INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Beil & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9201720

The Western Pontic cities: History and political organization

Nawotka, Krzysztof Dariusz, Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1991

Copyright ©1991 by Nawotka, Krzysztof Dariusz. All rights reserved.

UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106

THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES: HISTORY AND POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Krzysztof Dariusz Nawotka, M.A.

The Ohio State University

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Stephen V. Tracy

A. Geoffrey Woodhead li—C-lJl Adviser June W. Allison Department of Classics Copyright by Krzysztof Dariusz Nawotka 1991 Taoxfl ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of a work of this magnitude would have not been possible without the assistance of many people and institutions. In the first place I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Tadeusz Kotula of the University of

Wroclaw who introduced me to the study of the ancient governments and guided my first steps when I began researching the political organization of the Western

Pontus. I owe much to Professor W. George G. Forrest who supervised my graduate work at Oxford. My greatest thanks go to my dissertation advisors, Professors Stephen V. Tracy and

A. Geoffrey Woodhead. I deeply appreciate their thoroughness, candor and patience. My work has profited enormously from their insightful criticism. Likewise, I acknowledge the perceptive comments and efforts on my behalf by the other members of my committee, Professors June w.

Allison, Charles L. Babcock, and the Graduate School representative during my defence, Professor Jack M. Balcer.

I wish to thank the University of Wroclaw, the

University of Oxford, the Batory Foundation and the Ohio

State University for the financial support during my graduate study and for putting the resources of their libraries at my disposal.

During all those years of the graduate work leading to the completion of this dissertation I have experienced the unswerving and loving support of my wife, Malgorzata

Mo2d4ynska-Nawotka. This work is dedicated to her as a token of my deepest gratitude. VITA

October 24, 1960...... Born - Wroclaw, Poland

1983...... M.A., University of Wroclaw

19 84-1986...... Research and Teaching Assistant, Historical Institut, University of Wroclaw

1986-1987...... Visiting Graduate Student, University of Oxford

1988-Present...... Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Classics, Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

1. "Problematyka mezyjska w Kodeksie Teodozjusza," (The Problems of Moesia in the Theodosian Code) Balcanica Posnaniensia 1 (1984): 245-254.

2. "Zgromadzenia prowincjonalne w rzymskich prowincjach naddunajskich," (The Provincial Assemblies in the Danubian Provinces) Antiquitas 13 (1987): 163-200.

3."The Attitude towards Rome in the Political Propaganda of the Bosporan Monarchs," Latomus 48 (1989): 326-338.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Classics.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA...... v

LIST OF TABLES...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES...... ix

ABBREVIATIONS...... X

INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER...... PAGE

I. POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES.. 10

1. Foundation of Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessos, Mesambria...... 10 2. Western Pontic Cities in the autonomous period to the end of the second century B.C...... 32 3. Mithridates VI and the advent of Rome...... 47 4. Pax Romana in the Western Pontus...... 64

II. STATUS OF THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES UNDER ROMAN RULE 7 3

III. DIVISIONS OF THE CITIZEN BODY IN THE WESTERN PONTUS...... 91

1. Miletus 9 2 a) The tribal system in Miletus...... 92 b) Tribes in the Milesian colonies...... 96 2. Megara...... 107 a) The tribal system in Megara...... 107 b) Tribes in the Megarian colonies...... 108 3. Clisthenic tribes...... 114 4. The tribe of the Romans...... 116

vi IV. HIERARCHY OF OFFICES...... 119

A. EPONYMOUS OFFICES...... 119 1. Eponymous magistrates in Istros, Odessos, Tomis and Dionysopolis...... 119 2. Eponymous magistrates in Callatis and Mesambria...... 144

B. OTHER OFFICES...... 157 1. Istros...... 157 2. Tomis...... 182 3. Dionysopolis...... 197 4. Odessos...... 201 5 . Callatis...... 214 6. Mesambria...... 221

V. THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES...... 237

1. Colonies of Miletus (Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis, Odessos )...... 237 2. Colonies of Megara (Mesambria, Callatis) 250

VI. THE PONTIC KOINON...... 263

CONCLUSIONS...... 295

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 299

vii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 . Municipal Offices in Westerm Pontus...... 235

2 . Presidents of the Western Pontic League...... 290

viii LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Map of Dobrudja...... 298

ix ABBREVIATIONS

AA Archaologischer Anzeiger.

AAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology.

AAR Analele Academiei RomMne.

AEM Archaologisch-epigraphlsche

Mitteilungen aus Qsterreich-Ungarn.

Atp L'AnnSe Spigraphique.

ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen

Welt. Geschichte und Kultur im Spiegel

der neueren Forschung.

Ant. Cl. L'AntiquitS Classique.

Antiquitas Antiquitas. Acta Universitatis

Wratislaviensis.

ATL B. D. Meritt et al., The Athenian

Tribute Lists.

Athenaeum Athenaeum. Studi periodici di

Letteratura e Storia dell'Antichita.

BAR British Archaeologicla Reports.

BCH Bulletin de Correspondance HellSnique.

B$p Bulletin Spigraphique.

x BMC Catalogue of Greek Coins in the

British Museum.

BSA Annual of the British School at

Athens.

CAH Cambridge Ancient History.

CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

Cl.Q. Classical Quarterly.

C.Ph. Classical Philology.

CRAI Comptes-rendus des stances de

1'Acad6mie des Inscriptions et

Bel1es-Lettres.

Dacia Dacia. Revue d'arch6ologie et

d'histoire ancienne.

DHA Dialogues d'histoire ancienne.

EA Epigraphica Anatolica. Zeitschrift fiir

Epigraphik und historische Geographie

Anatoliens.

Eos Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae

Polonorum.

Epigraphica Epigraphica. Rivista italiana di

epigrafia.

FGrH F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der

griechischen Historiker.

GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen

Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. xii

GHI M. N. Tod, Greek Historical

Inscriptions.

GRBS Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies.

GSU FF Godishnik na sofiyskiya universitet.

Filologicheski fakultet.

GSU IF Godishnik na sofiyskiya universitet.

Istoricheski fakultet.

Historla Historia. Zeitschrift fur alte

Geschichte.

IAI Izvestiya na B31garskiya

arkheologicheski institut.

IG Inscriptiones Graecae.

IGB G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in

Bulgaria repertae.

IGR R. Cagnat, Inscriptiones Graecae ad

res Romanas pertinentes.

IID Izvestiya na BSlgarskoto istorichesko

druzhestvo.

ILLRR Inscriptiones Latinae liberae rei

publicae.

INMV Izvestiya na Narodniya muzey Varna.

Inschr. Kalchedon R. Merkelbach et al., Die Inschriften

von Kalchedon.

Inschr. Priene F. Hiller von Gaertingen, Die

Inschriften von Priene.

101b. N. Levi et al., Inscriptiones Olbiae. IOSPE B. Latyschew, Inscriptiones orae

septentrionalis Ponti Euxini.

IPr. Istoricheski pregled.

ISM Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae

et Latinae.

INMB Izvestiya na Narodniya muzey v Burgas.

JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

JOAI Jahreshefte des dsterreichischen

Archaologischen Instituts in Wien.

KSIMK Kratkiye soobshcheniya Instituta

istorii materialnoy kultury.

LGPN A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names.

LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones,

A Greek-English Lexicon.

MAMA Monuments Asiae Minoris Antiqua.

MH Museum Helveticum.

NC Numismatic Chronicle and Journal of

the Numismatic Society.

NEH Nouvelles dtudes d'histoire.

Num. i Sfr. Numizmatika i Sfragistika.

NZft. Mumismatische Zeitschrift.

OGIS G. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae

Inscriptiones Selectae.

Philologus Philologus. Zeitschrift fur das

klassische Altertum.

RA Revue archdologique.

xiii RBN Revue Beige de Numismatique et

Sigillographie.

RDGE J. Sherk, Roman Documents from the

Greek East.

RE Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen

Altertumswissenschaft.

REA Revue des Studes anciennes.

REESE Revue des dtudes sud-est europden.

REG Revue des dtudes grecques.

REL Revue des Studes latines.

Rev. Phil, Revue de philologie, de littSrature et

d'histoire ancienne.

RRH Revue roumaine d'histoire.

SCIV Studii $i cercetSri de istoria veche.

SCN Studii $i cercetSri de numismatics.

SEG Supplementum epigraphicum Graecum.

SEHHW M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and

Economic History of the Hellenistic

World.

SGDI H. Colitz, F. Bechtel, Sammlung der

griechischen Dialektinschriften.

SIG W. Dittenberg, Sylloge inscriptionum

Graecarum.

St.Cl. Studii clasice.

TAPhA Transactions and Proceedings of the

American Philological Association.

xiv VDI Vestnik Drevney Istorii.

ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und

Epigraphik.

xv INTRODUCTION

In antiquity the western coast of the Black Sea was dotted with Greek cities. This work is concerned with the political

organization of six of them: Istros, Tomis, Callatis,

Dionysopolis, Odessos and Mesambria. The chronological

framework of my study is marked by the period of colonization

on the one hand and by the mid third century A.D. on the

other. The second date has not been chosen arbitrarily ; it is

necessitated by historical circumstances. Invasions of the

Goths in the mid third century A.D. caused wide-spread

destruction on the western coast of the Black Sea. Very few

written sources produced later than ca. A.D. 250 are extant,

which makes studying the governments of Istros, Tomis,

Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessos and Mesambria in the second

half of the third century A.D. practically impossible.

Moreover, the civic life assumed new forms after it was

restored and completely reorganized under Diocletian and

Constantine the Great. Therefore the scope of this study is

limited to the period preceding the year A.D. 250.

Four of the cities of our interest (Istros, Tomis,

Dionysopolis, Odessos) were planted by Miletus; Callatis and

1 2

Mesambria belonged to the colonization cycle of Megara. For a long time these poleis shared a common historical experience and they frequently interacted which each other.

In the first century A.D. they were part of Moesia; after the division of this province (ca. A.D. 86) Istros, Tomis,

Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessos and Mesambria remained in

Moesia Inferior. Both in the Roman epoch and earlier these

Greek cities retained their distinctive identity against the background of the native hinterland. They were never completely assimilated into the mostly Latin provinces of

Moesia and Moesia Inferior. In the late first century B.C. -

first century A.D. these cities were encompassed by a Roman praefectura orae maritimae (ripae Thraciae). Later, at some point, they participated in a league of cities called

Eum.o<; II6vtoc (Left, i.e. Western Pontus). The historical circumstances made the Western Pontic cities a comparatively self-contained unit. This warrants their selection as the subject of this study.

