2: 412435. Brussels. ———. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton. Taâliklioglu, Z. 1953. ‘Trakya’da M.S. III. asÌr baâlarÌndan kalma Grek kitabesi.’ Belleten Türk Tarih Kurumu 17: 483487. Tataki, A. 1988. Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and Society. Athens. Tekin, O. 1994. ‘Some Greek Imperial Coins found at Perge.’ Anadolu AraâtÌrmalarÌ 13: 179-188. Thériault, G. 1996. Le culte d’Homonoia dans les cités grecques. Lyons-Québec. Thiersch, H. 1935. Artemis Ephesia. Göttingen. Thomasson, B. 1977. Laterculi Praesidum Moesia, Dacia, Thracia. Gothenburg.

391

———. 1984. Laterculi Praesidum 1. Arlöv. Thür, H. 1995a. ‘Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein Heroon am Embolos.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 64: 63-103. ———. 1995b. ‘The Processional Way in Ephesos as a Place of Cult and Burial.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 157-199. Valley Forge. ———, ed. 1997. ‘...und verschönerte die Stadt...’ Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut. Sonderschriften 27. Vienna. ———. 1999. ‘“Via Sacra Ephesiaca”‘ In P. Scherrer, H. Taeuber, and H. Thür, eds., Steine und Wege: Festschrift für Dieter Knibbe, 163-172. Vienna. Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1994. Das Olympieion in Athen. Cologne. Touratsoglou, I. (=Y.) 1970. ‘DÊo n°ai §pigrafika‹ martur¤ai per‹ toË KoinoË t«n MakedÒnvn.’ In B. Laourdas and Ch. Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia, 280-290. Thessalonike. ———. 1988. Die Münzstätte von Thessaloniki in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. (= T with coin numbers.) ———. 1996. ‘Miscellanea Thessalonicensia.’ In MnÆmh Martin Jessop Price, 177-187 (Greek), 188-194 (English translation). Athens. Traversari, G., ed. 2000. Laodicea di Frigia 1. Rome. Travlos, J. 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens. New York. Trebilco, P. 1994. ‘Asia.’ In D. Gill and C. Gempf, eds., The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting, 291-362. Grand Rapids. Trell, B. 1945. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesos. American Numismatic Society Numismatic Notes and Monographs 107. New York. Trout, D. 1989. ‘Victoria Redux and the First Year of the Reign of Philip the Arab.’ Chiron 19: 221-233. Troxell, H. 1982. The Coinage of the Lycian League. New York. Tsakyroglou, M. 1876, 1879. Tå Smurna
ka. Smyrna. Tsontchev, D. 1938. Contributions à l’histoire antique de Philippopolis (in Bulgarian; French summary). Sofia. Tuchelt, K. 1979. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien 1: Roma und Promagistrate. Tübingen. ———. 1981. ‘Zum Problem, “Kaisareion-Sebasteion”.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul 31: 167-186. ———. 1992. Branchidai-Didyma. Mainz. ——— and F. Preisshofen. 1985. ‘Zur Identitätsfrage des “Augustus-Tempels” in Ankara.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 316-322. Turcan, R. 1978. ‘Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle.’ In ANRW 16/2: 996-1084. Usener, H. 1902. ‘Divus Alexander.’ Rheinisches Museum 57: 171173. Vagalinski, L. 1994. ‘Données numismatiques pour des compétitions sportives en Thrace romaine’ (in Bulgarian; French summary). Arkheologieiia 36: 6-18. Sofia. van den Hout, M. 1999. A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto. Leiden. Vandeput, L. 1993. ‘The Re-use of Hadrianic Architectural Elements in Basilica E1 at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos 1: 93-109. Leuven. ———. 1995. ‘Dating by Means of Architectural Decoration: Possibilities and Limits.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 3: 129-136. Leuven. ———. 1997. The Architectural Decoration in Roman Asia Minor. Sagalassos: A Case Study. Leuven. Vann, R. 1989. The Unexcavated Buildings of Sardis. Oxford. Varner, E. 1993. Damnatio memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture. Diss. Yale, New Haven. Velkov, V. 1980. ‘Siedlungsleben im antiken Thrakien.’ Eirene 17: 45-63.

392

references

Vermeule, C. 1981. ‘The Basis from Puteoli: Cities of Asia Minor in Julio-Claudian Italy.’ In L. Casson and M. Price, eds., Coins, Culture and History in the Ancient World, 85-101. Detroit. ———. 1983. Art of Antiquity 5.1. Cambridge, MA. ———. 1987. The Cult Images of Imperial Rome. Rome. Vetters, H. 1972-1975. ‘Domitianterrasse und Domitiangasse.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 50: Beibl. 323-330. ———. 1986. ‘Ephesos: Vorläufiger Grabungsbericht für die Jahre 1984 und 1985.’ Anzeiger Wien 123: 84-85. Veyne, P. 1976. Le pain et le cirque. Paris. ———. 1990. Bread and Circuses, trans. B. Pearce. London. Vickers, M. 1970. ‘Towards Reconstruction of the Town Planning of Roman Thessalonike.’ In B. Laourdas and C. Makaronas, eds., Ancient Macedonia 239-251. Thessalonike. ———. 1976. ‘Thessalonike.’ In R. Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, 912. Princeton. Vidman, L. 1970. Isis und Sarapis bei den Griechen und Römern. Berlin. Vismara, N., ed. 2000. Sylloge nummorum Graecorum Italia 6:3. Civiche Raccolte Numismatiche. Milan. (= SNGMil.) Vittinghoff, F. 1936. Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Berlin. Voegtli, H. 1993. Die Fundmünzen aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon. Berlin. Voigtländer, W. 1975. Der jüngste Apollontempel von Didyma. Tübingen. Vollkommer, R. 1997. ‘Victoria.’ In LIMC 8: 237-269. von Aulock, H. 1963. ‘Die Münzprägung der kilikischen Stadt Mopsos.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 231-278. ———. 1968. ‘Kleinasiatische Münzstätten.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 18: 43-48. ———. 1974. Die Munzpragung des Gordian III und der Tranquillina in Lykien. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Abteilung Istanbul. Beiheft 11. Tübingen. ———. 1979. ‘Zur Münzprägung von Aizanoi.’ In R. Naumann, Der Zeustempel zu Aizanoi, 82-87. Berlin. von Fritze, H. 1908. ‘Asklepiosstatuen in Pergamon.’ Nomisma 2: 19-35. ———. 1910. Münzen von Pergamon. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Anhang 1. von Gaertringen, H., ed. 1906. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin. von Heintze, H. 1982. ‘Annia Lucilla.’ In W. Alzinger, C. Schwanzar, and G. Neeb, eds., Pro arte antiqua. Festschrift für Hedwig Kenner, 170-183. Vienna. von Papen, F. 1908. ‘Die Spiele von Hierapolis.’ Zeitschrift für Numismatik 26: 161-182. von Prott, H. 1902. ‘Dionysos Kathegemon.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 161188. ——— and W. Kolbe. 1902. ‘Die 1900-1901 in Pergamon gefundenen Inschriften.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 44-151. Waddington, W. 1883. ‘Inscriptions de Tarse.’ Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 7: 281-292. ———, E. Babelon, and T. Reinach. 1976. Recueil général des monnaies grecques d’Asie Mineure. Reprint. Hildesheim. Waelkens, M. 1986. ‘The Imperial Sanctuary at Pessinus.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 7: 37-73. ———. 1987. ‘The Adoption of Roman Building Techniques in the Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Macready and F. Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, 94-105. London.

———. 1989. ‘Hellenistic and Roman Influence in the Imperial Architecture of Asia Minor.’ In S. Walker and A. Cameron, eds., The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, 77-88. London. ———. 1993. ‘Sagalassos: History and Archaeology.’ In M. Waelkens, ed., Sagalassos 1: 37-81. Leuven. ——— with S. Mitchell and E. Owens. 1990. ‘Sagalassos 1989.’ Anatolian Studies 40: 185-198. ——— et al. 1997. ‘The 1994 and 1995 Excavation Seasons at Sagalassos.’ In M. Waelkens and J. Poblome, eds., Sagalassos 4: 103-216. Leuven. Walentowski, S. 1998. Kommentar zur Vita Antoninus Pius der Historia Augusta. Bonn. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982. ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King.’ Journal of Roman Studies 72: 32-48. Wallner, C. 1997. Soldatenkaiser und Sport. Frankfurt. Walter, O. 1922-1924. ‘Antikenbericht aus Smyrna.’ Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 21/22: Beibl. 223-259. Walters, J. 1995. ‘Egyptian Religions in Ephesos.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 281-309. Valley Forge. Wankel, H., ed. 1979-1981. Inschriften von Ephesos. Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 11-17. Bonn. (= IvE.) Watson, Alan. 1985. Ed., Engl. trans. of T. Mommsen and P. Krueger, eds., The Digest of Justinian 1. Philadelphia. Watson, Alaric. 1999. Aurelian and the Third Century. London. Webb, P. 1996. Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture. Madison. Weber, G. 1899. ‘Die Wasserleitungen von Smyrna II.’ Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14: 167-188. Weber, L. 1911. ‘Zur Münzprägung des phrygischen Hierapolis.’ In XARITES Friedrich Leo, 466-490. Berlin. ———. 1912. ‘Die Homoniemünzen des phrygischen Hierapolis.’ Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 14: 65-122. Wegner, M. 1939. Herrscherbildnisse in antoninischer Zeit. Berlin. ———. 1956. Hadrian, Plotina, Marciana, Matidia, Sabina. Berlin. Weinreich, O. 1913. Lykische Zwölfgötter-Reliefs. Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophischhistorische Klasse. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius. Oxford. Weiser, W. 1983. Katalog der Bithynischen Münzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Köln: Nikaia. Opladen. ———. 1988. ‘SC als Revers einer Münze der ersten Emission aus Neokaisareia in Galatia unter Traianus.’ Schweizer Münzblätter 38: 9-12. ———. 1989. ‘Römische Stadtmünzen aus Bithynia et Pontus. Addenda und Corrigenda zum Recueil général.’ Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 68: 47-83. ———. 1998. ‘Namen römischer Statthalter auf Münzen Kleinasiens.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 123: 275-290. Weiss, P. 1979. ‘Die Abkürzungen GB und GG auf den spätkaiserzeitlichen Münzen von Tarsos und Anazarbos.’ Chiron 9: 545-552. ———. 1981. ‘Ein agonistisches Bema und die isopythischen Spiele von Side.’ Chiron 11: 315-346. ———. 1982. ‘Ein Altar für Gordian III, die älteren Gordiane und die Severer aus Aigeai (Kilikien).’ Chiron 12: 191-205. ———. 1985. ‘Argaios/Erciyas Dagi—Heiliger Berg Kappadokiens: Monumente und Ikonographie.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 35: 21-48. ———. 1991. ‘Auxe Perge.’ Chiron 21: 353-374.