The following topics will be addressed in this study:

1. what was the nature of the constitutions of these cities? were they governed by democracy or oligarchy? can any constitutional evolution be traced?

2. how was the citizen body divided? were the tribal systems in the Western Pontic cities mere reflections of those in their metropoleis? 3

3. what was the status of these cities under Roman rule? were they civitates foederatae, (sine foedere) liberae et immunes or just plain civitates stipendiariae? was their status the same from the beginning of the Roman rule to the mid third century A.D.?

4. what magistracies are known in these cities? what can be said about their responsibilities; were all offices in

Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysoplis, Odessos and Mesambria modelled on magistracies of their respective metropoleis?

This dissertation will deal also with the Western Pontic league. It will begin with a brief historical account, which will establish the chronological framework for this study.

This introductory chapter is also intended to provide a prospective reader with some background information concerning little known cities.

All of these Western Pontic cities were located on the sea shore.1 The original colonists chose the sites very carefully, providing the newly established settlements with good harbors. Indeed the most important sea ports of modern

Romania and Bulgaria (Constanta and Varna) are situated in

:The first chapter (R. Davidova, "Prirodno-geografski usloviya v Dobrudzha," 9-22) of the Istoria na Dobrudzha, ed. A. Fol and S. Dimitrov (Sofia 1984) contains a concise up-to-date account of the physical geography of Dobrudja. The historical geography of the Western Pontic region was studied by J. Weiss (Die Dobrudscha im Alter turn, historische Landschaftskunde [Sarajevo 1911]) and G. A. Short ("The Siting of Greek Colonies on the Black Sea Coasts of Bulgaria and Romania," AAA 24 [1937]: 141-155). places occupied in antiquity by two of our cities: Tomis and

Odessos, respectively.

The Western Pontus occupies the north-eastern extremity of the Balkan peninsula. The northernmost of the cities of our interest, Istros, is located south of the mouth of the

Danube. The southernmost, Mesambria, occupies an off-shore island (now connected with the mainland by an isthmus) just to the south of the Haemus (Stara Planina) mountains.

Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis and Odessos geographically belong to Dobrudja (spelled also Dobruja and

Dobrudzha) which in antiquity was frequently referred to as

Scythia Minor. Dobrudja constitutes a tableland elevated above the Black Sea and the lower Danube; its highest point is Mount MScin (467 m). It is covered with fertile soil, mostly black earth, rich in loess and humus.

Due to its location on the Black Sea shores the Western

Pontic area enjoys a temperate continental climate with the average yearly air temperature of 11.8° C (= 53.24° F). In

January (the coldest month) the temperature stays around 2°

C (= 35.6° F), yet the lowest recorded temperature in

Constanta (Tomis) is -20.7° C (= -5.26° F). In summer the air temperature is usually 22-23° C (= 71.6 - 73.4° F); only exceptionally does it reach 35-40° C (= 95 - 104° F). The

Western Pontic area does not receive a sufficient amount of rainfall - it averages out at 450 mm (= 17.72 inches) a 5 year.2

Good soil and the temperate climate created favorable conditions for agriculture, which was the economic basis of the Western Pontic cities. Fish were (and still are) plentiful in the off-shore waters at the delta of the Danube and the coastal limans. Istros certainly, and presumably some other cites too, depended greatly on the fishing industry for its economic well being.

The Western Pontic cities have been the object of scholarly interest since the first half of the XIXth century.3 However, their political organization has never been studied in detail. There is only one article fully devoted to the administration and constitutions of the

Western Pontic cities, and it deals only with the pre-Roman state of affairs.4 Of course the constitutional issues are discussed or at least alluded to in historical monographs of the Western Pontic cities, Dobrudja and Moesia. The earliest of them is the doctoral dissertation of Kleinsorge,5 based

The above data refer to modern times and approximates only to climate conditions in antiquity in imperfect way.

Modern-day research was inaugurated with a short study of H. L. Polsbrew, De rebus Chersonesitarum et Callatlanorum (Berlin. Program des Real-Gymnasium 1838), about Callatis: pp. 18-22.

4T. V. Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennye ustroystva zapadnopontiyskikh gorodov v epokhu ich avtonomii," VDI (1949, 3): 36-45.

sDe civitatum Graecarum in Ponti Euxini ora occidentali sitarum rebus (Halle 1888). 6 on the very limited sources available in the 1880s and therefore quite obsolete now. The best and the most thoroughly researched monograph was written by D. M.

Pippidi.6 Three earlier books, written by Chr. Danov, T. D.

Zlatkovskaya and T. V. Blavatskaya, are worth mentioning too.7 Danov also wrote an article "Pontos Euxeinos" in the

RE (Suppl. 9) in which he discussed the state of research on the Western Pontic cities, however, without contributing much to our knowledge of this area. 0. Tafrali's book on

Dionysopolis is of very limited value because of the author's proclivity towards unsubstantiated hypotheses. The monograph on Mesambria by M. Konstantinides is not much better.9

Two historical monographs on Dobrudja were published in the 1980s.10 Both are disappointing: in RSdulescu's,

6J Greci nel Basso Danubio dall'etS arcaica alia conquista romana (Milan 1971); this book is an expanded, Italian version of Pippidi's chapters of: D. Berciu, D. M. Pippidi, Geti $1 Greci la Dunarea de Jos din cele unei vechi timpuri piua la cucevirea romana (Bucuresti 1965).

7Danov, Zapadniyat briag na Cherno More v drevnosta (Sofia 1947); Zlatkovskaya, Meziya v I-II vekakh n.e. (Moscow 1951); Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske goroda v VII-I vekakh do nashey ery (Moscow 1952).

8La citS pontique de Dionysopolis, Kali-Akra, Cavarna, TekS et EcrSnS (Paris 1927).

9,H MTjcrTinPpta tou Eti£6(voi> (Athens 1945); cf. Mihailov's review in IAI 17 (1950): 350.

10A. RSdulescu, I. Bitoleanu, A Concise History of Dobruja (Bucharest 1984) - chapters concerned with antiquity 7

Yordanov's and Velkov's very concise narrations the constitutional arrangements of the Western Pontic cities are barely mentioned at all. Reference to sources and secondary literature is at best inadequate in both these monographs and their authors frequently employ outmoded hypotheses.11

Innumerable articles on specific aspects and artifacts from the Western Pontic cities have been published in scholarly journals for the last 150 years. It is utterly impossible to discuss them here. One should not forget, however, the significant contributions made by D. M.

Pippidi, G. Mihailov, Chr. Danov, B. Gerov, G. Kazarov, E.

Doru'tiu-Boiia, I. Stoian, A. Stefan, Th. Sauciuc-SSveanu, R.

Vulpe, to name just a few.12

Last but not least, the works concerned with the

were written by RSdulescu; Istoriya na Dobrudzha, ed. A. Fol, S. Dimitrov, vol. 1 (Sofia 1984) - chapters covering the Western Pontic cities were written by K. Yordanov and V. Velkov.

ilCf. deservedly critical review of the Istoriya na Dobrudzha: P. Alexandrescu, A. Suceveany, "Une nouvelle histoire de la Dobroudja," Dacia 32 (1988): 163-17 3.

12Some of Pippidi's most important articles were edited and re-edited in the following collections: Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischen und romischen Zeit (Berlin 1962); Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecgues du littoral roumain de la mer Noire (Bucure?ti-Amsterdam 1975); Parerga. Merits de philologie, d ’Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne (Paris- Bucurest 1984). Stoian's articles related to Istros were re- edited as Etudes Histriennes (Bruxelles 1972). At least one fundamental article by Vulpe must be mentioned here: "Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja," in La Dobroudja (Bucure§ti 1938). 8 constitutions and colonization of Miletus and Megara greatly aided the author of this dissertation. Very thorough monographs written by K. Hanell and N. Ehrhardt13 must be acknowledged here. The works of C. Roebuck, S. M. Burstein and R. P. Legon14 are also of some importance. A modern monograph of Byzantium and Calchedon (the metropolies of

Mesambria) is still wanting.15

Very few literary sources pertaining to the Western

Pontic cities are extant and, with the exception of

Aristotle's Politics, they are irrelevant for studying governmental issues. Therefore this dissertation is based almost entirely on epigraphical material. Greek and Latin

13K. Hanell, Megarische Studien (Lund 1934); N. Ehrhardt, Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen (Frankfurt a.M. 1983). There is also an old monograph on the Ionian colonization which covers Milesian colonies too (F. Bilabel, Die ionische Kolonisation, vol. 14.1 of the Philologus Suppl. [Leipzig 1920]). Ehrhardt's book supersedes it in most respects.

14C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York 1959); S. M. Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea (Berkeley 1976); R. P. Legon, Megara. The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C. (Ithaca-London 1981).

15The doctoral dissertation of H. Merle (Die Geschichte der Stadte Byzantium und Kalchedon von ihrer Griindung bis zum Eingreifen der Rdmer in die Verhaltnisse des Ostens [Kiel 1916]) is quite dated. The monograph of Byzantium written by V. P. Nevskaya (Vizantiy v klassicheskuyu i ellinisticheskuyu epokhi [Moscow 1953]) combines Marxist methodology with the author's inadequate knowledge of sources and secondary literature, and therefore it is practically worthless. Cf. Robert's deservedly harsh review in the Btp 1958, 320, pp. 270-276. 9 inscriptions from Istros uncovered before 1981 were published by Pippidi,16 those from Tomis - by Stoian.17

Mihailov published Greek inscriptions from Dionysopolis,

Odessos and Mesambria uncovered before 1969.18 Latin inscriptions from these cities must be consulted in vol. 3 of CIL and Ann4e dpigraphique. Inscriptions uncovered after

Mihailov, Pippidi and Stoian had closed the manuscripts of their corpora can be seen in the Supplementum Epigraphicuw

Graecum. No corpus of inscriptions from Callatis has been published (yet). The inscriptions from this city are scattered among numerous journals; some of them were reprinted in the SEG and AlSp. One category of inscriptions is not included in corporal those on weights and amphoras, frequently mentioning the names of market officials. They are often published in numismatic journals. I have attempted to consult all relevant material published up to the present time.

16Inscrippiile din Scythia Minor grece?ti $i latine, vol. Is Histria $i imprejurimile (Bucure?ti 1983); the inscriptions are accompanied by ample commentaries in Romanian.