references ———. 1992. ‘Pisidien: Eine historische Landschaft im Licht ihrer Münzprägung.’ In E. Schwertheim, ed., Forschungen in Pisidien, 143-165. Bonn. ———. 1995. ‘Hadrian in Lydien.’ Chiron 25: 213-224. ———. 1997. ‘Kaiserzeitliche Städteprägung und klassische Altertumswissenschaften.’ In J. Nollé, B. Overbeck, and P. Weiss, eds., Internationales Kolloquium zur kaiserzeitlichen Münzprägung Kleinasiens, 27-36. Milan. ———. 1998. ‘Festgesandtschaften, städtisches Prestige und Homonoiaprägungen.’ Stadion 24: 59-70. Westermann, A. 1845. Biographoi. Braunschweig. Westermark, U. 1991. ‘Bronze Coins of Pergamon.’ Quaderni Ticinesi 20: 145-159. White, L. 1995. ‘Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos.’ In H. Koester, ed., Ephesos Metropolis of Asia, 27-79. Valley Forge. ———. 1998. ‘Counting the Costs of Nobility: The Social Economy of Roman Pergamon.’ In H. Koester, ed., Pergamon: Citadel of the Gods, 331-371. Harrisburg. Whittaker, H. 1996. ‘Two Notes on Octavian and the Cult of Divus Iulius.’ Symbolae Osloenses 71: 87-99. Wilhelm, A. 1938. ‘Das Epithalamion in Lukianos’ SumpÒsion µ Lap¤yai.’ Wiener Studien 56: 54-89. Willemsen, F. 1939. Frühe griechische Kultbilder. Wurzburg. Willers, D. 1990. Hadrians panhellenisches Programm. Basel. Williams, W. 1979. ‘Caracalla and the Authorship of Imperial Edicts and Epistles.’ Latomus 38: 67-89. Winks, R. 1969. Clipeata imago. Bonn. Winter, E. 1996. Staatliche Baupolitik und Baufürsorge in den römischen Provinzen des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Asia Minor Studien 20. Bonn. Wiplinger, G., and G. Wlach. 1996. Ephesos: 100 Jahre österreichische Forschung. Vienna. Wörrle, M. 1988. Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Munich. ———. 1992. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi I.’ Chiron 22: 337-376. ———. 1995a. ‘Inschriftenfunde von der Hallenstrassengrabung in Aizanoi 1992.’ Archäologischer Anzeiger, 719-727. ———. 1995b. ‘Neue Inschriftenfunde aus Aizanoi, II: Das Problem der Ära von Aizanoi.’ Chiron 25: 63-81. Wolfram, H. 1979. Geschichte der Goten. Munich. Woodward, A. 1911/1912. ‘Inscriptions from Beroea in Macedonia.’ Annual of the British School at Athens 18: 133165. ———. 1963. ‘The Neocorate at Aegeae and Anazarbus in Cilicia.’ Numismatic Chronicle 7 3: 5-10. Woolf, G. 1994. ‘Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East.’ Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40: 116-143. ———. 1997. ‘The Roman Urbanization of the East.’ In S. Alcock, ed., The Early Roman Empire in the East, 1-14. Oxford. Wroth, W. 1882. ‘Asklepios and the Coins of Pergamon.’ Numismatic Chronicle ser. 3, 2: 1-51. Yalouris, N., and T. Visser-Choitz. 1990. ‘Helios.’ In LIMC 5: 1005-1034. YaylalÌ, A. 1976. Der Fries des Artemisions von Magnesia am Mäander. Tübingen. ———. 1990. ‘Kyzikos 1989 YÌlÌ ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 171-194. ———, N. Koçhan and C. Baâaran. 1991. ‘Kyzikos 1990 ÇalÌâmalarÌ.’ XIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 205-225. ——— and V. Özkaya. 1992. ‘Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌ ÇaliâmalarÌ: 1991.’ XIV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 223245.

393

——— and V. Özkaya. 1993. ‘Kyzikos 1992 KazÌ ÇaliâmalarÌ.’ XV. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 1: 537-561. ——— and V. Özkaya. 1994. ‘1993 Kyzikos KazÌsÌ Etkinlikleri.’ XVI. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 107-130 . ——— and V. Özkaya. 1995. ‘1994 Kyzikos Arkeolojik KazÌsÌ.’ XVII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 311-335. ——— and V. Özkaya. 1996. ‘Kyzikos 1995: Arkeolojik KazÌ Etkinlikleri.’ XVIII. KazÌ SonuçlarÌ ToplantÌsÌ 2: 409-429. Yegül, F. 1982. ‘A Study in Architectural Iconography: Kaisersaal and the Imperial Cult.’ Art Bulletin 64: 7-31. ———. 1986. The Bath-Gymnasium Complex at Sardis. Cambridge, MA. YÌldÌz, H. 1994. ‘Denizli-Laodikya antik kenti temizlik ve çevre düzenleme çaliâmalari.’ IV. Müze Kurtarma KazÌlarÌ Semineri, 219-225. Ankara. ——— and T. Corsten. 1997. ‘New Inscriptions from Laodikeia in the Archaeological Museum at Denizli/ Turkey.’ Epigraphica Anatolica 28: 50-52. Zahrnt, M. 1979. ‘Zwei Zeugnisse für die Titel von Nikomedeia und Kyzikos.’ Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 36: 215-218 . Zangenberg, J. 1994. SAMAREIA. Tübingen. Zanker, P. 1983. Provinzielle Kaiserporträts. Abhandlungen, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, n.f. 90. Munich. Zaprjanov, N., and K. Kolev. 1971. ‘Asklepios dargestellt auf antiken Münzen von Philippopel.’ Folia Medica 13 fasc. 4: 273-280. Ziebarth, E. 1902. ‘Cyriacus von Ankona in Pergamon.’ Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung 27: 445-446. Ziegenaus, O. 1981. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.3: das Asklepieion, die Kultbauten aus römischer Zeit. Berlin. ——— and G. de Luca. 1968. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.1: Das Asklepieion. Der südliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin. ——— and ———. 1975. Altertümer von Pergamon 11.2: Das Asklepieion. Der nordliche Temenosbezirk. Berlin. Ziegler, R. 1977. ‘Münzen Kilikiens als Zeugnis kaiserlicher Getriedespenden.’ Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 27: 29-67. ———. 1978. ‘Antiochia, Laodicea und Sidon in der Politik der Severer.’ Chiron 8: 493-514. ———. 1984. ‘Die “Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri” und der Kaiserkult in Tarsos.’ Chiron 14: 219-234. ———. 1985. Städisches Prestige und kaiserliche Politik. Düsseldorf. ———. 1988a. Münzen Kilikiens aus kleineren deutschen Sammlungen. Munich. (= Ziegler, Sammlungen, with coin no.) ———. 1988b. ‘Thessalonike in der Politik des Traianus Decius und der Tod des Philippus Arabs.’ In M. Wissemann, ed., Roma Renascens, 385-414. Frankfurt. ———. 1993a. ‘Ären kilikischer Städte und Politik des Pompeius in Südostkleinasien.’ Tyche 8: 203-219. ———. 1993b. Kaiser, Heer und städtisches Geld. Vienna. ———. 1994. ‘Aigeai, der Asklepioskult, das Kaiserhaus der Decier und das Christentum.’ Tyche 9: 187-212. ———. 1995a. ‘Ein numismatisches “Missing Link” aus Anazarbos.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3: 175-181. Bonn. ———. 1995b. ‘Zur Einrichtung des kilikischen Koinon.’ Asia Minor Studien 16: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 3: 183-186. Bonn. ———. 1999. ‘Das Koinon der drei Eparchien Kiliken, Isaurien und Lykaonien im späten 2. und frühen 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.’ Asia Minor Studien 34: Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 4: 137-153. Bonn.

394

references

Ziethen, G. 1994. Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat. St. Katharinen. Zimmermann, M. 1994. ‘Lukian zu drei kleinasiatischen Orakeln in Mallos, Patara und Pergamon.’ Lykia 1: 103-114.

Zoroglu, L. 1995. A Guide to Tarsos. Ankara. Zschietzschmann, W. 1937. ‘Nachträge: Pergamon.’ In RE 19.1/37: 1235-1263.

references

395

EMPERORS OF ROME AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES RELEVANT TO THIS WORK (Dates are regnal, or period of marriage within the reign; all are of the common era except where noted. For further details, see Kienast 1996; d = died.). Augustus (27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) wife Livia (mother of Tiberius; 27 B.C.E. – 14 C.E.) Tiberius (14-37) mother Livia (named Julia after 14; d. 29) Gaius, nicknamed Caligula (37-41) Claudius (41-54) Nero (54-68) wives Octavia (53-62), Poppaea (62-65), Messalina (6668) Galba (68-69) Otho (69) Vitellius (69) Vespasian (69-79) Titus (79-81) daughter Julia (d. 89) Domitian (81-96) wife Domitia (81-83, 83-96) Nerva (96-98) Trajan (98-117) wife Plotina (98-117) Hadrian (117-138) wife Sabina (117-d. 136/7); beloved Antinoös (d. 130); adopted son L. Aelius Caesar (136-d. 138) Antoninus Pius (138-161) wife Faustina the Elder (138-d. 140) Marcus Aurelius (161-180) wife Faustina the Younger (161-d. 176); adoptive brother and co-ruler: Lucius Verus (161-169) wife Lucilla (163-169, d. 181) Commodus (Caesar 166-177, Augustus 177-192) wife Crispina (178-d. 192) Pertinax (192-193) Didius Julianus (193) Septimius Severus (193-211) wife Julia Domna (193-211), sons Caracalla and Geta (below) Caracalla, nickname for Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (Caesar 195/6-197; Augustus 197-217) wife Plautilla (202-205); mother Julia Domna (d. 217); brother and co-ruler: Geta (Caesar 197-209; Augustus 209-211) Macrinus (217-218) son Diadumenian (Caesar 217, Augustus 218) Elagabalus (218-222), nickname for Marcus Aurelius Antoninus grandmother Julia Maesa, mother Julia Soaemias; wives Julia Paula (220), Aquilia Severa (220-221), Annia Faustina (221) and Aquilia Severa again (221222)

Severus Alexander (Caesar 221-222, Augustus 222-235) grandmother Julia Maesa (d. 224), mother Julia Mamaea; wife Orbiana (225-227) Maximinus (235-238) son Maximus (Caesar 236-238); wife Paulina (d. 236) Gordian I and son Gordian II (238) Pupienus and Balbinus (238) Gordian III (Caesar 238, Augustus 238-244) wife Tranquillina (241-244) Philip the Arab (244-249) wife Otacilia (244-d. 248); son Philip the Younger (Caesar 244-247, Augustus 247-249) Trajan Decius (249-251) wife Herennia Etruscilla (249-251); sons Herennius Etruscus (Caesar 250-251, Augustus 251) and Hostilian (Caesar 250-251; Augustus 251) Trebonianus Gallus (251-253) son Volusian (Caesar 251; Augustus 251-253) Aemilian (253) wife Cornelia Supera (253) Valerian (253-260); co-ruler with his son: Gallienus (253-268) wife Salonina (253-268); sons Valerianus (Caesar 255d. 258) and Saloninus (Caesar 258-260, Augustus 260, d. 260) Claudius Gothicus (268-270) Quintillus (270) Aurelian (270-275) wife Ulpia Severina (270-275) Tacitus (275-276) Florianus (276) Probus (276-282) Carus (282-283) Carinus (283-285); co-ruler with his brother: Numerianus (283-284) Diocletian (284-305) First Tetrarchy: Diocletian and Maximian with Constantius I and Galerius (293-305) Second Tetrarchy: Constantius I and Galerius with Severus and Maximinus Daia (305-306) Third Tetrarchy: Galerius and Severus with Constantine and Maximinus Daia (306-307/8) Fourth Tetrarchy: Galerius and Licinius with Constantine and Maximinus Daia (308-311) Constantine (306-337) wife Fausta (307-326) Constantine II (337-340), Constans (337-350), and Constantius II (337-361)

This page intentionally left blank

references

INDICES

399

This page intentionally left blank

401

references

INDEX OF LITERARY SOURCES Abu ’l Fath Kitab al-Tarikh:

260, 262, 264-265

Acts of the Apostles 2.9-11: 19.35:

124 6, 60-61, 116, 277, 328

‘Adler Chronicle’:

260

Aelius Aristides Oration 2.376: Oration 18: Oration 19: 13: Oration 20: Oration 21.11: Oration 23: 5: 12: 34: 59, 62-64: 65-66: 74: 80: Oration 24.13: Oration 26.59-60: Oration 27:

22: 32: Oration 47/Sacred Tales 11: 29: 43-44, 58, 76: Oration 48/Sacred Tales 30, 35, 46-49, 52: Oration 49/Sacred Tales 14, 22-23: Oration 50/Sacred Tales 46: 71-104: 96-98: 100-104: Ammianus Marcellinus 21.16.10: 23.6.24: 31.5.17:

333 48 48 39 n. 4, 48, 312 48 48 n. 78 285, 350, 354 354 350-351 349, 350-351 355 351 354 352 351 332 87-89, 90, 92 n. 53, 94 n. 64, 315, 317, 325 325-326 332

L. Annaeus Cornutus The Nature of the Gods 52:

5

Anecdota Graeca, Codex Ambrosianus c.222:

88 n. 17

Arrian Anabasis of Alexander 1.28: Periplous 1.3-2.1:

266 n. 2 319, 371

Augustus Res Gestae:

362

Aurelius Victor Caesares 27.7-28: 28: 28.10-11: 29.2: 29.3-5: 31-33:

299 261 299 245, 300 300 300

Automedon Greek Anthology 11.324:

4

Bonsignore Bonsignori:

89

Cassius Dio 51.20.1-4: 51.20.6-9:

1 4 28 n. 90 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 370 348, 370 347, 349, 370

203 36 n. 145 245, 300

51.22.2-3: 52.30.3: 52.35.2: 52.35.4: 52.37.9-10: 53.2.3: 54.7.6: 54.23.7-8: 57.17: 57.24.6: 59.4.4: 59.26.5: 59.27.2-6:

18 17-21, 23 n. 49, 24, 55, 59, 147, 151, 163, 170, 234, 262, 275-276, 281, 305, 332, 335-336, 359, 361-362, 367 17 n. 3 284 334 284, 352 284, 352 17 n. 3 86, 93 86, 93, 231, 352, 373-374 246 86-87 363 363 367

402

index of literary sources

(Cassius Dio, cont.) 59.28.1: 59.28.2: 60.4.1, 5-6: 60.17.3: 62.15.1-4: 67.13.3-4: 69.5.2-3: 69.10.1: 69.10.3: 69.23.3: 70.1-2: 70.4: 72.32.3: 73.1, 10.2: 73.12.1-2: 73.15.2-16.1: 74.2.1-3: 75.7.1-8: 75.8.3-4: 75.14: 76.15.3: 77.14: 78.3: 78.5: 78.9.4-7: 78.15.2-7: 78.16.7-8: 79.3.2: 79.4.6: 79.9.2: 79.12: 79.17.2-19.4: 79.20.4: 79.22.3-4: 79.30.2-80.3.2: 79.39.6-40.2: 79.40.2: 80.1.2-2.1: 80.3.2: 80.3.1, 6.1, 7.3-4: 80.7.4: 80.12: 80.21.2-3:

42, 55-57, 59, 277 363 57 253 367 363 281-282 283 44 n. 50, 45 364 268, 364 87-90, 103 48 153 n. 51 153, 156, 364, 368 364 120 n. 9 218 n. 47 260, 287 236, 260, 287 165 287 365 72, 365 157, 290 30 n. 102 30 n. 102, 133 n. 9 239 292 293 294 293 35, 51, 56, 75, 292 75, 293 294 135 76, 294 296 76 156 35, 51, 56, 75, 292 157 295

Chronicon Paschale 262: 475.10: 603.19-604.13:

48 n. 74 86, 93 n. 60 264 n. 45

Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 1.1.26:

18 n. 11, 312, 361

Codex Theodosius 12.1.112: 15.1.3: 15.1.36:

303 303 304

15.1.40: 15.4.1: 16.10.3: 16.10.4: 16.10.7: 16.10.8: 16.10.10-13: 16.10.15: 16.10.16: 16.10.18: 16.10.19: 16.10.25:

304 304 303 303, 304 304 303 304 304 304 304 304 304

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 989:

88, 94, 325-326

Cyriacus of Ancona:

6 n. 36, 80, 82, 8994, 154, 241, 307, 309, 313, 325

Damaskios Life of Isidoros: see Photius, Bibliotheca Deuteronomy 32.8:

264 n. 47

Dexippus fr. 16a: fr. 18:

300 245, 300

Digest of Justinian 1.16.4.5: 27.1.6.2:

59 n. 1, 289 355

Dio Chrysostomos: Oration 1.37-41: Oration 3.86-132: Oration 12.75-76: Oration 31.109-110: Oration 33.51: Oration 34 7-15, 27, 47-48: Oration 35: 10: 14-17: Oration 38: 22-31: 26-38: 34-35: 36-38: Oration 40: 10: 13-15: 33: Oration 41: 9: Orations 44, 45:

23, 280 23, 280 23, 280 373 n. 1 212, 228 n. 77, 230 354 212, 228 n. 77, 230, 350, 355 343 347 313, 343, 350 152, 163, 354 352 350 286 n. 30, 350, 356 346, 355 333, 354 343 333 343 354 332 333

403

index of literary sources 6.4.1-3: 6.7.10-9.8: 7.5.8, 7.9.11:

225 298 297

Diodorus Siculus 16.41.1: 31.35:

252 32 n. 118

Epitome de Caesaribus 32.4:

203

Hesiod Works and Days 11-26:

351

Euripides Ion:

4

Hesychius Lexicon:

4, 10

Eusebius Chronica 209 c: Hieronymi Chronicon 140 Helm: History of the Church 4.13: Life of Constantine 3.56:

48 n. 74 260 n. 4, 264 87 n. 9 233

Eutropius 9.2-3: 9.5-6, 9.7-8:

299 300

Fronto Letters to the Emperor Antoninus 1.2.4: Letters to Marcus Caesar 2.5, 2.10: 3.9: 3.10.2:

87 n. 10 46-47 n. 64 33 33

Genesis 14.18:

264 n. 47

Gospel According to Matthew 13.12:

356

Greek Anthology 6.356: 9.22: 9.656: 11.324:

5 4 88, 94, 325-326 4

Hero(n)das Mimiambi 4:

4 n. 14

Herodian: 3.2.7-9: 3.3.3-5: 3.3.6-3.4.5: 3.4.7: 3.6.9: 3.10.4, 3.13.3-6, 3.15.5-7: 4.1.5, 4.3.5-9: 4.3.1-2: 4.5: 4.8.3: 4.8.4-5: 4.8.6: 4.12.13: 5.3.5: 5.5.2: 5.5.3-4: 5.6.3-5: 6.1.1-7:

296-298 154, 164, 286, 355 252, 286 218 n. 47 260, 287 236, 260, 287 287 287 72, 365 365 30 133 289 292 157, 294 295 156 157, 294 295

Historia Augusta Hadrian 24, 27: Verus 8: Commodus 7.1: 8.9, 9.2: 18-20: Severus 9.4-8: 14.6: 20.1-3, 23.5-7: Caracalla 1: 2-3: 5: Heliogabalus 3, 5: 5.1: 6.8-9: Alexander Severus 18: Gordiani 32.1-2: Gallienus 4: Thirty Tyrants 19:

268, 364 36 n. 145 119 364 120 n. 9 260, 286-287 261 287 165, 239, 261, 287 365 72, 365 294 156 157 365 145 n. 8 161 n. 82 203 n. 29

John of Antioch:

201

John Chrysostomos: On 2 Corinthians, Homily 26.4.5:

92 n. 48, 365 n. 36

Jordanes On the Getae 16.18:

299

Josephus Jewish Antiquities 8.61-106: 11.321-325, 340-347: 12.257-264: 13.254-256: 15.339: 16.162-165: 18.85-89: Jewish War 1.414: 1.153: 3.4, 32, 307-315: 5.383, 389: 7.5.2:

5 n. 35 260 260, 264 260 207 n. 16 305 260 207 n. 16 5 n. 33 261 5 n. 34 282

404

index of literary sources

Kedrenos, Georgios:

88 n. 17

Kosmas of Jerusalem:

94 n. 63

Libanius Oration 18: Oration 33.22-23:

357 357

Lucian Apology 13: Icaromenippus 24 (Scholion):

359 86-87, 93

2 Maccabees 6.2:

260, 264

Malalas, Johannes 11.16: 15.18:

87, 91, 94, 325-326 264

Niketas of Herakleia:

88

Novels of Majorian 4.1:

304

Oppian Biography: ‘Vita A’: On Fishing: On Hunting:

220 220 220

Orosius 7.20.4:

299

Palatine Anthology 9.428: 9.656:

198 88, 94, 325-326

Panegyrics 7(6).22.3-4:

282 n. 32

Pankrates Greek Anthology 6.356:

5

Pausanias Description of Greece 1.18.6: 2.10.4: 2.26.8: 7.2.8-9: 10.12.5: Philip of Thessalonike Greek Anthology 9.22: Philo Life of Moses 1.316-318, 2.72, 159, 174: On Dreams 2.273: On Flight and Finding 90, 93, 94: On Rewards and

318 5 32 68, 326 5

4

5 5

Punishments 74: On the Special Laws 1.156, 2.120: Questions and Answers on Genesis fr. 17: Philostratos Life of Apollonios of Tyana 1.15: 2.8.5, 5.1.4, 6: 6.34: Lives of the Sophists 1.7: 1.8.4: 1.21: 1.25.1-4: 1.25.5-6: 1.25.10: 1.25.11: 2.9.2: 2.23: 2.24: 2.25: 2.27:

5 5 5

189 n. 3 46 n. 56 282 n. 33 333 43 n. 35, 355 282 n. 31, 354 43-46, 66, 313 44, 47 46-47, 286, 333334 44 47-48 68 n. 78 135 36 n. 146 36 n. 147

Photius Bibliotheca 345 b:

264 n. 47

Pindar Pythian 2.2:

6 n. 36

Pliny the Elder Natural History 35.93, 132: 36.22.98: Pliny the Younger Letters 8.24.3: book 10: 23, 24, 37-40, 43, 44: 49, 50, 68-71, 81, 82, 118, 119:

4 88 n. 17, 93-94

355 312, 371 284 371

Plutarch On Isis and Osiris 351E: Political Precepts: 17: 21: 32: Roman Questions 264D: 267D: Romulus 5.1:

4 4 4

Polemius Sylvius 39-40:

245, 300

4 331 331-332 331 354

5

405

index of literary sources Polybius 32.15.1-6:

32 n. 118

Procopius Buildings 5.7.1-17:

264 nn. 45, 49

‘Res Gestae Divi Saporis’:

Seneca Apocolocyntosis 8.3: Sokrates Historia Ecclesiastica 1.18.1: 3.23.59:

228 n. 78, 233 n. 26

4.55-56: 363

303 92, 94, 325-326, 365 n. 36

Sozomenos 2.5.5:

233 n. 27

Strabo 7.7.4, fr. 21: 14.1.5: 1.23: 1.40: 3.3: 664-665:

192, 198 56 4 143 253 350

Suda:

4, 19 n. 19, 220

Suetonius Augustus

52:

Gaius (Caligula) 21: 22.3-4: Claudius 25.3: Vespasian 23.2: Domitian 13.2:

2.47: 3.63: 3.66-69: 4.15: 4.36: 4.37-38:

18, 147, 150, 275276, 324, 362 55-56 363 253 282 279, 363

Syncellus/Georgios Synkellos Ecloga Chronographia 465-466: 716:

203, 218, 250 161 n. 82

Tacitus Annals 1.10.6: 2.42:

362 246

5.2: 6.18: 13.33: 14.27.1: 15.74.3: 16.21:

100 n. 1, 104 n. 29 29 n. 96 38, 168 38, 40, 362, 367 86 3, 18, 39-40, 168, 275, 277, 324, 345, 360, 362-363, 372 23 n. 48, 38-40, 55, 59, 62, 100 n. 1, 119 n. 1, 142, 164, 276, 281, 355, 362, 367 325 360 212 137 363 212

Vitruvius On Architecture 3.2.6, 7 pref. 12:

142

Xenophon Anabasis 5.3.6-7: Hellenica 3.2.19:

4 142

Xiphilinos Epitome of Cassius Dio 70.4.1-2:

87, 89

Zonaras Epitome historiarum 12.1: 12.20-21: 12.23:

89 300 203, 218, 250

Zosimus 1.17-20, 23: 1.23.2-25.2: 1.24.2: 1.27.2: 1.28.1: 1.29.2-3: 1.29-40: 1.31-35: 1.35: 2.31:

299 300 245, 300 300 300 203 300 300 161 268, 303

This page intentionally left blank

407

index of inscriptional corpora

INDEX OF INSCRIPTIONAL CORPORA Using relevant item numbers; see ‘References’ for abbreviations. Buckler and Robinson 1932 18: 63: 64: 67: 69: 70:

113-114, 304 114 114 114 114 114

CIG 1720: 2022: 2023: 2189: 3175: 3464: 3486: 3647: 3663, 3665: 3771: 3841d, g: 3938, 3941: 4189: 4342 d3:

154, 161 241 242 35 47 n. 66 114 35 113, 114 98 161 118 124 234-235 190

CIL 3.6835-6837: 3.7068: 8.757, 10047: 8.10236:

67 n. 68 23 n. 54 297 75 n. 116

FdXL 11: 18: 29: 30: 50: 51: 67: 69-70: 71: 78: 125-127:

255 254 253 254 253 254 255 253 253 253 254

FiE 2.34: 3.72:

n. 31 nn. 20, 24 n. 10 n. 12 n. 11 n. 13 n. 31 n. 11 n. 8 n. 11 n. 22

62 47 n. 71, 128 n. 19, 139 n. 32, 291, 297, 348

Gounaropoulou and Hatzopoulos 1998 61: 191, 197 n. 38 63: 192 66: 197 n. 38 68: 194 69: 192, 195, 197 70: 196, 197 71: 197 108: 197 109: 196, 197 117: 191-192, 197 481: 195, 197 483: 197 n. 38 485: 197 509: 196, 197 IdA 10: 11: 20: 23: 24: 28: 30: 32: 34: 35: 37: 38: 42: 54: 63: 157:

22 n. 44, 29, 36 22 n. 44, 29, 36 24, 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 33 n. 122 35