17ISM, vol. 2s Tomis $i teritoriul sSu (Bucure§ti 1987) (indices prepared by Al. Suceveanu). As in Pippidi's corpus there are also Romanian commentaries, but of much lesser quality. Stoian frequently refrains from dating inscriptions.

18Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae, vol. I2 (Sofia 1970). There are short Latin commentaries accompanying the inscriptions in this corpus. CHAPTER I: POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES.

1. Foundation of Istros. Tomis. Callatis, Dionysopolis,

Odessos. Mesambria.

Since the earliest times the area between the lower

Danube and the Black Sea was inhabited by Thracian tribes,1 most of them identified as Getae. Chr. Danov remarked that five out of the six cities in question (Istros, Tomis,

Callatis, Odessos, Mesambria) and also Bizone had Thracian names and therefore they were founded on sites of previously existing Thracian settlements.2

Both the names of these cities and the archaeological data should be investigated more carefully in order to

^here is no need to dwell any longer upon this vastly discussed subject, for recent works, cf. R. A. Crossland, "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area," in CAH 3z.l, 836- 839; K. Yordanov, "Dobrudzha prez I khil. pr. n. e. Geti," in Istoriya na Dobrudzha, T. 1, Pod red. na A. Fol (Sofia 1984), 72-80.

2Chr. Danov, Zapadniyat bryag na Cherno more v drevnosta (Sofia 1947), 100; idem, "Thracian Penetration into the Greek Cities on the West Coast of the Black Sea," Klio 38 (I960): 75. Cf. V. Velkov, "GrScka kolonizacia," in Istoriya na Dobrudzha, 96; B. Isaac, The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Leiden 1986), 250, 263, 267.

10 11 verify Danov's hypothesis. There is, however, no need to consider Dionysopolis in this context, because the name is undoubtedly Greek. The city was originally called Kpouvoi, or Crunos in Latin and the name Dionysopolis was adopted probably toward the end of the third century B.C.4 The name

Krounoi seems to be Greek5 too, at any rate neither Detschew nor Velkova quotes it among Thracian glossae.6

Istros was so named after the river on the mouth of which it was situated.7 But, as Detschew8 remarked, the name Istros was attested also outside Thrace (most notably on Crete and among the Illyrians) and therefore, in my opinion, one cannot be sure whether Istros is really the

3Ps.-Scymnus 751-752; Periplus Ponti Euxini 78-79; Steph. Byz. Eth. 233, s.v. Aiovuaou n6Ai<;; Plin. NH 4.44; cf. Strabo 7.6.1; Pomp. Mela, Chron. 2.2.22. The name Krounoi is attested epigraphically in an inscription from Vasadis in Pisidia: Ad. Wilhelm, "Zu griechischen Epigrammen," BCH 29 (1905): 413f.

4Danov, Zapadniyat, 97; cf. 0. Tafrali, La cit£ pontique de Dionysopolis, Kali-Acra, Cavarna, Tek6 et Ecr6ne (Paris 1927), lOff; R. Vulpe, "Gerania, Cranea, Ecrene," Balcania 6 (1943): 14-20; Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 49f for bibliographic reference to this topic and that of identity of Dionysopolis and Krounoi.

5Ps .-Scymnus, Periplus Ponti Euxini, St. Byz., loc. cit. (n . 3).

6D ^ Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste (Vienna 1957); Z. Velkova, The Thracian Glosses. Contribution to the Study of the Thracian Vocabulary (Amsterdam 1986).

7Ps.-Scymnus 767f. Cf. Detschew, Thrakischen, 217f.

8Thrakischen, 219. 12 £ Thracian name. Careful excavations conducted on the site of Istros since 1914 produced no local pottery preceding the

Greek foundation or even contemporaneous with it.10 Thus the hypothesis of the Thracian origin of this city is at best doubtful and no further conclusion about a Thracian settlement preceding the Greek colonisation should be drawn based on the name Istros.

Ovid,11 Apollodorus (Bibliotheca 1.133) and Stephanus

Byzantius (Eth. 628, s.v. To|i€Cc) relate a mythological etymology of the name Tomis, as supposedly conveying a memory of Medea having there cut into pieces her brother

Apsyrtus. Another local legend created a hero Tomos, founder of the city, attested on coins minted under the

Antonines.12 These etymologies are most likely late

9See the discussion of etymology of the name Istros in: G. Schramm, Eroberer und Eingesessene: Geographische Lehnnamen als Zeugen der Geschichte Siidosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend n.Chr. (Stuttgart 1981), 229.

10S. Dimitriu, "Fizionomia cartierului de locuin^e extra muros de la Histria in perioda arhaica," SCIV 21 (1970): 225-233; idem, "La colonie mil§sienne d'Istros a l'6poque archa'ique et ses premiers contacts avec les indigenes," in Actes du IIs Congr&s International des fitudes du Sud-Est EuropGen (Athdnes, 7-13 mai 1970), 2 (Athens 1972): 265; D. M. Pippidi, ISM i, p. 23; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 270f.

n Tristia 3.9 - the whole poem is concerned with the etymological story and it ends in the following couplet: inde Tomis dictus locus hie, quia fertur in illo membra soror fratris consecuisse sui. (33-34)

12K. Regling, Die antiken Mtinzen von Dacien und Moesien, vol. 2 (Berlin 1910), 613ff (further reference, p. 613, n. 3). The name Tomos with the title fjpox; is attested on coins nos. 2547-2553, with the title kticjtiiC/ 2554-2570, without 13 inventions and the name of the city is probably of Thracian origin.13 Nothing, however, is known about any Thracian settlement preceding the Greek city.

According to Stephanus Byzantius (Eth. 348, s.v.

K&AAaxi c) the name Callatis comes from a vase-shaped basket

(K&Aa0oc), similar to those used in the festival of

Thesmophoria washed ashore, there. This etymology, however, is clearly false.14 The name Callatis is certainly non-

Greek, possibly a Thracian one. It may have been derived from the name of a river in Bithynia, close to

Heraclea Pontica - the metropolis of Callatis.15 Pliny the any title, 2571-2574. Cf. T. V. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske goroda v VII-I vekakh do nashey ery (Moscow 1952), 64. Regling (p. 589f ) accepts an etymology of the name of Tomis derived from xGpGiv.

13According to Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 20f), those etymological legends originated in the second century A.D. It may be proved only that they are attested for the first time in second century A.D. sources (i.e. in coin inscriptions, cf. n. 12). For the Thracian name of the ci ty see: Detschew, Thrakischen, 510f, s.v. Tdpoi; R. Vulpe, "Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja," in La Dobroudja (Bucuresti 1938), 62, n. 1; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 267. Etymologies of the name Tomis are discussed also By I. Stoian, "La cittA pontica di Tomis. Capitolo introduttivo alio studio Tomitane," Dacia 5 (1961): 233f.

14Detschew, Thrakischen, 223; cf. B. Pick, Die antiken Miinzen von Dacien und Moesien, vol. 1 (Berlin 1898), 83f; Vulpe, Histoire, 65.

15Discussion of the Thracian etymology of the name Callatis: Detschew, Thrakischen, 223f, s.v. K&AAaxi q ; cf. Isaac, Greek Settlements, 263. The Etymologicum Magnum, s.v. KaAA&xic reads: v6paaxai S' 6 xijc itapaicGiuGvric Aipvric. H. L. Polsbrew (De rebus Chersonesitarum et Callatianorum. Abhandlung, Berlin, Program des Real-Gymnasium 1838, 19f) 14

Elder (NH 4.44) writes that the original name of Callatis was Cerbatis. This information is not attested in any other source and it is difficult to assess its value.16 At any rate Vulpe 17 and Detschew 18 deem Cerbatis to be a Thracian name too. Yet archaeology does not provide any evidence confirming the existence of the alleged pre-Greek settlement on the site of Callatis.19

was the first to call the attention to the possibility of the Bithynian etymology of the name of Callatis; cf. Muller, commentary to his edition of the Geography of Ptolemy, 430; Pick, Antiken, 83f; N. Vulic, RE 10:1610f, s.v. "Kallatis". V. Velkov ("Belezhki za kolonizacyata i gradovete po nasheto Chernomorsko krayberezhe," IID 11-12 [1931-1932]: 35) discusses a possible Lycian origin of the name of Callatis (further reference there).

16Pick, Antiken, 84. S. M. Burstein (Outpost of Hellenism: The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea [Berkeley 1974], 25) thinks, that Cerbatis was a Thracian settlement occupying the site of future Callatis and later subdued by the Greek colonists. This is only Burstein's guess, not supported by any sources.

17Vulpe, "Histoire," 65.

18Thrakischen, 240, s.v. "Cerbatis."

19 No archaeological data from the period preceding the traditional date of the foundation of Callatis (2nd half of the sixth century B.C.) or contemporaneous with it are available. A part of the explanation may be, that the shoreline has changed since antiquity and a good part of Callatis is now submerged and thus hardly accessible (G. A. Short, "The Siting of Greek Colonies on the Black Sea Coast of Bulgaria and Romania," AAA 24 [1937]: 147; J. G. F. Hind, "Greek and Barbarian Peoples on the Shores of the Black Sea," Archaeological Reports 30 [1983-1984]: 75); cf. Isaac, Greek Settlements, 262f. 15 20 The name of Odessos is Thracian. The territory of

Odessos and surrounding area were inhabited since the fifth millennium B.C.,21 in the first millennium B.C. presumably by the Thracians.

Despite its similarity to a common Greek word the name of Mesambria is undoubtedly Thracian. 22 The second element of the name (-J3pia) means "city" in Thracian.23 According

to Stephanus' sources the stem p.€cra- was the assimilated version of pGA,aa-.2* Therefore the original Thracian name

20Detschew, Thrakischen, 335f, s.v. " ’ OSTiaadc." K. Vlakhov (" Za ezikoviya proizkhod na ’ OSijacrdc - Varna," Ezik i Literatura 21 [1966, 4]: 47-50) discusses the etymology of the name Odessos and concludes that the stem *odh- means "water." V. Besevliev ("Die Westkiiste des Schwarzen Meeres," Klio 63 [1981]: 264) translates the name Odessos as "Wassersiedlung."

21Kh. Todorova, "Dobrudzha prez rannoistoricheskata epokha," in Istoriya na Dobrudzha, 28, 33, 38-47; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 255; P. Delev, "Bevolkerung und Siedlungssystem an der bulgarischen Schwarzmeerkiiste," in Die bulgarische Schwarzmeerkiiste im Altertum, ed. W. Schuller, Xenia 16 (Konstanz 1985), 9-14.

22Detschew, Thrakischen, 295f, s.v. "M€aap£pia."

23Strabo 7.6.1; Steph. Byz., Eth. 187, s.v. Bpoi)xo(3pia, 446, s.v. MGaTipPpia. Cf. Br. Lenk, RE 15:1072, s.v. "Mesambria." Schramm (Eroberer, 304) summarizes the discussion of the etymology of the name Mesambria: "city, two sides of which face the sea."

2AStrabo has p€va-, but Detschew (Thrakischen, 295) argues that in fact there is no substantial difference between these two spelling forms. Another Byzantine source (Constantine Porphyrogenetes, De thamat. Occident., Them. 1) explains the meaning of the stem of the name of Mesambria as derived from the name of a Thracian king, whose capital was located in Mesambria. 16

of the city would be Melsambria.25 The ancient authors who

preserve this etymology had without any reasonable doubt

access to local sources, since "Melses" and "bria" as

formative elements of the city's name are attested in a

second century A.D. inscription (IGB l2. 345) from Mesambria.

One must take into consideration, however, the fact that

this etymology is attested by comparatively late sources,

the earliest being Strabo (early first century A.D., over

five hundred years after the foundation of Mesambria), and

that the alleged proper name Melses is attested only in the

context of the etymology of Mesambria. The citizens of

Mesambria used the form Sdjio? M6Ta(i(3piavwv to describe

themselves in the earliest extant decree from the fourth

century B.C.26 This would require rather complicated chain

of changes: MGAcxa-> M€aa-> MGxa-> M€aa-. Therefore the

(alleged) original Thracian name Melsambria remains

conjectural; the earliest attested version of the city's name is Metambria (still a good Thracian name).

Z5V. Velkov, "Mesambria Pontica," in Bulgarlsche Schwarzmeerkiiste, 29 .

26IGB l2.316; on the earliest coins (since ca. 440 B.C.) META designates the name of the city (B. V. Head, Historia Numorum, 2d ed. [Oxford 1911], 378f; T. Gerasimov, "Neizdateni avtonomni moneti ot Mesambriya," INMB 1 [1950]: 23-32, nos. 1-15). The definite shift to MEEA did not happen before the second century B.C., cf. Gerasimov, op. cit., 26f. 17

Excavations revealed beneath Greek Mesambria a well organized Thracian settlement with city walls and a harbor.27 The last Thracian strata are dated to the late sixth century B.C., so they are almost contemporaneous with

Greek colonization. 28

The review of the names of the Western Pontic cities has thus brought mixed results from the point of view of searching for pre-Greek occupation and continuity of settlements. Only Mesambria seems to be an example of a

Greek colony occupying the site of a highly organized native settlement and preserving the functions of some of its elements (city walls, harbor). There may have been an insignificant Thracian community in the place of Odessos, but the continuity cannot be proved. Mostly the non-Greek names of Western Pontic cities testify to inherited toponymy without telling anything about pre-colonisation occupation of those places.

Ancient sources leave no doubt that Istros was a

Milesian colony. This was indicated first by Herodotus

(2.33), and later by Strabo (7.6.1), Pliny (NH 4.44), Ps.-

27L. Ognenova, "Les fouilles de Messemvria," BCH 84 (1960): 231f; L. Ognenova-Mar ino va , "Mesambria Pontica," Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 44 (1979), 24ff; I. Venedikov, "La Mesambria thrace," in NessSbre, vol. 2, ed. V. Velkov (Sofia 1980), 7-22; Delev, "Bevolkerung," 14; Velkov, "Mesambria," 29f. 28 Venedikov, "Mesambria," 22; Velkov, "Mesambria," 30. 18

Scymnus (769-772) and Periplus Ponti Euxini (70 ).29 The

Milesian character of Istros is also proved by the Ionian dialect used in its inscriptions, onomastics and political institutions .30

The exact date of the foundation is uncertain. Ps.-

Scymnus (770-772) writes that the Milesians established

Istros at the time when the Scythians moved into Asia pursuing Cimmerians who were escaping from the Bosporus. The date given in Eusebius' chronicle is usually calculated as

657 or 656/5 B.C.31 The Cimmerians, mentioned by Ps.-

Scymnus, are known to have attacked Urartu in 714 B.C., 32 thus making their first foray into Asia. They soon moved to

Asia Minor and around 696 B.C. attacked Phrygia. The

Scythians followed suit; they are attested in Assyrian

29This late Periplus follows Ps.-Scymnus.

30N. Vulic, RE 9:2268, s.v. "Istros;" N. Ehrhardt, Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen, Frankfurt a. M. 1983, 71f.

31R. Helm (Eusebius Werke, Siebenter Band Die Chronik des Hieronimus, GCS, 47 [Berlin 1956], 95b) calculated this date as corresponding to 657 B.C. H. Kaletsch ("Zur lydische Chronologie," Historia 7 [1958]: 27) disputed this and proposed 656/5 B.C. This date was accepted by the subsequent scholarship: P. Alexandrescu, "La c^ramique de Gr&ce de l'Est dans les cit6s pontiques," in Les c4ramiques de la Gr&ce de l ’Est et leur diffusion en Occident (Paris-Naples 1978), 52; Ehrhardt, Milet, 71. Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 39) still prefers 657 B.C., A. J. Graham (Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, 2d ed. [Chicago 1983], 108) chooses 657/656 B.C. without any discussion.

32R. D. Barnett, "Urartu," in CAH 32.1: 354-356. 19 sources for the first time in 680 B.C.33 Possibly the events mentioned by Ps. -Scymnus occurred during the reign of

Ardys II of Lydia,34 i.e. after 652 B.C.35 Thus the difference in dates given by the two ancient authors is not great. The earliest eastern Ionian pottery found in Istros can be dated to the last quarter of the seventh century

B.C. 36 and therefore it seems unlikely that the city could have been established much earlier and certainly not later.

Thus if any firm date has to be chosen, this recorded by

Eusebius (656/655 B.C.) is perhaps more plausible than that which can be deduced from Ps.-Scymnus (end of the eighth - beginning of the seventh century B.C.).37

The foundation period of the next colony to the south,

Tomis, is less well documented. The earliest sources

33ibidem, 356-358.

34Herodotus 1.15.106. C. Roebuck, Ionian Trade and Colonization (New York 1959), 120.

35Ardys II reigned 678-630 B.C. (according to Herodotus 1.16.1) or 661-625 B.C. (according to Eusebius 165F - Helm, Eusebius, 94b). But his accession to the throne is mentioned in Assyrian sources in 652 B.C. - Kaletsch, "Zur lydische," Iff; Fr. Kiechle, Kleine Pauly 1:522, s.v. "Ardys," 2. The preference should be given to the oriental sources over later Greek and Latin ones.

36 P. Alexandrescu, "Autour de la date de fondation d'Histria," St. Cl. 4 (1962): 49-69; idem, "C§ramique," 52f; D. M. Pippidi, "Les fouilles d'Istros (1914-1957)," BCH 82 (1958): 356f; Ehrhardt, Milet, 71.

37D. M. Pippidi, I Greci nel Basso Danubio dall'eta arcaica alia conquista romana (Milan 1971), 232f; S. Dimitriu, "Cartierul de locuin^e din zona de vest a ceta^ii in epoca arhaica," Histria 2 (1966): 38f. 20 pertaining to the foundation of this city are late: Ovid

(Tristia 1.10.41 and 3.9.3f), Ps.-Scymnus (765) and the

Periplus Ponti Euxini (72). But the Milesian character of this city should not be put in doubt, since the dialect of inscriptions is Ionian; also Milesian are the onomastics, the cults, calendar and certain institutions. 38 The extant sources do not give any information about the date of foundation, the oldest inscriptions are not earlier than the fourth century B.C.39 Some speculations about the date of the foundation of Tomis are possible on the basis of the archaeological data and certain constitutional arrangements paralleling Miletus, namely the tribal system. All six

Milesian tribes are attested in Tomis and we know that

Miletus, when it was rebuilt in the mid fifth century B.C., adopted the Athenian tribal system. Tomis, therefore, must have been established earlier, presumably even before the

Ionian revolt.A0

The Ionian revolt is only the terminus ante quem for the foundation of Tomis. Attempts to narrow this date down

38 F. Bilabel, Die Ionische Kolonisation, Philologus, Suppl. 14, H. 1 (Leipzig 1920), 19, 108, 114ff, 123f; Stoian, "Citta Tomis," 238; Ehrhardt, Milet, 67.

39The oldest one may be ISM 2.456 dated by A. V. Radulescu, Pontica 8 (1975): 9-54 in the fourth century B.C. I. Stoian (ISM 2, p. 365f) expresses doubt.

AA Stoian, "Citta Tomis", 239; E. Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution 6pigraphique a 1'histoire de Tomis a l'6poque du Principat," Dacia 14 (1975): 158; the detailed discussion of the date of foundation: Ehrhardt, Milet, 67ff. 21 have not produced so far conclusive results. The earliest artifacts discovered during excavations date to the fifth or early sixth century B.C.*1 Some scholars speculate that

Tomis must have been established much earlier, sometime in the seventh century B.C., perceived as the period of extensive Milesian colonisation.*2 This position seems to be quite arbitrary; it does not explain satisfactorily a discrepancy between the earliest extant sources and the alleged date of the foundation. The available sources do not allow us to push the foundation date back further than the sixth century B.C.*3

Memnon,** writing about mid-third century B.C. events in Western Pontus, called Tomis £|iTt6piov. This made some

A1A. V. R3dulescu, "Recente cercetarii arheologice la Tomis," Pontica 6 (1973): 347; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 267.

*2Stoian, "Citta Tomis," 238; R. Vulpe, "Note de istorie Tomitana," Pontica 2 (1969): 166. Already Regling (Antiken, 590) formulated a hypothesis that Tomis was founded in the 2n half of the seventh century B.C.; cf. Danov, Zapadniyat, 80f. Ehrhardt (Milet, 69) adopts a safer, but rather vague date: seventh - sixth century B.C.

*3D. M. Pippidi, "Mi?carea de colonizare greaca ?i intermeierea coloniilor pontice," in D. M. Pippidi, D. Berciu, Din istoria Dobrogei (Bucure?ti 1965), 152; cf. Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 151; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 267. Vulpe ("Note," 166) pointed out that lack of earlier artifacts from Tomis was due to the difficulty of digging in densely populated Constanza, which covered ancient Tomis. This argument is by itself obviously inadequate and it could be used only in correspondence to other compelling reasons. But there are none.