IG 22.3297: 10.150: 162-165: 167: 168-169: 177: 231: 12.2.243: 14.1063:

62, 66, 80, 283 204 199-200, 204 202, 204 202 n. 25 204 204 35 120

408

index of inscriptional corpora

IGBR 3.1. 897: 898: 1373:

245 245 244-245

IGRR 1. 130: 147: 719: 786, 787: 788: 797: 802: 890: 1471, 1472: 3. 6: 81: 132: 209: 179: 230: 237: 336: 342, 343, 348: 350, 352, 353: 473: 474: 482: 487: 490: 563: 656: 665: 680: 743, 747: 756, 757: 762: 793: 804: 879: 880: 881: 1012: 1033: 4.17: 138, 139: 140: 145: 146: 153: 154: 155: 157: 160: 161: 162: 331: 336:

120 81 244-245 241 242 95, 98 195 n. 31, 238 n. 15 259 245 161 257-259 234 n. 4 302 174 171 173-174 266 n. 9 267 266 254 254 nn. 20, 21 255 n. 31 254 n. 25 254 n. 20 254 n. 20 256 107 n. 55 254 n. 21 256 256 n. 5 256 176, 179 189 n. 4 218 215, 218 218 218 244 47 n. 71 93 n. 57 90, 93 n. 61 86 n. 3 86 92 n. 49 98 92 92 n. 49 92 n. 51 238 n. 15 92 n. 51 36 23 n. 54

339: 360: 362: 375: 385: 426: 447: 451: 452: 453: 454: 459: 460: 475: 480: 567: 572: 581: 586: 700: 821, 822: 859, 863: 908: 1239: 1254: 1293: 1431, 1436: 1516: 1524: 1528: 1608c, 1611b: 1619: 1687: 1688: 1689:

36 36 32 36 36 36 35 34 36 35 5 n. 31, 21 n. 39 35 22 n. 43 37 36 118 355 118 47 n. 71 145-146 349 124 36 21 n. 34 40 n. 21 35 44 n. 46 114 40 n. 18 114 21 n. 37 126-128 36 36 35

IGUrbRom 25: 26: 37:

107 n. 55 81 120, 124

IvE 17-19: 21: 22: 24: 24B: 27: 36A-D: 43: 212: 217: 230: 232-242: 233: 236: 237: 264: 266:

22 n. 42, 349, 370-371 80 24 n. 66, 80, 258-259, 305 6 n. 36 81 66, 79 79 357 71-74, 82 352 63 61 n. 23 62, 79 62, 79 62, 79 79 80

409

index of inscriptional corpora (IvE, cont.) 267-271a: 274: 278: 279: 280: 282D: 284A: 288(4)CD, (5): 291: 294: 297: 300: 300A: 304, 304A: 340: 367: 385: 404, 410, 411, 413: 415, 416: 422: 422-424, 424A: 428: 429: 430: 431: 432, 435: 438: 441: 443: 449: 455: 467: 473(3): 480: 492: 508: 509: 517: 582: 611, 613A: 618: 625: 627: 642: 644: 645: 647: 649: 658: 661: 664B: 665, 672A: 683B: 686, 687, 689: 692, 696, 699A: 697B: 708: 710B:

68 n. 77 66 n. 60 80 67, 80 80 81 83 81 75, 83 81 73, 82 73, 83 83 83 80 81 79 69 n. 87 69 n. 87, 79 79 69 n. 87 67, 69 69, 80 66, 69 n. 87, 80 69 n. 87, 80 69 n. 87 69 n. 87, 80 80 69 n. 87 63-64, 79 69 n. 87 83 84 80 79 79 69 n. 87, 79 79 80 81 69 76, 78, 83 81 81 82 66 n. 58 73, 82 82 59 n. 3 81 82 81 82 82 81 80 82 61

710C: 718, 721: 726: 728: 730: 740: 742: 793: 802: 814: 834: 857: 858: 893: 921: 985: 986: 1089C: 1145: 1238: 1380B: 1489: 1489A: 1490: 1498: 1499, 1500: 1503: 1517, 1532: 1541, 1543: 1551: 1555: 1563: 1606: 1810: 1902(1-2): 1904(2): 1906(1-2), 1907(2): 1907(1), 1908(2-3): 1909(1, 3): 1910(2): 1913(1), 1915(1-2): 1916: 1918(3), 1921(1-3), 1923(1): 1924(3): 1926(1), 1926(2): 2034: 2037: 2039: 2040: 2048: 2049, 2050: 2052: 2053-2056: 2066: 2069: 2906: 2908, 2909, 2909A: 3001:

61 81 80 80 69, 80 73, 82 67 79 292, 293 n. 80 67, 69 82 79 79 82 67, 69 82 80 80 66 n. 62 82 81 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 46 n. 64, 69 n. 90, 285 61 n. 23 79 80 82 81 84 81 82 82 82 82 84 82 84 82 83 82 84 82 84 82 62-63, 79 79 80 83, 84 61 n. 23 81 82 73, 83 80 81 84 82 73, 82

410 (IvE, cont.) 3005, 3008: 3035: 3036, 3037: 3038: 3040: 3049, 3052: 3060: 3072: 3080: 3801: 4109: 4333: 4336: 4341: 4342:

index of inscriptional corpora 79 80 81 61 349 81 79 47 n. 71, 128 n. 19, 139 n. 32, 291, 297, 348 349 349 81 80 78, 83 81 82

IvL 10: 45: 50, 135, 136:

124, 355 119, 124 124

IvM 6.1.A.258: 6.1.A.259:

57 n. 20 58

IvP 269: 287: 293: 299: 300: 324: 374: 395: 397: 438: 441: 461: 520: 523: 524: 525:

23 n. 54, 333 32 32 32, 36 32 n. 111 36 22 n. 41, 349 36 36 36 36 35 36 22 n. 43 37 34, 37, 349

IvPerge 56:

176

IvS 573: 591: 594: 595: 596: 603: 634: 637: 638: 639:

142 50 n. 44 n. 44 n. 44 n. 47 n. 53 53 53 44 n.

97 45 46 47 68, 53-54

47

640: 641: 644: 646: 657: 659-661: 665: 666: 667: 668: 672: 673: 674: 680: 681b: 696: 697: 727: 767: 772: 814: 815:

53 5 n. 28 44 n. 41 53 53 44 n. 41 53 53 53 44 n. 41 47 n. 68, 53 53 53 45 n. 54 46 n. 61 53 43-45, 53 40 n. 21 53 40 n. 21 53 53

IvT 16: 42: 52: 55: 58, 59: 74: 81: 94:

132 n. 10 131 132 131 132 130-132 131-132 132

Jonnes 1994 1: 2: 4: 7:

258 n. 9 257-259 258 n. 9 257 n. 8

Le Bas-Waddington 628: 875: 988: 1383: 1480:

113 118 118 190 215, 218

MAMA 4.59:

145-146

OGIS 332: 509: 513: 578:

318 47 n. 71 34 215, 218

”ahin 1979 29: 30: 30a:

163-165 163, 165 165

411

index of inscriptional corpora Sayar 1998 10, 11: 12, 13: 37: 40, 56: 307:

241 242 237 n. 8 241 241

Sayar 2000 3: 4: 6: 11: 12, 13: 18:

228 223, 228 228 224, 228 225, 228 228

SEG 2.735: 2.736: 4.563: 4.638: 12.514: 12.516: 12.517: 14.482: 17.315: 17.528: 23.206:

266, 269 269 62 114 223, 228 228 225, 228 241 191-192, 197 128, 297 370

36.1093, 1094: 36.1095, 1096: 40.1128: 44.1210: 44.1211: 45.2353:

103, 114 114 92 255 255 n. 29 114, 368 n. 48

SiA 1.26: 44: 2.112: 158:

185-186, 188 181, 188 185-186, 188 188

SIG4 798: 799: 820: 883: 906A:

86 n. 3 86, 98 61 n. 24 126-128 6 n. 36

TAM 2.2.420: 2.2.428: 2.3.879: 2.3.1192, 1193: 4.1.25: 4.1.34:

254 n. 21 254 n. 26 256 256 n. 5 161 154, 161

This page intentionally left blank

index of inscriptional corpora

413

GENERAL INDEX

Achaea: 68 Achaeus: 104 M. Acilius Aviola (proconsul): 60, 61 M. Acilius Glabrio (proconsul): 81 Acrolithic statuary: 318-321 Adramyteion (Mysia): 101 Adramytes: 102 Aebutius Flaccus: 92 n. 49 Aelia Ammia (chief priestess): 82 T. Aelius Alkibiades: 80, 305 Aelius Aristides: 33, 45-48, 354 L. Aelius Caesar: 69 Aelius Onesiphoros (strategos): 92, 94, 95 P. Aelius Paion (poet): 24 n. 66, 349 P. Aelius Pigres (Asiarch): 121-122 Aemilian: 300 Afranius Flavianus (proconsul): 80 Agalma: 318 (and see statues, cult) Agesilaos: 220 Agon Alexandreios (see festivals) Agonothetes: 21, 24, 43, 66, 69, 81, 82, 117, 127, 173, 175, 178 n. 32, 191, 192, 194, 196, 202, 221, 268, 284, 297, 313, 333, 334, 336, 337, 346 Agoranomos: 112, 130 Aigeai (Cilicia): 230-233 Alternate names: 231 Coins: 230-233 History: 230 Neokoria: 230-33 Aizanoi (Phrygia): 116-118 Coins: 116-118 Inscriptions: 118 Neokoria of Zeus: 116-118 Akalissos (Lycia): 256 Aktia (festival): 136, 137, 173, 217, 238, 338 Alamanni: 296, 300 Albiorix son of Ateporix: 168 L. Albius Pullaenus Pollio (proconsul): 79 Alexandreia (festival): 249 Alexandroupolis (see Aigeai) Alkiphron (chief priest): 41 Alytarch: 221 Amaseia (Pontus Galaticus): 210-211 Coins: 210-211 History: 210 Rivalry with Neokaisareia: 210 Amazons: 10, 42, 48, 50, 51 Amyntas (King of Galatia): 166, 266, 314

Anatolia: 266 Anaxagoras (chief priest): 21 Anazarbos (Cilicia): 220-229 1st Neokoria (Septimius Severus): 220-222 2nd Neokoria (sons of Severus): 222-226 3rd Neokoria (Trajan Decius): 226-228 Coins: 220-226, 228-9 History: 220 Andriantes (statues): 168 Androklos (founder of Ephesos): 68-69, 74 Q. Anicius Faustus: 293 Ankara (see Ankyra) Ankyra (Galatia): 166-174 1st Neokoria (Augustus): 166-173 2nd Neokoria (Valerian and Gallienus): 173-174 Coins: 168-174 Priesthood: 167-168 Temple: 166-167 Antandros (Troad): 133-134 1st Neokoria (Caracalla): 133-134 Coins: 133-134 Antinoös: 212 Antioch: 267 Chief city of Pisidia: 267 Colony of Rome: 267 Antipater (sophist): 135 C. Antius Aulus Iulius Quadratus (proconsul): 22, 333, 336, 360 Antonea Severeia (see festivals) Antoneinoupolis (see Aigeai) Antonina (festival): 121, 239 Antonines: 284-286 Antoninus (see Caracalla) Antoninus Pius: 46, 47, 53, 80, 81, 83, 103, 106, 213, 364 Olympios: 103 Cult: 364 Portrayals of: 106 L. Antonius Albus (proconsul): 80, 81 M. Antonius Gordianus (Gordian I): 299 M. Antonius Gordianus (Gordian II): 299 M. Antonius Polemon (orator): 43- 44, 46- 47, 53, 153, 258-259, 281, 326, 333, 355-356, 368 M. Antonius Lepidus: 21 n. 37 Apollo: 10, 137, 183, 187, 198, 243, 277 Kendrisos: 243 Pythios: 198 Sidetes: 183, 187 at Delphi: 137