**Fr. 21, FGrH (Jacoby) 434, p. 347. This is the earliest literary source for the history of Tomis. 22

scholars hypothesize about Tomis being first a trading outpost and only much later (mid third century B.C.) an autonomous polis.45 But this hypothesis leaves totally unexplained the presence of Milesian constitutional 46 arrangements in Tomis in the later epoch. It appears most

likely, therefore, that Tomis was founded in the sixth century B.C. as the autonomous polis and Memnon's statement should be interpreted as a reference to the importance of trade as a source of income for the inhabitants of this

According to the majority of sources48 Callatis was a colony of Heraclea Pontica (itself a colony of Megara), only

Pomponius Mela (2.2) writes, that it was established by

45Regling, Antiken, 590f; Danov, Zapadniyat, 81; I. Stoian, Tomitana. Contribupii epigraflce la istoria cetSpii Tomis (Bucure?ti 1962), 18f; Doru^iu-Boila, "Contribution," 158.

46Ehrhardt, Milet, 68.

47C. Roebuck, "The Organisation of Naukratis," CPh 46 (1951): 19, n. 22 (cf. idem, Ionian, 126f ) explained the term " emporion" with respect to Herodotus as a polis living by trade. Cf. A. W^sowicz, "Les indices de la civilisation et de l'hell^nisation des cdtes de la mer Noire dans 1 'antiquity," DHA 6 (1980): 15. Perhaps the same explanation of the term "emporion" is applicable in the case of Tomis too, cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 70. For the importance of trade between Milesian colonies and the native hinterland see: Graham, Colony, 109f.

48Memnon, Fr. 21, FGrH (Jacoby) 537; Strabo, 7.6.1, 12.3.6; Ovid, Tristia 1.10.39; P s .-Scymnus, 761-762; Periplus Ponti Euxini, 74 (this account follows Ps.- Scymnus); Etym. Magnum, p. 486, 41. 23

Miletus: "in litoribus Histro est proxima Histropolis, deinde Milesiis deducta Callatis, turn Tomoe Mela's account is often considered an indication of a double

foundation of Callatis: first by settlers from Miletus and

4 9 then from Heraclea. It is, however, possible too that

Mela's text is corrupt and that the names of Callatis and

Tomis were both misplaced50 or that Mela misread his

sources. At any rate nothing, except for the reference in

Pomponius Mela just quoted, testifies to a Milesian origin

for Callatis. It was a Doric city; its calendar, cults and

institutions reflect those of Megara and Heraclea.51 The people of Callatis regarded themselves as descendants of

Heracleotes and acknowledged Heracles as their mythological

founder.52

Ps.-Scymnus writes that Callatis was founded by colonists from Heraclea according to an oracle: Kaxdt xpiiapdv

Vulic, "Kallatis," 1611; K. Hanell, Megarlsche Studien (Lund 1934) , 135.

50Mela names Western Pontic cities in geographical order beginning with the northernmost Istros (Histropolis in his text). Surprisingly Callatis is mentioned second and Tomis (Tomoe) third and then the proper order is maintained. This may suggest that the text now available is corrupt. Cf. Pick, Antiken, 84; Bilabel, Ionische, 17ff; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 262, n. 312.

51Vulic, "Kallatis," 1611; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 263f.

52An inscription honoring Heraclea is preserved (AEM 8.20, 21). Heracles' head and inscription kt(ot^c were placed on their coins (Pick, Antiken, nos. 290-296). Cf. Pick, Antiken, 84; Vulic, "Kallatis," 1611. 24

(762). In Greece this was the proper way to conduct colonisation.53 One may suppose, therefore, that other elements of normal procedure were also fulfilled, especially that Megara was asked for an oikist.

The only date for the foundation of Callatis is given by Ps.-Scymnus (and anonymous Periplus following him) as corresponding to Amyntas' accession to the throne of

Macedon: r|ViKa xt)v MaicESdvwv apXT) ’A|i6vxa<; nap€Aap€v (7 63-

764). Out of four Macedonian kings of this name two have been considered in the scholarship. Pick54 followed by most scholars55 identified the king mentioned by Ps.-Scymnus with Amyntas I (ca. 540-498 B.C.).

Recently J. G. F. Hind remarked, that, since no archaeological data from the early period are available,

Callatis was most likely founded during the reign of Amyntas

III (393/2-370 B.C.).56 This dilemma cannot be completely

53W. G. Forrest, "Colonization and the Rise of Delphi," Historia, 6 (1957): 173ff; Graham, Colony, 25ff; I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden 1987), 19-91, specifically about Callatis: 81.

54Pick, Antiken, 84.

55Vulic, "Kallatis," 1611; 0. Tafrali, "La cit6 pontique de Callatis," RA 21 (1925): 247; Hanell, Megarische, 130; Vulpe, "Histoire," 65; Danov, Zapadniyat, 88; Pippidi, "Mi?carea," 152; idem, Greci, 63f; Burstein, Outpost, 25; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 262.

56Hind, "Greek," 75. Similar argument also: A. Avram, Gh. Poenaru Bordea, "Nouveaux timbres amphoriques thasiens de Callatis," Dacia, 32 (1988): 27f. Already B. D. Meritt, H. T. Wade-Gery and M. F. McGregor (The Athenian Tribute Lists, 1, [Cambridge, Massachussets 1939], 539, n. 1) 25 resolved without thorough excavations which are very- difficult to conduct, since the shoreline has retreated since antiquity and pre-Roman Callatis is now submerged.57

The earliest artifacts from Callatis are a late-fifth - early-fourth century B.C. Athenian cup, 58 stamped amphoras from Sinope (370-346 B.C.),59 and mid-fourth century B.C. coins minted in Callatis for a Scythian king Ateas (Ataias in coin inscriptions).60 They do not speak decisively in favor of either of the suggested dates. It seems that at least the mid-fourth century B.C. mint activity and the very strong (by Western Pontic standards) military and political

alluded to this possibility while commenting upon Ps.- Scymnus 762-764: "Which Amyntas? A synchronism with the accession of Philip's father would be intelligible in a fourth century historian." They do not tell why it would be intelligible. But since we know, that Ps.-Scymnus' Periplus was written much later than the fourth century B.C. (probably ca. 110 B.C. - F. Lasserre, Kleine Pauly, 5:240, s.v. "Skymnos," 2), this tenuous argument needs not to be dealt with any longer.

57Hind, "Greek," 75; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 265.

5 0 E. Popescu, "Zeus Soter A Callatis," SCIV 15 (1964): 545-549. This cup, dedicated to Zeus Soter, might indicate the existence of an established cult-place (temple) of this god in Callatis and thus support the earlier date, cf. Burstein, Outpost, 25, n. 16.

59N. Conovici, A. Avram, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea, "Nouveau timbres amphoriques sinop^ens de Callatis," Dacia 33 (1989): 116, nos. (in the catalogue of amphora stamps uncovered recently in Callatis) 1-2.

60A. Rogalski, INMV 1955:119-123; INMV 1970:3-19; V. A. Anokhin, Num. i Sfr. 1965:3-15; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 260, 265. 26 position of Callatis in the late fourth century B.C.61 testify to a lengthy period of growth. This makes Hind's hypothesis less likely than the Pick's.

Practically nothing is known about the early history and foundation of Dionysopolis. According to Ps.-Scymnus

(757) and to the anonymous Periplus (78) which follows his account, the city was inhabited by the Greeks of mixed origin: inydSa? "'EAAriva? oiKiyu&c £x^1 • This statement is hardly reflected in extant local material. The dialect of the inscriptions is Ionian, the onomastics and tribal system are most likely of Milesian origin. 62 Therefore Bilabel's hypothesis about a Milesian origin of Dionysopolis seems quite plausible. The original settlers introduced Milesian civic organization. Later they were probably strengthened by colonists from other cities, whose presence in Dionysopolis is the origin of Ps.-Scymnus' statement of mixed

Hellenes.63

61Callatis was the leading power in a war against Lysimachus (cf. the next section and Burstein, Outpost, 25f). Characteristically in Strabo's account (7.6.1) Callatis is called Tt6Ai<;, while both Istros and Tomis: noXtxviov. Strabo's source may have been Demetrius of Callatis (Danov, Zapadniyat, 89) and if so, his account would reflect the third century B.C. comparative strength of Callatis.

62Bilabel, Ionische, 16; Danov, Zapadniyat, 97; Ehrhardt, Milet, 65f; Delev, "Bevolkerung," 15; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 259.

63Ehrhardt, Milet, 66. 27

Even an approximate date for the foundation of

Dionysopolis remains unknown. The earliest inscription may date in the fourth-third century B.C.64 If indeed the

mentioned in IGB l2.15t8r were six Milesian tribes and the tribe of the Romans,65 this would indicate a foundation date probably before the Ionian revolt, just as in the case of Tomis. However, until the names of those tribes are known, the date of the foundation of Dionysopolis must remain conjectural.

The next city to the south was Odessos. Its Milesian origin is attested by Strabo (7.6.1), Pliny the Elder (NH

4.45), Ps.-Scymnus (748f) and the anonymous Periplus Ponti

Euxini (80). This origin is confirmed by the Ionian dialect of the inscriptions, by the cults, institutions and the large number of catalogues among the inscriptions.66

Ps.-Scymnus (749) gives the date of the foundation as contemporaneous with the reign of Astyages of Media:

’Aarudync ox' tjpxG MriSlac. Astyages' reign is usually dated

6AA tombstone: IGB l2.25.

65Ehrhardt, Milet, 65f; cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 64.

66Z. GoCeva, "Die Apollonkult in Odessos," in Studia in Honorem Vesselini Besevliev, ed. V. Georgiev et al. (Sofia 1978), 289. The high number of catalogues among inscriptions was, according to Ehrhardt (Milet, 64f), a typically Milesian feature. 28

ca. 585-550 B.C.67 Accordingly, the foundation of Odessos

is placed in ca. 593-556 B.C.,68 585 B.C.,69 585-570

B.C.,70 570s B.C.,71 560s B.C.,72 and ca. mid sixth century

B.C.73 The earliest archaeological material (Corinthian potsherds) found in Odessos is dated ca. 600-575 B.C.74 One must accept, therefore, this period as the latest possible date of the foundation of the city in question. Perhaps

Odessos was founded even earlier, maybe in the late seventh century B.C.75

The next city to the south Mesambria belongs to the cycle of Megarian colonisation. Strabo (7.6.1) calls it a colony of Megara. Herodotus (6.33) writes that during the

last stages of the Ionian revolt people of Byzantium and

Calchedon for fear of the Phoenician navy escaped to the

67J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Kleine Pauly, 1:667, s.v.; cf. Isaac, Greek Settlements, 255.