414

general index

at Hierapolis: 137 at Miletos/Didyma: 277 Apolloneios Gordianeios Antoneinios (see Pythia) Aqueducts: 46, 254 C. Aquilius Proculus (proconsul): 79 Archaeology: 11-12 Archelaos II (King of Cappadocia): 246 Archineokoros: 118 n. 25 Architecture: 9 Archon: 89, 92, 94, 110, 112, 126, 151, 152 n. 40, 346 Ardashir (Sassanid king): 158 Arethas (Bishop of Kaisareia): 86, 87 Ariarathes V (King of Cappadocia): 318 Aristenetos: 90 Aristokrates (chief priest): 69 Armenia: 234, 235 Koinon center Nikopolis: 234, 235 Armeniarch: 234 Arrius Antoninus (proconsul): 119 Artemas: 140 Artemis: 5, 6, 74, 142, 143 Ephesia: 5, 6, 74 Leukophryene: 142-143 Artemiseia Vespasianeia (festival): 175 Asellius Aemilianus (proconsul): 236 Asia, Koinon of: 17-146 Ionia: Ephesos: 59-85 Magnesia: 142-144 Miletos: 55-58 Smyrna: 38-54 Lydia: Philadelphia: 126-129 Sardis: 100-115 Tralles: 130-132 Mysia: Kyzikos: 86-99 Pergamon: 17-37 Phrygia: Aizanoi: 116-118 Hierapolis: 135-141 Laodikeia: 119-125 Synnada: 145-146 Troad: Antandros: 133-134 Asiarch: 21, 24, 40, 47 n. 71, 67, 73, 79, 81, 82, 92, 108, 109, 112, 121, 122, 127, 128, 284, 291, 334, 346-348 C. Asinius Neikomachus Frugianus (agoranomos): 112 Asklepieia Sotereia (festival): 173, 340 Asklepios: 10, 31 n. 105, 33, 50, 183, 187, 231 Soter: 33 Cult: 50, 231 Neokoros (Side): 10, 183 Aspendos (Pamphylia): 189, 190 1st Neokoria (Gallienus): 189, 190 Coins: 189-190 Asylos/Asylum: 29, 142, 178, 230 M. Atilius Bradua (proconsul): 45, 79 Attalos II: 25

Attalos III: 34 Athena (Patron of Side): 187 Attis: 169 n. 29 Augusta Traiana (Thrace): 238 n. 11, 243 n. 2 Augusteia (festival): 21 Augusti: 2, 366-367 Augustia Aktia (see Aktia) Augustus: 3, 17-22, 275, 276, 361 C. Aulus Antius Iulius Quadratus: 24, 36, 280, 313, 333, 360 Aurelian: 165, 177-9, 302-304, 366 M. Aurelius Alexandros (strategos): 31 M. Aurelius Apollonides Ammianos Daphnos: 140 Aurelius Charidemos (strategos): 49 M. Aurelius Perperos: 53 Aurelius Fulvus (son of Marcus Aurelius?): 200, 202 T. Aurelius Fulvus Antoninus (proconsul: see Antoninus Pius) Aurelius Victor: 297 Avidius Cassius: 47, 48 n. 72 Aydin (see Tralles) Baba Rabbah: 262 Balbinus: 58, 299 Basileus: 257 Beroe (Thrace): 196, 197, 201 Beroia (Macedonia): 191-197, 279 1st Neokoria (Nerva): 191, 192 2nd Neokoria: 192-197 Elagabalus: 192-4 Severus Alexander: 194-5 Gordian III: 195-7 Coins: 191-7 Rival of Thessalonike: 279 Bithynia: 146-162, 163-165, 276 Nikaia: 163-5 Nikomedia: 147-162 Bithyniarch: 151, 152, 257 Bosporan kings: 259 n. 21 Brokers of Beneficence: 333-5 C. Antius Aulus Iulius Quadratus: 333 M. Antonius Polemon: 333, 334 Tiberius Claudius Piso Diophantos: 334 Saoteros: 334 Ulpius Apollonius Plautus: 334- 335 C. Ofellius Ferus: 318, 318 n. 29 C. Vibius Salutaris: 68 Ti. Caepio Hispo (proconsul): 36, 80 M. Caerelius Attalos (strategos): 30, 31, 34 Caesar (Deification): 18 Caesernius Statianus: 161 Caligula (see Gaius) P. Calvisius Ruso (proconsul): 79 Cappadocia: 205, 246-251 Kaisareia: 246-251 Cappadociarch: 246 Caracalla: 30-35, 48-50, 70-73, 75, 81-83, 94, 95, 114, 127, 133, 165, 173, 287-292, 365

general index 3rd Neokoria (Pergamon): 30-5 3rd Neokoria (Smyrna): 48 Asklepieia Sotereia: 173 Campaign vs. Parthians: 133, 288 Caracalla Arabicus: 81 Coinage of Smyrna: 48, 49 Coins of Pergamon: 289 Coins of Smyrna: 289 Cult: 50 Dedicatory inscription: 114 Germanicus Maximus: 73, 83 Hercules (refusal of name): 72 Kyzikos: 94, 95 Modesty and pietas: 72 Neokoria: 70, 288-92 New Sun god: 71, 75, 127, 287, 365 Nikaia: 165 Plautilla: 94 Statues: 73, 75, 83, 228 Carminius Vetus (proconsul): 79 Carthage: 83 Cassius Dio: 7, 163, 332-333, 365 Celts: 166 Chief Priest/ess: 4-5, 21, 24, 36, 40, 41, 47, 57, 59, 61 n. 24, 65, 66, 67, 69, 76, 81, 82, 92, 100, 103, 117, 118, 127, 128, 139, 140, 151, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175, 178 n. 32, 191, 192, 194, 196, 197, 204, 231, 233, 253, 258, 262, 267, 268, 284, 290, 291, 297, 305, 313, 332, 334, 336, 341, 346, 353, 354, 357, 370 Christians: 232, 268, 269, 303 Neokoriai: 303 Sagalassos: 268, 269 Churches in/on temples: 264, 267, 268 Apollo Klarios: 267 Neapolis: 264 Sagalassos: 268 Cicero: 312, 361- 362 Cilicia: 212-233 Aigeia: 230-233 Anazarbos: 220-229 Tarsos: 212-219 Ciliciarch: 215, 221, 227 Cistophoroi: 314, 321 Cities: 41, 94, 331-342 As Goddesses: 41, 94 Brokers of beneficence: 333-335 Comparison with koinon: 341-342 Culture/Status: 331-333 Festivals: 334-341 Neokoroi: 331-342 Structure: 331 Citizenship: 262, 263, 332 Civil War: 297, 356 Claudius: 5, 253, 277 Decree: 5 Lycia: 253 Neokoria: 277 Ti. Claudius Alexandros (strategos): 31 Ti. Claudius Aristion (chief priest): 66

415

P. Claudius Attalos: 119 Ti. Claudius Balbillus: 63 Claudius Capito (archon): 127, 128 Ti. Claudius Cleon (chief priest): 140 M. Claudius Demetrios: 161 Claudius Fronto: 108, 109 Ti. Claudius Glyptos: 130, 131 Claudius Gothicus: 98 Ti. Claudius Kretarios (strategos): 49 Ti. Claudius Magnus Charidemos: 67 Ti. Claudius Meidias (chief priest): 40 Claudius Nikomedes (strategos): 29 P. Claudius Pankratides (grammateus): 130 Ti. Claudius Piso Diophantos (chief priest): 67, 152 n. 40, 315, 316, 334 Ti. Claudius Serenus: 82 Ti. Claudius Sokrates (chief priest and agonothetes): 21 Cleander (chamberlain of Commodus): 153 Client Kingdoms: 205, 207, 220 Cocceius Alexandros: 168 M. Cocceius Nerva: 168 M. Cocceius Seleukos (chief priest): 168, 171 Colonia Iulia Flavia Sergia Neapolis (see Neapolis) Colony: 235, 262, 263, 332 1st Neokoros of: 235 Neapolis: 262, 263 Neokoros: 262, 263 Nikopolis: 263 Thessalonike: 263 Colossi: 104-108, 317-321 At Cuicul: 108 At Ephesos: 107 At Leptis Magna: 108 At Pergamon: 108 At Sardis: 104-107 Commodiana (see Aigeai) Commodus: 34, 48, 81, 104, 106, 119, 120, 153, 213-217, 256 Akalissos Neokoria: 256 Alternate names: 214 Colossos: 104 Condemnation of Memory: 119, 120, 215 Festival (Pergamon): 34 Laodikeia: 119, 120 Portrayals: 106 Tarsos: 213-7 Withdrawal of Neokoria (Nikomedia): 153 Concord (homonoia): 238, 332, 351, 352, 354 Among cities: 332, 351, 354 Between Geta and Caracalla: 238 Coinages: 20 n. 25, 32-33, 165, 190, 285, 286, 289, 290, 343, 354-355 Condemnation of Memory: 57, 78, 97, 105 n. 45, 112, 158, 194, 207, 209, 240, 244, 250, 256, 259, 263, 277, 278, 292, 293, 315, 320, 327, 329, 369 Commodus: 105 n. 45, 256 Domitian: 278 Gaius (Caligula): 57, 277 Elagabalus: 78, 112, 158, 194, 240, 244, 327, 369

416

general index

Macrinus: 292, 293 Nero: 315 Philip: 259, 263 Severus Alexander: 97, 207, 209, 240 n. 25, 244, 250, 327, 329 Constantine: 174, 268, 303 Christianity: 303 Founding of temples: 268 Constantius Chlorus: 145, 146, 266 Consul: 81, 187, 257 Contests (see festivals) P. Cornelius Scipio (quaestor): 370 L. Cossinius: 40 Cossutianus Capito: 212 Crispina: 256 Crowns: 21 n. 29, 217, 231 n. 12 Agonothetic: 213 n. 12 On Coins: 217 Prize crowns: 21 n. 29, 173 Cult: 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, 32, 34, 39, 40, 44, 45, 56, 61 n. 24, 69, 71, 104, 157, 163 n. 3, 171 n. 51, 241, 243, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 291, 304, 311, 317-21, 321-8, 359-71 Artemis: 71 Caracalla & Geta (Perinthos): 241 Civic: 69 Deified Plotina: 44, 45 Demeter (Ephesos): 61 n. 24 Imperial: 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, 39, 40, 273, 275, 291, 359-371 Koinon (Gaius): 277 Koinon (Magna Mater): 171 n. 51 Partners: Antoninus Pius & Artemis (Sardis): 311 Attalos III & Asklepios Soter: 34 Augustus & Roma: 32, 157 Caesar & Roma: 163 n. 3 Caracalla & Dieties of Pergamon: 56, 157, 311 Caracalla & Deities of Smyrna: 56, 157, 311 Elagabalus & Apollo: 32, 57, 243, 311 Elagabalus & Demeter (Nikomedia): 157, 311 Elagabalus & Men (Hierapolis): 311 Gaius & Apollo (Didyma): 277, 311 Severus Alexander & Asklepios (Aigeai): 32, 311 Trajan & Zeus Philios: 32, 279, 280 Statues: 317-321 on coins: 321-324 Theoi Sebastoi: 61 n. 24 Zeus: 104 Curator: 81 L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus: 34 Damianos (sophist): 68 n. 78 Dedications 62, 69 Deia (festival): 117, 120, 128 Deia Haleia Philadelphia (festival): 129 Deia Kommodeia (see Kommodeia) Dekios Oikoumenikos (see festivals) Delphi: 161

Demeter: 10, 156, 160 Demetria Antonina (festival): 157 Demiourgos: 213, 214, 216, 225, 231 n. 12 Diadumenian: 228, 292 Didyma 55, 56 Didymaion (Miletos): 56, 57, 277 Didymeia: 137, 142 Dio Chrysostomos: 332-333, 351, 354, 371 Diocletian: 145, 266 Diodotos (sophist): 36 Dionysos: 187, 258 Kathegemon: 32 Diophantos (Ephesos): 69, 153 Diospontus: 205 Dokimeion: 145 Domitian: 63, 147 n. 5, 176, 278, 363 Condemnation of memory: 176, 278 Ephesos: 63, 278, 363 Perge: 176 Donuktaâ (Tarsos temple): 214 Cn. Dottius Plancianus (Asiarch): 67 n. 68 Drusilla: 5, 21 n. 36 Dzendemtepe: 244 Earthquakes: 48, 78 n. 127, 87 n. 8-10, 94 n. 64, 100, 102, 104, 137, 163-164, 267, 281, 312, 313, 315, 316, 325, 326 Ephesos: 78 n. 127 Kyzikos: 87, 94 n. 64, 281 Nikaia: 281 Sagalassos: 267 Sardis: 100, 102, 104 Smyrna: 48 Economy (weakening of koinon): 297 Eikon (vs. agalma): 318 Elagabalus: 51, 76-78, 110-112, 138, 142, 156-158, 192194, 216, 217, 228, 239, 243, 244, 252, 294-6, 365 Anazarbos: 216, 217 Condemnation of memory: 78, 112, 138, 142, 158, 194 Emesa: 365 Ephesos: 76, 77 Neokoria: 51, 77, 156, 157, 192, 194, 252, 294-296 Nikomedia: 156, 157 Perinthos: 239 Philippopolis: 243, 244 Religion: 157, 294, 295 Sardis: 110, 111 Emperor, cult of (see cult, imperial) Emperors: 324-328 Ephebes: 22, 66, 98 Ephesia (see festivals) Ephesos: 2, 5, 6, 47, 59-85, 277 Coins: 60, 65, 68-71, 72, 74-78, 84, 85 Concord with Smyrna: 47 Neokoria: 60, 61, 66-79, 84, 85 Nurse City: 6 n. 36 St. Paul: 6 Temples: 2, 5, 63-66 Epinikia (see festivals)

general index Eprius Marcellus (proconsul): 61 Erasures: 73, 176, 202, 288, 295, 296, 299, 320, 334, 335 By Christians: 176 Elagabalus’ name: 295 Facades: 320 Geta’s name: 288 Inscriptions: 334, 335 Monuments: 202 Philip’s name: 299 Titles: 296 Eregli (see Herakleia) C. Erucius Clarus (proconsul): 81 Ethnikon Kaisareion (festival): 255 Eurykles: 117, 118 Eusebeia (see Kaisareia) Eusebius: 220, 264 Eutropius: 729 Q. Fabius Catullinus (consul): 257 Fabius Cilo: 236 Paullus Fabius Maximus (proconsul): 370 Paullus Fabius Persicus (proconsul): 22 n. 42, 41, 370 Faustina the Elder: 103, 104, 106 Faustina the Younger: 106 Favorinus: 43 n. 35 Festivals (see also under individual names): 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 34, 44, 58, 63, 68, 69, 73, 77, 81, 83, 86, 92, 93, 100, 109, 111, 113, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127-129, 131, 136-139, 142 n. 1, 142, 145, 151, 154, 156, 157, 167, 168, 171, 171 n. 51, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, 181 n. 3, 182, 187, 189, 193-196, 198, 199, 201, 203, 208, 209, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223, 226, 227, 231 n. 15, 232, 237-239, 243, 244, 246-249, 254, 255, 257, 267, 276, 279, 282, 283, 284, 313, 325, 326, 335-341, 346, 356, 364, 370, 371 Five Metropoleis: 291 Flavia Ammion (chief priestess): 65 n. 53 Flavia Neapolis: 260 Flavians: 277-279 M. Flavius Aper (consul): 257 T. Flavius Collega: 267 Flavius Diadoumenos: 131 Flavius Leo: 113 T. Flavius Narus (chief priest): 65 n. 53 T. Flavius Neon (chief priest): 268 Flavius Trophimos (magistrate): 96 T. Flavius Varus: 65 n. 53 Franks: 296 Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus (proconsul): 79 Fulvus (see Aurelius Fulvus) Gaius (Caligula): 42, 55, 59, 86, 277, 280, 363 Didymeion (Miletos): 280 Neokoria: 277 New Helios: 86 Galatia: 166-74, 205, 266 Ankyra: 166-74 Tectosage: 166 Tolistobogii: 170, 171

417

Trocmi: 170 Galatarchs: 170, 173, 346 Galba: 277 Galerius Caesar: 266 Gallienus: 78, 97, 189, 203, 301, 366 Neokoria: 78, 189, 203, 366 Portraiture: 97 Wars: 301 C. Gallius Pulcher: 171 Gannys: 156 Gerousiarch: 204 Geta: 30, 70, 72, 82, 114, 247, 288 3rd Neokoria (Ephesos): 70 Coins (Kaisareia): 247 Erasure of name: 288 Inscription: 114 Temple: 72 Gifts, Imperial: 282, 283 Gladiatorial Shows: 171 Gordian III: 58, 78, 83, 182, 199, 234, 235, 240, 245, 298, 299 Beroia: 299 Festivals: 182 Neokoria: 298, 299 Nikopolis: 234, 235 Perinthos: 240 Thessalonike: 299 Tranquillina: 199 Goths: 98, 160, 161, 174, 196, 200, 296, 297, 299-302, 340 Ankyra: 174 Invasions: 177, 178, 185, 197, 203, 356, 357 Nikomedia: 98, 160, 161 Governors (see Romans in government) Grammateus: 6, 60, 61, 73, 79, 80, 92, 129-31, 143, 328, 334, 349 Gymnasiarch: 5, 21, 41 Hadrian: 23, 27, 28, 36, 42-44, 53, 66, 74, 80, 81, 86-94, 100, 116, 163, 164, 199 n. 13, 212, 254, 258, 281-284, 313, 314, 363, 364 Aizanoi: 116 Ephesos: 66, 74, 164 Kyzikos: 93, 164 Neokoria: 42, 86-94, 212, 281-284 Nikaia: 163, 164 Olympios Panhellenios: 80 Pergamon: 27, 27 n. 85, 28 Polemon: 43, 44 Smyrna: 44, 53, 164 Zeus Eleutherios: 23 Zeus Olympios: 23, 93 Hadriana (see Aigeai) Hadrianeia (festival): 44, 68, 69, 81, 92, 93, 100, 145, 213, 217, 221, 283, 325, 326, 336 Hadrianeion: 68, 68 n. 77 Haleia (festival): 128 Helladarch: 151, 346 Herakleia: 6, 257-259

418

general index

Coins: 257, 259 Herakles (Patron of Tarsos): 214 Herennius Etruscus: 300 Hermogenes (architect): 64, 142 Hermokratos (philosopher): 36 Hermos River: 53 Herodian: 296-298 Heroön (of Augustus): 86, 93 Hestiaios (archon): 89 Hierapolis: 83, 135-141 Coins: 135-137, 139-141 Neokoria: 135-141 Ti. Hieronymos Sosander: 45 n. 52 Hierophantes: 152, 170, 192 n. 15, 305, 346 Hipparchos: 86 Historia Augusta: 178 n. 30, 187 n. 37, 296-297 Hymnodoi: 22, 28, 35, 41, 44, 67, 92, 283, 305, 312, 313, 348 Hypaipa: 21 n. 37 Hypsistos: 264 n. 47 Inscriptions: 11, 53, 86, 100, 112, 114, 118, 128, 165, 234, 258, 259, 263, 264, 268 Ionia: 38 Isauria: 220, 221, 223 Iuliane (chief priestess): 41 P. Iulius Aemilius Aquila: 176, 179 C. Iulius Alexander Berenicianus (proconsul): 80 Iulius Anthimos: 31, 34 M. Iulius Aquila (chief priest): 82 C. Iulius Asper: 293 L. Iulius Marinus Caecilius Simplex: 253 Ti. Iulius Menogenes (neokoros): 57 Iulius Pollio: 25 C. Iulius Severus: 147 n. 5 Decimus Iunius Quintianus (logistes): 83 A. Iunius Rufinus (proconsul): 81 Ius Italicum: 234, 235 n. 6, 332 Izmit (see Nikomedia) Jewish Revolt: 260 Jordanes: 245 Julia (see also Livia): 21 n. 36, 39, 40-41 Julia Domna: 71, 72, 83, 95, 161, 294 Julia Maesa: 294, 295 Julia Mamaea: 138, 140, 225, 295 Julia Paula: 76, 77, 294 Julianus: 126-128 Julius Anthimos (strategos): 31 Julius Caesar: 29 Jupiter Amicalis (see also Zeus Philios): 23 Kabeira (see Neokaisareia) Kabeireia (see festivals) Kaisareia (Cappadocia): 246-251, 254, 255 Coins: 246-251, 254, 255 Neokoria: 246-51 Kaisareia (festival): 175, 189, 370, 371 Kallisthenes (historian): 359

Kendreiseia Pythia (see Pythia) Koinon/koina: 2, 3, 6, 17, 291, 342-358 Armenia: 234, 235 Asia: 17-146 Bithynia: 147-165 Cappadocia: 246-51 Cilicia: 212-233 Galatia: 166-174 Lycia: 253-256 Macedonia: 191-204 Pamphylia: 175-190 Phoenicia: 252 Pontus: 205-211, 257 Pisidia: 266-269 Syria Palestina: 260-265 Thrace: 236-245 Koina Asias (festival): 124, 138 Kommodeia (festival): 121, 154, 364 Kore (Lydian): 109-112 Korydalla: 256 Korykos: 220 Kos: 83 Knidos: 83 Kyzikos (Mysia): 6, 86-99, 277 Coins: 89, 91, 94, 95-99 Neokoria: 6, 86-99 Laodikeia (Phrygia): 43, 119-125 Coins: 119-125 Neokoria: 119-125 Legatus: 169, 245, 300 pro praetore Asiae: 81 Legions: 262 Letters (on coinage): 177-179 Libonianus (chief priest): 100 n. 5, 103 Licinius: 174 P. Licinius Glyptos: 131 Linear B: 4 Livia (see also Julia): 21 n. 36, 39, 40-41 Logistes: 83, 130 Lollianus Gentianus (proconsul): 45 Lollius Pulcher: 171 Lucia Septimia Sebaste (see Sebaste) Lucilius Capito (procurator): 38, 39 Lucilla: 106 Lucius Baebius Honoratus (proconsul): 192 Lucius Verus: 36, 106, 114 L. Luscius Ocra (proconsul): 79 Lycaonia: 220, 221, 223 Lycia (cities): 253-256, 266, 278 Akalissos: 256 Patara: 253-5 Pisidia: 266 Lyciarch: 253, 346 Lydia (cities): 100-15, 126-129, 130-132 Philadelphia: 126-129 Sardis: 100-115 Tralles: 130-132

general index Ma (war goddess): 207 Macedonia: 191-204 Beroia: 191-197 Thessalonike: 198-204 Macedoniarch: 194-197, 346 Macedoniarchissa: 192, 346 Macrinus: 35, 51, 74, 75, 75 n. 111, 75 n. 114, 76, 83, 95, 128, 135, 136, 192, 224, 228, 252, 264, 292, 293, 365 Coinage: 75, 128, 192, 293 Condemnation of memory: 293 Ephesos: 74-6 Neokoria: 95, 224, 292, 293 Withdrawal of titles: 365 Magistrates (see also under individual offices and names): 96, 97 Magnesia (Ionia): 142-4 Coins: 143, 144 Neokoria: 142-144 Magnesian Gate, Ephesos: 68 Majorian: 304 Makrinoupolis (see Aigeai) Marcius Xenokrates (basileus): 257, 258 Marcus Aurelius: 36, 47, 48, 81, 83, 104, 106, 126, 127, 313, 364 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (see Elagabalus) Mark Antony: 205 Maximian Augustus: 266 Maximinus: 78, 298 Maximinus Daia: 79 Mazaka (see Kaisareia) Megala Pythia Panionia (festival): 58 n. 24 Men (Moon God): 135, 136, 169, 184, 311, 327 L. Mestrius Florus (proconsul): 41, 61 n. 24, 63 Meter Steunene: 116 Metropolis: 29, 145, 164 n. 13, 172, 178, 191, 198, 206, 210, 212, 213, 223, 226-228, 234, 243-246, 252-254, 263, 267, 279, 280, 283, 291, 344, 345, 348, 349, 353 Milestones: 173, 197, 225, 228, 241, 244, 245, 266, 269 Miletos (Ionia): 55-58, 277 Coins: 56-58 Neokoria: 57, 58 Temple: 55-7 Mithridates VI Eupator: 163, 205, 234, 345 Modestinus: 355 Monumentum Ancyranum: 166, 167 Mopsos: 232 Mt. Argaios: 247, 249 Mt. Gerizim: 260, 261 Mt. Pagos: 46, 46 n. 61 Mysia: 17-37 Naevianus: 228 Neapolis (Syria Palestina): 260-265 Coins: 261, 263, 265 Neokoria: 261-265 Neokaisareia (Pontus): 205-209, 280 Coins: 206-9 Neokoria: 206-209, 280