68 V. Velkov, "Odessos - Varna: Kurze historische Bemerkungen," in Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien, ed. V. Besevliev and J. Irmescher (Berlin 1960), 339.

69E. Diehl, RE 17:1883, s.v. "Odessos."

70H. F. Hoddinott, Bulgaria in Antiquity: An Archaeological Introduction (London 1975), 49.

71K. J. Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 2d ed., vol.l (Strassburg 1913): 234; Danov, Zapadniyat, 100.

72C. M. Danov, Altthrakien (New York 1976), 209, n. 26.

73G. Tonfieva, IPr 24 (1968, fasc. 3): 66-70.

74T. Ivanov, IVAD 8 (1975): 77-85.

75Isaac, Greek Settlements, 255. 29

Black Sea regions and founded Mesambria.76 Essentially the same version is preserved in Eustathios (GGM 2.356f). Ps.-

Scymnus (741f) conveys the tradition of its foundation by

Calchedon and Megara during Darius' Scythian expedition.77

The same version is given also by the anonymous Periplus

Ponti Euxini (84).

The whole tradition of ancient authors seems to agree only in this, that Mesambria was established by Megara or her colonies (Byzantium, Calchedon). 78 Mesambria shared the same cults, institutions and often onomastic practice with

Megara and her other colonies.79 The links with Calchedon are attested also by usage of the Ionian letter sampi in

75Herodotus mentions earlier (4.93) Thracian tribes Skyrmiadai and Nipsaioi inhabiting places near Apollonia and Mesambria. Lenk ("Mesambria" 1073) remarked that he used the name of Mesambria to indicate the geographical location of those tribes without implying anything about the existence of the city of Mesambria (cf. Isaac, Greek Settlements, 250, n. 230). One should remember however, that the place of the Greek city of Mesambria was previously occupied by the Thracian city, presumably of the same name. Herodotus might refer to this pre-Greek settlement too.

77V. Velkov ("Mesambria - Mesembria -Ness&bre: [Situation, recherches, notes historiques ]," in Ness&bre, 2, 16) thinks that Ps.-Scymnus' account is based on reliable local tradition, namely Demetrius of Callatis. This assertion cannot be verified.

78Cf. M. Konstantinides, He Mesembria tou Euxeinou (Athens 1945), 15f.

79Isaac, Greek Settlements, 250f, 252f; onomastics: L. Robert, "Les inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie," Rev. Phil. 33 (1959): 231f. 30 early coin inscriptions.80

The discrepancy in dates: 513-510 B.C. vs 493 B.C. and in identity of mother-cities is most often explained as a reflection of two stages of colonization. The colonists from

Calchedon and Megara supposedly founded Greek Mesambria around 513-510 B.C. and their number was some twenty years later strengthened by additional settlers from Byzantium and

Calchedon.81 Recently B. Isaac formulated a hypothesis, that both Herodotus' and Ps.-Scymnus' accounts referred to the same foundation and because of unequal quality of sources he proposed to accept only Herodotus' version of events. 82 But one should note, that late sixth century B.C.

Greek pottery was discovered in Mesambria, 83 which makes the sixth-century B.C. foundation date much more likely than the fifth-century B.C. one. Ps.-Scymnus' reliability should not be rejected altogether, because he may have utilized

80L. H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece (Oxford 1961), 368; Head, Historia Numorum, 278.

81Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 234; Lenk, "Mesambria," 1072; Velkov, "Belezhki," 49; Hanell, Megarische, 128; Danov, Zapadniyat, 114f; I. GSlSbov, "Das antike und mittelalterliche NesebSr," in Antike und Mittelalter, 308; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 16; Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 255; Ognenova, "Mesembria Pontica," 36. Some scholars refrain from taking sides and declare that Mesambria was founded in the late sixth or early fifth century B.C., cf. Hoddinott, Bulgaria, 41; Hind, "Greek," 73.

82 Isaac, Greek Settlements, 250. 83 Ognenova, "Fouilles," 231. 31 some local sources, especially Demetrius of Callatis.84

Moreover his account is somewhat corroborated by Strabo's statement: MGat|u/3pia MGyctpGuv & t t o i k o c (7.6.1). It seems, therefore, that the well-established hypothesis of the double foundation of Mesambria should be sustained.

84Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, 233f; Konstantinides, Mesembria, 15; Velkov, "Mesambria," 31. 32

2. Western Pontic cities in the autonomous period to the end of the second century B.C.

In the history of the Western Pontic cities the classical epoch was mostly uneventful, or at least the scant extant sources make us think so. They may have been annexed to the Persian monarchy during the Scythian expedition of

Darius,85 but our sources do not even allude to this event.

The Scythians pursuing the retreating Persian army moved to

Dobrudja and it seems that Istros soon entered into friendly relations with them. Herodotus (4.78) writes that a Scythian king Ariapeithes married a Greek woman from this city. 86

In the 3rd quarter of the fifth century B.C. king

Sitalkes built a strong Odrysian state. Thucydides (2.97) testifies, that it occupied the whole coast of the Black Sea up to the mouth of the Danube, and that the Greek cities paid tribute to the Thracian king. Even though Thucydides does not name those cities, we may safely assume that

Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis, Odessos and Mesambria

85 Pippidi, Greci, 47. This expedition is usually dated to 514-512 B.C., cf. A. Vulpe, "Les plus anciens t6moignages sur les Thraces du nord," REESE 24 (1986): 338, n. 16.

86 No exact date is known; about the political surrounding of this marriage and Greek - Scythian relations in the Western Pontic region: Vulpe, "Histoire," 72; T. V. Blavatskaya, "Greki i Skify v zapadnom Prichernomorie," VDI (1948, 1), 207; Danov, "Thracian," 76; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 271. 33 were among them.87 88 Some scholars think, that at least Callatis and

Mesambria participated in the Delian League. This hypothesis is based on restoration of two lines in the Athenian tribute

89 list: M[eaa|i(3pia] and Ka[lA&xic]• But the second restoration was already in ATL 1 replaced by

90 Ka[ pKivlx i c]. Even the hypothesis about Mesambria's participation in the Delian League, though plausible, is still unproven.91

87Vulpe, "Histoire," 53f. Pippidi (Greci, 53) rejects this interpretation, because of the remoteness of the Western Pontic area from the center of the Odrysian kingdom and its inability to control Greek cities. This inability was allegedly caused by the primitive organisation of the kingdom. Yet one must remember that Thucydides clearly indicates that the Danube and the Black Sea coast were the boundaries of Sitalkes' kingdom. The second argument does not hold either - very often primitively organized barbarian kingdoms or tribes were able to extort tribute from more civilized political entities; e.g. ca. 200 B.C. Istros had to pay tribute to a Thracian leader Zoltes (ISM 1.15).

88 Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 68f; Mihailov, IGB 1 2 , p. 256; idem, "Documents 6pigraphique de la cote bulgare de la Mer Noire," in Actes de VII* Congr&s International d' Spigraphie: Epigraphica (1979), 265; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 251.

a9ATL 1.116, 157, 207, 519.

90ATL 1, p. 539.

91Meritt, Wade-Gery and McGregor admit (ATL 1, p. 539), that restoration from one letter preserved or two is quite uncertain. There is enough space on the Euxine panel of ATL 2.49 to accommodate the names of the Western Pontic cities if they ever belonged to the Delian league. Yet no proof of their participation exists. 34

Sometime in the fourth century B.C. the Scythians under the leadership of king Ateas crossed the Danube again.92

Most probably they managed to force the Western Pontic cities into submission. We know, that Ateas' coins were minted in Callatis.93 Ateas suffered defeat at the hands of

Philip II in 339 B.C. and quite likely the Western Pontic cities became Macedonian subjects. 94 The Macedonian sovereignty may have been reflected in the title of

Alexander's general Zopyrion: praepositus Ponti.95 All this reconstruction of events must remain conjectural and the scant sources available do not allow any firm conclusions concerning the character of relations between the Macedonian monarchs and the Western Pontic cities.96

92No exact date is known. Ateas fought Philip II in 3 39 B.C. V. Iliescu ("Die aussenpolitische Krise der hellenischen Poleis Klein-Skythiens im 4. Jahrhundert v.u.Z.," in Hellenische Poleis, 2 [Berlin 1974], 666f) argues successfully that the Scythians must have crossed the Danube much earlier than the date of their encounter with Philip II, perhaps even before 350 B.C. Cf. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 80ff.

93 Cf. n. 60 and Iliescu, "Aussenpolitische," 668f; D. M. Pippidi, "Les Mac^doniens sur le Bas-Danube de Philippe II h. Lysimaque," in: idem, Parerga. Merits de philologie, d'Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne (Paris and Bucurest 1984), 155.

94Vulpe, "Histoire," 73f; Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 88f; Pippidi, Greci, 92; Iliescu, "Aussenpolitische," 669.

95Just. 12.2.16; Q. Curtius Rufus names him: praepositus Thraciae (10.1.44).

96Pippidi (Greci, 76ff) suggests that the Western Pontic area was re-organized by Philip II, Alexander or Lysimachus according to a pattern common in Asia Minor. The cities in 35

We do not know what happened to the Western Pontic cities after Zopyrion's abortive expedition (325 B.C.). Soon they became a part of the kingdom of Lysimachus. Diodorus

(19.73.1) testifies that Lysimachus kept garrisons in the cities and apparently treated them as subjects. This may have meant heavy taxation etc. In 313 B.C. a revolt against

Lysimachus broke out in the Western Pontus.97 According to

Diodorus (19.73.1-2) Callatis assumed leadership by expelling Lysimachus' garrison, liberating Istros and inducing neighboring Scythians and Thracians into an alliance, the strongest part of which was probably Odrysian

QO king Seuthes III. Odessos joined the revolt too. Nothing certain is known about possible involvement of the remaining

the Western Pontus were supposedly given rural territories. All this is based on Memnon's statement (Fr. 21, FGrH 434) that under Lysimachus (the territories of) Tomis and Callatis bordered each other. But even before the Macedonians had come to the Western Pontus the cities there had to have some rural territory in order to support their population. No evidence of this alleged re-organization is available.

97When, during the revolt Callatis expelled Lysimachus' garrison, Diodorus writes that the city regained her freedom (ctoTOvonia) . Lysimachus' rule was seen by Greek cities as tyrannical, cf • M. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 139-142; Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 94f; Pippidi, Greci, 93. About the role of the Western Pontic cities in Lysimachus' designs, cf. D. M. Pippidi, "Les villes grecques de Scythie Mineure h l'dpoque hellenistique, " in idem, Parerga, 119f; R. A. Billows, Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State (Berkeley 1990) 121f. GO R. F. Hoddinott, The Thracians (New York 1981), 122. 36 99 cities in the region.

The newly acquired freedom did not last long.

Lysimachus marched quickly with his army, planted a camp by

Odessos and negotiated this city into submission (Diodorus

19.73.3). Istros followed suit (19.73.4) and Lysimachus turned against Callatis. At this moment the Thracian and

Scythian allies mustered their armies and hurried to help the leader of the revolt. Lysimachus scared the Thracians out of the war. The Scythians soon suffered a defeat and

Lysimachus then concentrated his attention on besieging

Callatis (19.73.5). Antigonus Monophthalmos dispatched land and sea forces to relieve Callatis, but Lysimachus crushed the land army under Pausanias (19.73.6-9). The naval squadron under admiral Lycon may have reached Callatis.100

It remains unknown for how long Callatis was besieged; at any rate in 310 B.C. it still held on, as Diodorus testifies

99Velkov ("Mesambria," 32f) supposes, that Mesambria took the side of Callatis in this war. This suggestion is based on his interpretation of partly damaged inscription IGB i 316, containing a Mesambrian honorary decree for a certain Dionysios son of Agesidamos. The only fragment of this decree which might suggest any Mesambria's dealing with the revolt is 1. 11: [- - KaXX? ]axiav6v aoxripCav [- - -]. Since no meaningful context survives and even the date of this inscription is not surely established (cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 278), this is, in my judgement, totally inadequate evidence from which to draw far-reaching conclusions.

100Billows, Antigonos, 122. 37

( 20. 25 . 1).101 In the same year Eumelos of Bosporus harbored a thousand of her citizens (Diodorus, 20.25.1) who had escaped the hardship of the prolonged siege. 102

G. Glotz suggested, that the revolt had been instigated by Antigonus vying for power in Asia Minor with

Lysimachus. 103 But the sources provide no direct information concerning this hypothesis. The sending of the task forces under Pausanias and Lycon too late to provide effective relief suggests rather that Antigonus may have been surprised by the events in the Western Pontus,104 and

101Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 101) thinks, that Callatis was forced into surrender in 307/306 B.C. We may be sure only that by 302 B.C. Callatis, together with whole Western Pontus, belonged to Lysimachus (Diodorus 20.112.1- 2 ).

102 Danov, Zapadniyat, 90; Iliescu, "Aussenpolitische," 671f.

103 G. Glotz, Histoire grdcque, 3 (Paris 1936), 313f; cf. Danov, Zapadniyat, 54. This hypothesis is strongly supported by A. §tefan ("Relations 6trang6rs des cit6s du Pont Gauche a l'gpoque hellenistique," in Actes du VIIs Congrds de la FSddration Internationale des Associations d'ttudes Classique, 1 [Budapest 1984], 329ff), who even thinks that Antigonus' soldiers were present in Callatis. One of them was - according to her - a certain Nauksamas (A. §tefan, "Grafitte callatien du IV9 sidcle av. n. e.," in Actes du VIIe Congrds International d' dpigraphie: Epigraphica [Bucurest 1977], 25-32), so deemed thanks to his Semitic name. The same opinion: K. Jordanov [Yordanov], "The Getae against Lysimachus," Bulgarian Historical Review 18. 1 (1990): 41. The eastern-sounding names in inscriptions from Callatis in fact say nothing about the presence of Antigonus' forces there.

104 • Antigonus wooed the Thracians to his side, most probably by distributing large subsidies among them. The large amount of late-fourth coins minted in Antigonus' domains and found in hoards uncovered on the territories 38 that the revolt began independently of designs of power politxcs., . . . 105

The Western Pontus presumably continued to belong to the kingdom of Lysimachus until his death (281 B.C.)-106 During the time of the battle of Ipsus Odessos is known to have been a base for Pleistarchus, a general of Cassander, ally

formerly inhabited by the Thracians justifies this hypothesis, cf. Jordanov, "Getae against Lysimachus," 41f, reference to the specific coin-hoards - n. 18.

105Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 96, n. 1. Some scholars (Danov, Zapadniyat, 54; Pippidi, Greci, 94; idem, "Les relations politiques des cit6s de la c6te occidentale de l'Euxin h. l'^poque hell6nistique," in idem, Parerga, 164; Jordanov, "Getae against Lysimachus," 41) suggest the influence of Miletus on the decision to stage the revolt against Lysimachus. This hypothesis is based on two premises: that Miletus sided with Antigonus (Hiller v. Gaertingen, RE 15:1603, s.v. "Miletos") and that she tried to regain influence over her Pontic colonies by signing with them treaties of isoDoliteia. One such treaty was concluded ca. 330 B.C. with Olbia on the northern coast of the Black Sea (discussed by Graham, Colony, 99-108). But one should remember, that the only treaty of this kind known from the Western Pontus (Miletus - Istros: ISM 1.68) was concluded in the beginning of the third century B.C. (according to the first editor of the inscription conveying fragments of the treaty - V. P3rvan, Histria 7: 13, n. 6) or at the earliest in the end of the fourth century B.C. (304/303 according to L. Robert, "Notes d'6pigraphie hell^nistique," BCH 52 [1928]: 170-177; cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. I69f). Therefore there is no certainty that this isopoliteia treaty preceded the revolt. Also, as far as we know from Diodorus (19.73), Callatis was the leader of the revolt; Istros was liberated by the soldiers of Callatis and quickly surrendered to Lysimachus. No real Milesian influence on the events of 313 B.C. in the Western Pontus can be detected.

106Vulic, "Kallatis," 1611; Pippidi, Greci, 92; idem, ISM 1, p. 25f. Callatis coined staters with his effigy - M. C. Soutzo, "Coup d'OBil sur les monuments antiques de la Dobroudja," RA 42 (1881): 209; cf. Tafrali, "Cit6 Callatis," 251. 39 of Lysimachus (Diodorus 20.112.2). Sometime in this period

Istros signed an isopoliteia-treaty with her mother-city

Miletus.107

But it is very likely that at this time relations with neighboring barbarians constituted the chief preoccupation

in foreign policy of the Western Pontic cities. Since the

late fourth century B.C. honorific inscriptions for prominent citizens of those cities begin to mention barbarians attacking rural territories. The earliest

information we posses comes from fourth-century B.C.

Mesambria. 108 In the early third century B.C., probably

281-277 B.C., Mesambria concluded a treaty with Odrysian king Sadalas and agreed to pay him tribute in the form of a crown of fifty staters in weight. 109 Mesambria had already had diplomatic relations with his ancestors Mopsyestis,

107Cf. n. 105 and Graham, Colony, 108f.

108Unpublished inscription for Matris son of Borychos who defended the chora in the fourth century B.C. (Velkov, "Mesambria," 33).

109IGB l2.307, date: Mihailov, Ibidem, 260f. This date was disputed by J. Youroukova ("Les monnaies dans 1'inscription de Sadalas," Epigraphica 42 [1980]: 14f), who proposed the 2nd half of the fourth century B.C. instead, yet without convincing reason (on the basis of the alleged economic prosperity of Mesambria in the fourth century B.C. as contrasted with the economic plight of the following century). Danov (GSU, FF 47 [1952]: 110-140; ANRW 2.7.1, 49f, 74f) suggested the beginning of the 2" half of the third century B.C.; contra I. Venedikov, "L'inscription de Sadala," Epigraphica 42 [1980]: 8-12. Cf. SEG 30.701. 40

Tarountinos, Medistas, Kotys.110 Likewise in the third century B.C. Istros must have been attacked by neighboring barbarians, since in an inscription from that time111 we read about hostages taken and then returned by king

Zalmodegikos thanks to diplomatic activity of ambassadors from Istros.

The end of the fourth century B.C. and the beginning of the following century was the period of comparative strength of Mesambria. Most likely at this time she founded a colony of her own - Naulochos and perhaps a second one

Bizone.r, . 112

Between 279 and 277 B.C. the Celts created a kingdom with its capital in Tylis. 113 Sources do not bring any

110 IGB l2. 307, lines 15-16. Cf. Velkov, "Mesambria," 33.

111 ISM 1.8; cf. Pippidi, "$tiri noi despre legSturile Histriei cu Ge^ii in epoca ellenistica," SCIV 11 (1960): 45- 49; idem, Greci, 102ff; idem, "Istros et les Gfetes au Ilie si&cle av. notre fere," St.Cl. 3 (1961): 55-61.

112Naulochos: Strabo 7.6.1. Cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 249f; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 251; Velkov, "Mesambria," 33. Ps.-Scymnus (758-7 60) and the anonymous Periplus Ponti Euxini (76) write that according to some sources Bizone was a colony of Mesambria too. This was accepted by Hanell (Megarische, 128), Lenk ("Mesambria," 1073), Vulpe ("Histoire," 64f), Isaac (Greek Settlements, 259), Velkov ("Mesambria," 33). Local epigraphical sources neither confirm nor contradict this statement (Mihailov, IGB 1 , p. 36f). The relative strength of Mesambria that is demonstrated by the colonizing activity further diminishes strength of Youroukova's hypothesis of the third century economic plight of this city (cf. n. 109).

113Neither the boundaries nor the location of Tylis are known. Yet its importance in the area between the lower Danube and the Propontis cannot be overestimated (Hoddinott, 41 direct information about its relations with the Western

Pontic cities, 114 but, since coins for Celtic monarchs were minted in Callatis, one may suppose that this city and perhaps some other in the Western Pontus were somehow dependant on this kingdom,115 unless we assume that these coins were produced by Callatis' mint for the Celtic kings as a purely business venture.

Despite her defeat in the war against Lysimachus

Callatis continued to be a local power in the early third century B.C. About 260 B.C.116 in alliance with Istros it tried to monopolize trade in Tomis, which caused conflict with Byzantium.117 Both contenders asked Pontic Heraclea for help, but it refused to engage in the war and tried in vain to mediate. We may imagine, that such a move disappointed especially the citizens of Callatis who surely

Thracians, 126f).