419

Neokoria/neokoros as title: passim Definition: 1-5 Neokoros (magistrate): 57, 61 n. 24 Neopoioi: 56, 57, 277, 312, 349 Nero: 277, 363 Nerva: 192, 197, 253, 254, 279 Nikaia (Bithynia): 163-165 Coinage: 165 Neokoria: 163-165 Nikaia (Lydia): 83 Nikomedia (Bithynia): 10, 147-162 Coinage: 149, 150, 156, 157 Coins: 147-62 Neokoria: 147-62 Temple: 147, 148, 276 Nikopolis (Armenia): 234-235 L. Nonius Asprenas Torquatus (proconsul): 79 Numismatic Conventions: 20, 29, 33, 109, 119, 143, 149, 150, 155, 168-170, 195, 206, 215, 321, 330 Nysa: 258 Olympeion: 68, 69, 80 Olympia: 53 Olympia (festival): 58, 68, 92, 93, 326, 336 Olympia Asklepeia (festival): 34 Olympos: 256 Oppian: 220 Opramoas: 255 C. Orphios Flavianus Philographos: 92 Otho: 277 Pamphylia: 175-90, 253, 277, 278 Aspendos: 189, 190 Perge: 175-180, 277, 278 Side: 181-188 Pamphyliarch: 175, 278, 346 Pamukkale (see Hierapolis) Panegyriarch: 21, 348 Panegyric (Kyzikos): 87, 88, 92, 92 n. 53 Parthian War: 106, 108, 120, 121, 126, 127, 133, 135, 192, 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, 246, 249, 280, 284, 288, 289, 338, 365 Patara (Lycia): 253-255 Patron Deities: 182-185, 243 Apollo Kendrisos (Philippopolis): 243 Apollo (Side): 182, 184 Artemis (Perge): 185 Athena (Side): 182-185 Cn. Pedanius Fuscus (proconsul): 79 M. Peducaeus Priscinus (proconsul): 80 Pergamon (Mysia): 17-37, 280, 289, 290 Coins: 19-22, 24-6, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 289, 290 Neokoria: 17-35 Perge (Pamphylia): 10, 175-181, 184, 185, 277, 278 Coins: 175-179, 180-181, 184, 185 Neokoria: 175-79 Perintheia (see festivals) Perinthos (Thrace): 10, 236-242 Coins: 236-242

420

general index

Neokoria: 236-241 Persian Wars: 194, 230, 232, 233, 262, 296 Persians: 174, 301 Personification: 2 nn. 4, 6, 6 Cities: 2 nn. 4, 6 the Demos: 6 Pescennius Niger: 154, 164, 215, 216, 218, 220, 224, 236, 239, 242 n. 37, 249, 252, 260, 286, 288, 297, 350, 355, 356 Pessinus: 170, 171 Petronius (proconsul): 20, 39, 40 Phaselis: 256 Philadelphia (Lydia): 126-129 Coins: 127-129 Neokoria: 126-8 Philip: 226, 257, 299 Philippopolis (Thrace): 10, 243-245 Coins: 243-245 Neokoria: 243-245 Philostratos: 48 n. 72 Phoenicia (Tripolis): 252 Phrygia: 135-141, 145 Phyromachos (sculptor): 32 Pisidia: 170, 266-269 Antioch: 170 Sagalassos: 266-269 M. Plancius Varus (senator): 175 Plautianus (praetorian prefect): 165 Plautilla: 30, 94 M. Plautius Silvanus (proconsul): 20 Plovdiv (see Philippopolis) Polemon (see M. Antonius Polemon) Politics & Koinon: 350, 351 Pom. Sextus (stephanephoros): 45 n. 51 Pompey: 205, 234 Pontarch: 205, 346 Pontifex Maximus: 231 Pontus (cities): 205-11, 257-9, 280 Amaseia: 210, 211 Herakleia: 205-209 Neokaisareia: 257-259 C. Popillius Carus Pedo (proconsul): 81 Q. Popillius Python: 153, 191 Power Brokers: 116 Praetor: 38, 165 Praetorian Guard: 299 Proconsul: 20, 22, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 53, 59-61, 63, 7981, 83, 119, 169, 192, 236, 244, 284, 289, 299, 312, 332, 333, 355, 360, 370 Proconsular legate: 167 Procurator: 38, 39, 81 Provinces: 18, 19 Prusias (King of Bithynia): 32 Pupienus: 58, 299 Pylaimenes: 167, 168 Pylos: 4 Pythia (festival): 58, 83, 121, 136, 137, 173, 198, 199, 201, 238, 243, 244, 338, 339, 340

Quaestor:

80, 370

Rhapsode: 349 Rhescuporis V (King of Bosporus): 259 Rhyndokos River: 98 Rivalry: Aigeai & Tarsos: 230 Beroia & Pella: 199 n. 13 Beroia & Thessalonike: 192, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201203, 227 Caracalla & Geta: 289 Ephesos & Pergamon: 281 Ephesos, Smyrna & Pergamon: 46, 67, 74 Favorinus & Polemon: 354, 355 Laodikeia & Antioch: 260 Laodikeia & Hierapolis: 123, 138 Miletos & Magnesia: 58, 142 Neokaisareia & Amaseia: 206, 210 Nikomedia & Nikaia: 147, 151, 152, 154, 163, 260, 281, 286, 287 Perge & Side: 176-179, 181, 184, 185, 187 Perinthos & Byzantion: 236, 241, 260 Perinthos & Philippopolis: 244 Philadelphia & Sardis: 127, 128 Sebaste & Neapolis: 260 Septimius Severus & Pescennius Niger: 355 Side, Aspendos & Perge: 181 Side & Aspendos: 181, 189, 190 Tarsos & Anazarbos: 213, 216-218, 220-223, 226-228 Tyre & Berytos: 260 Roman Administrators (see under individual names and offices) Romans in government over provinces: 359-371 Rome (goddess): 3, 38, 51, 275 Rutilius Pudens Crispinus: 95, 244 Sacrifices: 30 Sagalassos (Pisidia): 266-9 Saint Paul: 6 Salonina: 97, 173 Saloninus: 197 Samaria: 260-265 Samaritan Uprising: 262 Sanctuary: 253, 255 Saoteros (of Nikomedia, chamberlain of Commodus): 116, 120, 153, 334, 337, 364, 368 Sardis (Lydia): 100-144 Coins: 102, 109, 110, 112-115 Neokoria: 100-44 Sassanians: 173, 181, 182, 296, 297, 299, 301, 302, 366 Scythians: 201 Sebasta Rhomaia (festival): 5, 21 Sebasteion: 59, 108 Sebasteion (festival): 167, 168 Sebastoi: 2, 366-367 Sebastologos: 57 Sebastoneos: 57 Sebastophantes: 152, 170, 171, 173, 346, 348 Selge: 81

general index Senate, Roman: 3, 18, 22, 23, 29, 39, 43, 44, 46, 49, 55, 61, 72, 75, 77, 82, 83, 87, 110, 112, 114, 119, 123, 131, 132, 153, 164, 168, 175, 178, 196, 246, 249, 276, 277, 280, 281, 291, 292, 299, 300, 342, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365, 367-2 Septimius Severus: 81, 95, 106, 113, 114, 155, 158-159, 164, 165, 215, 216, 220-226, 236, 241, 243, 246-249, 258, 261, 262, 286-288, 355, 356, 364, 365 Severans: 127 Severia (festival): 156, 216, 217, 218, 221, 237, 238, 249, 338, 339, 356 Severiana (see Aigeai) Severus Alexander: 58, 96, 111, 112, 138, 139, 194, 196, 208, 215, 217, 218, 225, 228, 230, 232, 240, 244, 245, 249, 250, 295, 296, 365, 366 Condemnation of memory: 138, 196, 232, 250 Neokoria: 58, 96, 111, 112, 138, 139, 194, 208, 230, 244, 245, 249, 250, 295, 296, 365, 366 Shapur I (Sassanid king): 182, 203, 218, 228, 233, 250, 299, 300 Tarsos (sack of): 218 Valerian (capture of): 203 Shechem (Tell Balatah): 260 Side (Pamphylia): 10, 181-188 Coins: 182-185, 188 Neokoria: 10, 181-188 L. Silanus (proconsul): 38, 39 Smyrna (Ionia): 38-54 Coins: 39, 41, 47-54 Neokoria: 38-53 Temples: 38-53 Stara Zagora (see Beroe) Statues: 5, 12, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 53, 64-67, 101, 103108, 149, 150, 151, 168, 173, 174, 181, 186, 197, 199, 200, 214, 228, 231, 241, 242, 256, 259, 315, 317-323, 353, 367 Stephanephoros: 41 Strategos: 29-31, 34, 43, 49, 92, 108, 109, 112, 133 n. 3, 290 n. 64 Suetonius: 56 Synnada (Phrygia): 145-146 Synedrion: 199 Synod of theatrical artists (technitai): 24 n. 66, 257-259 Syria Palestina (Neapolis): 260-265 Syriarch: 357 Tacitus (historian): 38-39 Tacitus (emperor): 178-179 Tarsos (Cilicia): 10, 212-219, 227 Coins: 212-219, 227 Neokoria: 212-9 Tarkondimotos II (King of Cilicia): 220 Tavium: 170 Technitai (see Synod of theatrical artists) Tell Balatah (see Shechem) Tell er-Ras: 264 Temples Antoninus Pius: 307 Aphrodite Stratonikis: 46 n. 63

421

Apollo: 135, 136, 267, 268, 306 Artemis: 74, 102-104, 133, 135, 308, 328, 329 Asklepios: 33-34 the Augusti: 61-65, 306 Augustus: 3, 56, 100 Caesar: 147 Caracalla: 123 Caracalla & Asklepios: 183 Coin representations: 31, 32, 45, 160, 195, 196, 309, 310, 311 Commodus: 123, 214, 215, 308 Demeter: 156 Demeter & Kore: 95, 95 n. 68 Didymaion: 56 Elagabalus: 111, 240 Elagabalus & Apollo: 183 Gens Septimia Aurelia: 108 Gordian III: 240 Hadrian: 45, 68, 80, 86, 283, 304, 307 Men (Moon-god): 135, 136, 184 Nero: 62 Olympieion: 68 Persephone: 94 Rome: 50 Rome & Augustus: 3, 23, 25, 163, 166-173, 276, 306 Rome & Iulius Caesar: 163, 164 Severus Alexander: 240 Severus Alexander & Asklepios: 183 Tiberius: 56, 100 Tiberius, Julia & the Senate: 3, 41, 100 Trajan & Zeus Philios: 3, 23-26, 28, 306 Tyche: 45 Vespasian: 107, 108 Zeus: 116-118, 264, 328 Zeus Akraios: 45, 46 Zeus Asklepios: 33 Zeus & Trajan: 3, 23-26, 28, 306 Tetrarchy: 185, 186 Theodosian Code: 303, 304 Theodosius I: 64, 304 Theodosius II: 304 Theologos: 24, 44, 66, 152 Thesmodos: 66 Thessalonike (Macedonia): 10, 198-204 Coins: 198-204 Neokoria: 10, 198-204 Thrace (cities): 236-245 Perinthos: 236-242 Philippopolis: 243-245 Thrasymedes: 32 Three Eparchies: 213, 220, 221, 223, 227, 228, 250 Tiberius: 3, 38, 39, 246, 276, 277, 362, 363 Q. Tineius Sacerdos (proconsul): 83 Titulature: 34, 69, 138 n. 28, 171, 178, 186, 187, 199, 200, 202, 203, 214, 218, 224, 227, 231, 241, 250, 253, 254, 255, 258, 268, 285, 289, 290, 301, 302, 343, 351357 Titus: 65, 279, 363 Traianeia Deiphileia (festival): 24

422

general index

Trajan: 22, 23, 25, 27, 36, 42, 279-281, 363 Neokoria: 23, 279-281 Statues: 27, 36 Trajan Decius: 199, 202, 226-228, 232, 263, 299, 300, 366 Condemnation of memory: 202, 227 Neokoria: 199, 226-228 Tralles (Lydia): 81, 130-132 Coins: 130-132 Neokoria: 130-132 Tranquillina: 83 Trebonianus Gallus: 227, 299-300 C. Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus: 254 Tripolis (Phoenicia): 252 Tyche: 82

Valeriana Ammia (chief priestess): 194 Valerius Asiaticus Saturninus (proconsul): 79 Valerius Naso: 40 Valerius Philoxenos: 192, 194 Vandals: 296, 304 Vedii: 43-51, 69 P. Vedius Pollio: 370, 371 Cn. Vergilius Capito (chief priest): 57 Vespasian: 2, 61, 191 n. 4, 213, 277, 278 Vestal Virgins: 5 C. Vibius Salutaris (proconsul): 79 Visigoths: 304 Visits, Imperial: 282 Vitellius: 277 Vulnerability of Provinces: 181, 182

T. Ulpius Aelianus Papianus: 152 n. 40 Ulpius Apollonius Plautus: 73, 82, 334, 335 M. Ulpius Appuleius Eurykles (chief priest): 47 n. 71, 117, 118 M. Ulpius Appuleius Flavianus: 116, 117 M. Ulpius Senecio Saturninus: 95, 96, 98 M. Ulpius Traianus (proconsul): 45

Women as neokoroi: Wreaths: 112, 113

Valens: 203 Valentinian: 304 Valerian: 78, 97, 181, 181-185, 232, 300-302, 314, 366 Neokoria: 78, 181-185, 301, 302 Valerian & Gallienus: 159-161, 173, 174, 300-302

5

Zeno: 264 Zenobia: 174 Zenon: 190 Zeus: 23 Laodikeus: 121 Larasios: 130, 131 Olympios: 264 Polieus: 104 Zosimus: 297

PLATES

1. Ankyra: Temple of Augustus and Rome.

2. Ephesos: Temple of the Augusti.

3. Miletos: Temple of Apollo at Didyma.

4. Pergamon: Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.

5. Ephesos: Temple (of Hadrian?) (hypothetical).

6. Pergamon: Round temple in Asklepieion.

7. Kyzikos: Temple of Hadrian.

8. Sagalassos: Temple of Antoninus Pius.

9. Sardis: Temple of Artemis.

10. Sardis: Pseudodipteros.

11. Tarsos: temple at Donukta×.

12. Neapolis: temple on Tell er-Ras.

13. Aizanoi: Temple of Zeus.

14. Ephesos: Temple of Artemis.

15. Magnesia: Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.

17. Ephesos: temenos, Temple of the Augusti. 16. Miletos: temenos, Temple of Apollo at Didyma .

18. Pergamon: temenos, Temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan.

19. Ephesos: temenos, Temple (of Hadrian?).

20. Sagalassos: temenos, Temple of Antoninus Pius.

21. Aizanoi: temenos, Temple of Zeus.

22. Magnesia: temenos, Temple of Artemis Leukophryene.

23. Pergamon: fragments of colossi of Trajan or Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281/282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

24. Pergamon: colossal head of Trajan, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 281. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

25. Pergamon: colossal head of Hadrian, Berlin, AvP 7.2 no. 282. Photo: Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

26. Ephesos: colossal head of Titus, Izmir Arkeoloji Müzesi Inv. 670. Photo: Brian Rose.

27. Ephesos: reconstruction, colossus of Titus. Drawing: Robert Hagerty.

28. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, front with headdress. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

29. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

30. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress left side/rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

31. Ephesos: statue of ‘great Artemis,’ Selçuk Museum inv. 712, headdress right side/ rear. Photo: Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut.

32. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

33. Sardis: colossal head of Antoninus Pius, S61.27:15, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

34. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, front. Photo: copyright Trustees of the British Museum.

35. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.310-1, front from below. Photo: Brian Rose.

36. Sardis: colossal head of Faustina the Elder, British Museum no. 1936.3-10-1, side view. Photo: Brian Rose.

37. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, back. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

38. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

39. Sardis: colossal head of Marcus Aurelius, S61.27:14, left profile. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

40. Sardis: colossal head of Lucius Verus, S96.008:110484, front. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

41. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T. Photo: Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri.

42. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, front. Photo: Brian Rose.

43. Sardis: colossal head of Lucilla, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri 4038T, left side. Photo: Brian Rose.

44. Sardis: fragment of colossal head of Faustina the Younger? S61.027:2. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

45. Sardis: colossal fragment with diadem, S61.27:1. Photo: copyright Archaeological Exploration of Sardis/Harvard University.

46. Pergamon coin type 2 a) BMCRE 228.

47. Pergamon coin type 4 e) London 1979-1-1-1590.

48. Pergamon coin type 6 b) BMC 254.

49. Pergamon coin type 10 a) London 1894.7-6-38.

50. Pergamon coin type 13 d) BMC 266.

51. Pergamon coin type 14 a) BMC 262.

52. Pergamon coin type 17 a) BMC 267.

53. Pergamon coin type 18 a) London 1901.6-1-41.

54. Pergamon coin type 19 a) BMC 308. 55. Pergamon coin type 21 a) SNGParis 2209.

56. Pergamon coin type 22 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.43356.

57. Pergamon coin type 23 k) New York, ANS 1944.100.43357.

58. Pergamon coin type 24 f) Munich.

59. Smyrna coin type 1 a) Vienna 17731.

60. Smyrna coin type 2 a) BMC 110.

61. Smyrna coin type 7 a) BMC 403.

62. Smyrna coin type 11 f) BMC 389.

63. Smyrna coin type 12 a) Paris 2689.

64. Smyrna coin type 24 b) Paris 2779.

65. Miletos coin type 1 a) Paris 1912.

66. Ephesos coin type 1 a) London 1972.8-7-12.

67. Ephesos coin type 2 a) London 1973.5-1-4.

68. Ephesos coin type 5 a) Paris 684.

69. Ephesos coin type 7 d) London 1961.3-1-234.

70. Ephesos coin type 13 a) BMC 292.

71. Ephesos coin type 16 a) BMC 269.

72. Ephesos coin type 17 a) Vienna 32385.

73. Ephesos coin type 18 f) Berlin, Fox.

74. Ephesos coin type 21 a) Paris 899.

75. Ephesos coin type 23 a) BMC 305.

76. Ephesos coin type 24 a) BMC 306.

77. Ephesos coin type 26 a) Berlin, Fox.

78. Kyzikos coin type 1 b) London 1961.3-1-172.

79. Kyzikos coin type 2 a) London 1893.4-5-2.

80. Kyzikos coin type 4 a) Berlin 955/1904.

81. Kyzikos coin type 6 a) SNGParis 780.

82. Kyzikos coin type 8 a) London 1919.4-17-147.

83. Kyzikos coin type 10 a) Paris 498.

84. Kyzikos coin type 11 c) Vienna 16188.

85. Kyzikos coin type 13 a) Vienna 16137.

86. Kyzikos coin type 14 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.42792.

87. Kyzikos coin type 15 a) BMC 199.

88. Kyzikos coin type 16 c) Vienna 30574.

89. Sardis coin type 2 a) Paris 1248A.

90. Sardis coin type 5 b) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

91. Sardis coin type 6 a) BMC 171.

92. Sardis coin type 7 a) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 17.57.

93. Sardis coin type 8 a) Vienna 19587.

94. Aizanoi coin type 2 a) Paris 241.

95. Laodikeia coin type 2 a) Paris 1611.

96. Laodikeia coin type 3 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

97. Laodikeia coin type 5 a) Paris 1617.

98. Laodikeia coin type 11 a) Berlin Löbbecke.

99. Laodikeia coin type 8 a) Berlin 664/1914.

100. Laodikeia coin type 9 a) Boston MFA 1971.45, © 2002 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

101. Philadelphia coin type 1 e) New York, ANS 1971.279.56.

102. Philadelphia coin type 2 a) BMC 94.

103. Tralles coin type 1 c) Paris 1698.

104. Antandros coin type 1 a) Athens, Numismatic Museum.

105. Hierapolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

106. Hierapolis coin type 2 a) Berlin, Löbbecke.

107. Hierapolis coin type 4 h) Berlin, Löbbecke.

108. Magnesia coin type 1 a) Vienna 34601.

109. Nikomedia coin type 2 y) London 1928.5-5-1.

110. Nikomedia coin type 3 b) BMCRE 1097.

111. Nikomedia coin type 4 a) BMC 9.

112. Nikomedia coin type 5 a) Vienna 39125

113. Nikomedia coin type 7 a) BMC 32

114. Nikomedia coin type 8 b) Paris 1342.

115. Nikomedia coin type 9 b) London 1920.1-11-2.

116. Nikomedia coin type 11 a) Berlin, Fox.

117. Nikomedia coin type 12 a) Paris 1347.

118. Nikomedia coin type 16 a) London 1961.3-1-123.

119. Nikomedia coin type 17 a) Berlin 5206 JF.

120. Nikomedia coin type 21 a) Berlin 703/1878.

121. Nikomedia coin type 22 a) Paris 1357.

122. Nikomedia coin type 24 a) Berlin, von Rauch.

123. Nikomedia coin type 26 a) Paris 1401.

124. Nikomedia coin type 27 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.42315.

125. Nikomedia coin type 28 c) Berlin, Bonnet.

126. Nikomedia coin type 29 a) Vienna 15815.

127. Nikomedia coin type 31 a) London 1970.9-9-46.

128. Nikomedia coin type 32 a) Paris 1418.

129. Nikomedia coin type 37 a) New York, ANS 71.279.

130. Nikomedia coin type 50 n) Vienna 34453.

131. Nikomedia coin type 51 a) Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 11-7-1938.

132 Nikomedia coin type 56 a) London 1961.3-1-131.

133. Nikaia coin type 1 a) New York, ANS 73.191.

134. Ankyra coin type 2 a) SNGParis 2407.

135. Ankyra coin type 3 a) London 1975.4-11-188.

136. Ankyra coin type 7 a) SNGParis 2484.

137. Ankyra coin type 8 a) SNGParis 2530.

138. Ankyra coin type 10 c) New York 58.44.14.

139. Perge coin type 1 b) Berlin 974/1901.

140. Perge coin type 2 e) SNGParis 554.

141. Perge coin type 3 k) Vienna 28792.

142. Perge coin type 5 a) SNGParis 617.

143. Side coin type 1 a) BMC 111.

144. Side coin type 5 a) London 1970.9-9-167.

145. Side coin type 8 a) London 1969.10-21-7.

146. Side coin type 10 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

147. Side coin type 11 b) New York, ANS 1944.100.50964.

148. Side coin type 13 b) SNGParis 882.

149. Aspendos coin type 1 a) London 1921.4-12-117.

150. Beroia coin type 1 b) Berlin, Fox.

151. Beroia coin type 2 e) Berlin 698/1929.

152. Beroia coin type 6 a) Paris 160.

153. Beroia coin type 7 b) Paris 161.

154. Beroia coin type 8 a) Berlin, Löbbecke.

155. Beroia coin type 10 a) Paris 164.

156. Beroia coin type 11 a) Paris 193.

157. Thessalonike coin type 4 a) London 1972.8-7-5.

158. Thessalonike coin type 8 b) Paris 1507.

159. Thessalonike coin type 9 a) Paris 1508.

160. Thessalonike coin type 10 a) Vienna 10084.

161. Neokaisareia coin type 1 a) Paris 1277.

162. Neokaisareia coin type 3 a) Berlin 7909.

163. Neokaisareia coin type 6 a) London 1973.1-12-2.

164. Neokaisareia coin type 11 b) Paris 1972.922.

165. Amaseia coin type 1 f, obv.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41180.

166. Amaseia coin type 1 g, rev.) New York, ANS 1944.100.41179.

167. Amaseia coin type 2 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.41218.

168. Tarsos coin type 1 a) BMC 159.

169. Tarsos coin type 3 b) BMC 138.

170. Tarsos coin type 5 a) SNGParis 1462.

171. Tarsos coin type 5 c) SNGParis 1463.

172. Tarsos coin type 8 a) SNGParis 1473.

173. Tarsos coin type 9 a) SNGParis 1514.

174. Tarsos coin type 12 a) London 1919.8-22-10.

175. Anazarbos coin type 1 a) London 1962.11-15-2.

176. Anazarbos coin type 2 a) London 1970-9-9-206.

177. Anazarbos coin type 8 b) London 1970.9-9-208.

178. Aigeai coin type 4 b) London 1962.11-15-1.

179. Aigeai coin type 6 a) London 1975.4-11-296.

180. Aigeai coin type 7 c) New York, ANS 1944.100.53037.

181. Perinthos coin type 1 a) BMC 33.

182. Perinthos coin type 4 f) Vienna 8892.

183. Perinthos coin type 10 a) BMC 41.

184. Perinthos coin type 11 a) Munich.

185. Perinthos coin type 12 d) New York, ANS 1967.152.225.

186. Perinthos coin type 16 a) Paris 1201.

187. Perinthos coin type 19 a) Paris 1191.

188. Perinthos coin type 21 a) Paris 1216.

189. Philippopolis coin type 1 a) Berlin, Dressel.

190. Philippopolis coin type 2 a) Vienna 32498.

191. Philippopolis coin type 3 a) Vienna 9047.

192. Philippopolis coin type 5 b) Paris 1355.

193. Kaisareia coin type 1 a) Berlin 709/1914.

194. Kaisareia coin type 2 b) Berlin, Löbbecke.

195. Kaisareia coin type 4 b) Paris 602.

196. Kaisareia coin type 7 a) Berlin, Imhoof-Blumer.

197. Neapolis coin type 1 a) BMC 138.