“^Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 107ff.

115C. Preda, Callatis, Bucure?ti 1968, 8, 13. Hoddinott (Thracians, 127) remarks that some Western Pontic cities very probably had to pay tribute, since even much stronger Byzantium could not avoid it.

u6Date: Vulic ("Kallatis," 1611) - about 260 B.C.; Jacoby (FGrH 3B, p. 347) - 253/47 B.C.?; Vulpe ("Histoire," 85f) - 260 B.C.; Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 114) - 258/57 B.C.; Stoian ("CLtth. Tomis," 240f); Velkov ("GrScka kolonizaciya," 98) - about 260 B.C.; Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 26) - about 260 B.C.

117Memnon Fr.13, FGrH (Jacoby) 3B 434, p. 347f. 42

did not expect to be abandoned by their mother-city. 118

Callatis suffered defeat and, as Memnon writes, never fully

recovered. 119 Indeed never after this war, as far as we

know, did Callatis take part in any ambitious political

endeavors comparable to her wars with Lysimachus or

Byzantium. On the contrary Tomis seems to have profited from

this war. About the mid third century B.C. this city started

to coin, gradually gained strength and later (undoubtedly in

the Roman epoch) became the most important Western Pontic

colony.120

The Celtic kingdom of Tylis collapsed in 218 B.C. 121

and the Scythians rose again to become the greatest power in

the late-third and early-second centuries B.C. Dobrudja. The

Western Pontic cities entered into at least occasional

relations with them. Odessos passed an honorary decree for a certain Hermeios son of Asklepiodoros, native of Antioch, who acted on behalf of Odessos at the court of the Scythian

122 king Kanites. Also coins minted for kings Kanites,

118Burstein (Outpost, 26) explains Heraclea's indifference towards its colony's plight as the result of Callatis' naval weakness and hence comparative unimportance in the political designs of Heraclea.

119Cf. Pick, Antiken, 85; Preda, Callatis, 9.

120Stoian, "CittA Tomis," 241.

121Hoddinott, Thracians, 127.

122 2 IGB 1 .41, dated vaguely by Mihailov (p. 90) to the third-second centuries B.C. Cf. Danov, Zapadniyat, 102. A. Stefan ("Die Getreidekrisen in den Stadtchen an den 43

Tanuzes, Charaspes, Akrossander, Saris and Aelis in

Callatis, Tomis, Dionysopolis and Odessos bear witness to the relations between the Scythians and the Western Pontic cities. 123 The nature of these relations remains unknown.. 124

In the late third and the second centuries B.C. relations with Thracian tribes continued to occupy an important position on the political agenda of the Western

Pontic cities. A comparatively well preserved inscription 125 from Istros containing an honorary decree for a certain Agathokles gives a good idea of the nature of those relations. Istros (and presumably the other cities westlichen und nordlichen Ktisten des Pontos Euxeinos in der Hellenistischen Zeit," in Hellenische Poleis, 2 [Berlin 1973], 651f) supposes that Odessos had to pay tribute to Kanites in order to secure her rural territory. This hypothesis is not based on immediate sources, but on the reconstruction of the economic history of the Western Pontus done by the author.

123K. Regling, "Charaspes," in Corolla Numismatica Head (Oxford 1906), 259-265; Blavatskaya, "Greki i Skify," 210; T. Gerasimov, "Monety ot Kanit, Tanuza, Kharasp, Akroza i Saria," IVAD 9 (1953): 53-58; Pippidi; Greci, 109; J. Iouroukova (Youroukova), "Nouvelles donn^es sur la chronologie des rois scythes en Dobroudja," Thracia 4 (1977): 105-121; Yordanov, "Dobrud2ha," 120.

m Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 144ff) thinks, that the Western Pontic cities had not only to mint coins for the Scythians, but also to pay tribute. There is no evidence for the second assumption. Cf. Pippidi, Greci, 101.

125ISM 1.15, dated by Pippidi (p. 82) in ca. 200 B.C. Cf. Vulpe, "Histoire," 87f; T. D. Zlatkovskaya, "Plemennoy soyuz Getov pod rukovodstvom Birebisty (I v. do n. e. )," VDI 1955.2:83; Pippidi, Greci, 106f; §tefan, "Relations," 332- 338. too) was vulnerable to attacks of Thracian robbers against

the %6pa. 126 At least four separate cases of barbarian

incursions are recorded in ISM 1.15 (lines 8-14, 25-27, 36-

45, 51-57). As this and other inscriptions 127 show, the

preferred method of dealing with the Thracian danger was to

negotiate with the barbarians and to buy peace (at least for

the time of harvest) at a price of tribute. When, just

before the time of harvest, the barbarians started to

plunder Istrian ctidra, Agathokles paid off a Thracian leader

Zoltes to stop threatening the rural territory: rev tioAvtwv auxin rcpdaxayna Sdvxov [Ka]/x& xpditov €$ayop&CGiv tt)v x<*>Pav

Kal x& 0Gpr|, EttGict[€]/ ZoAttiv Kal xoOc GpatKa?, [<5t]rcd XPUCT“V

6$ [aK }oai o)v p[t) 6p/0a]A€v Gi c tt)v x<*>pctv (lines 29-32).

When Zoltes, in disregard of the covenant, continued raiding

the rural territory of Istros, citizens and mercenaries

fought him (lines 40-46). Additionally Agathokles procured help (one hundred horsemen once and sixty on later occasion)

from a Thracian king Rhemaxos (lines 50-51, 54-55), the overlord of the Greek cities. 128 These episodes were

126Pippidi, "Istros," 55f.

127Embassies to the barbarians: ISM 1.12 (third century B.C.), 1.18 (third/second century B.C.), possibly 1.37 (undated).

128Pippidi ("Gfetes et Grecs dans 1'histoire de la Scythie Mineure h. l'6poque de Byrebistas," in idem, Parerga, 180ff) suggests, that not only Istros, but also Tomis and Callatis were subjects of Rhemaxos. It is difficult to assess the accuracy of this statement. ISM 1.15 testifies only that some Greek cities were subordinate to Rhemaxos, 45

probably quite typical of Istros and perhaps of all Western

Pontus in the second century B.C., a time when the Greek

cities generally were weak both economically and militarily

and no force existed to curb Thracian tribes after the

kingdom of the Celts had ceased to exist. 129

By the second century B.C. Mesambria was the only

Western Pontic city involved in political activity on a

scale broader than regional. It may have supported Pontic

Heraclea, Chersonesus and Pharnaces I in the war with

Eumenes II, Ariarthes IV and Prusias II. 130 At any rate

Polybius (25.2.13) names Mesambria in a peace treaty of 179

B.C. A badly damaged inscription from Odessos mentions the

name of Pharnaces (I?) and an embassy, apparently sent to

him. 131 But the details of Odessos' relations with the king

of Pontus elude u s .

Sometime in the second century B.C. Mesambria invaded

the territory of the neighboring city of Apollonia. At first

without specifying their names: t& c [' E]AA.t|v C Sate rt6A,6ic t& c [xaaao^iGva]< utt[6 fSotai]/A,€a ' Ptma$ov (lines 16-17). Rhemaxos demanded tribute from the Greek cities (lines 46-48).

129Pippidi, "G£tes," 181f. ISM 1.15 testifies that other Greek cities, not only Istros, were subordinate to Rhemaxos. Odessos dedicated an inscription (IGB 1 .41) for a certain Hermeios of Antioch who acted on behalf of the city at the court of Scythian king Kanites.

130 Lenk, "Mesambria," 1073; Danov, Zapadniyat, 118; Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 148ff; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 17f.

131 IGB l2.40, cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 89. 46 it was victorious capturing Anchialos, a small town with salt-pans which used to be an important source of income for

Apollonia. 132 The attempt to take Apollonia failed and thanks to a task force dispatched by Istros Apollonia's

133 property was restored to this city.

132 Cf. H. Bengtson ("Neues zur Geschichte der Hellenismus in Thrakien und in der Dobrudscha," Historia 11 [1962]: 96-99 and "Bemerkungen zu einen Ehreninschrift der Stadt Apollonia am Pontos," Historia 12 [1963]: 9 8 ff) about the economic aspect of this war.

133This incident is known from an inscription containing the honorific decree for the Istrian admiral Hegesagoras. This inscription, commissioned by Apollonia, was found in Istros (IGB l2.388bis = ISM 1.64). Date: Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 175) - the second century B.C.; Mihailov (IGB 1 , p. 352) and Hoddinott (Bulgaria, 40f) - 1st half of the second century B.C.; Velkov ("Mesambria," 34) - end of the second century B.C. 47

3. Mithridates VI and the advent of Rome.

Mithridates VI did not overlook the Western Pontus in his buildup of the Pontic empire. Apollonia, the southern neighbor of Mesambria allied itself with the king of Pontus and played host to the garrison of his troops.13A Very likely the Western Pontic cities joined forces with

Mithridates VI too. 135 In the case of Istros, Tomis,

Callatis and Odessos changes in coining allude to this fact. 136 It is possible that the Western Pontic cities

134The upper part of an inscription conveying a decree which mentions a general commanding Mithridatean troops in Apollonia is preserved (IGB 1 .392). Dates certainly beginning of the first century B.C., cf. the discussion in Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 361f).

135Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, roi de Pont (Paris 1890), 75; Pick, Antiken, 64; Vulpe, "Histoire," 95; Pippidi, Greci, 136-139; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 18; idem "Gracka," 99.

136Lysimachus-type staters minted in Istros (Pick, Antiken, no. 482), Tomis (Regling, Antiken, nos. 2471-2486), Callatis (Pick, Antiken, nos. 256-266, no. 262 bears also a monogram of Mithridates), Odessos (Velkov, "Belezhki," 43) and Mesambria (M. J. Price, "Mithridates VI Eupator, Dionysos, and the Coinage of the Black Sea," NC, 7 ser., 8 [1968]: 7ff) were modified: standards began to conform to that employed in Pontus (the weight of coins diminished in comparison to those mined earlier) and coins were adorned with effigies of members of Mithridates' family - Pick, Antiken, 64, 92; Regling, Antiken, p. 591, 606f; Stoian, "Citt& Tomis," 246; T. V. Borozdina, "K istorii zapadnopontiyskikh gorodov v 80-40 g. I v. do n.e.," VDI (1946.3): 197; Danov, Zapadniyat, 63; Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 161ff; Price, "Mithridates VI Eupator," 1- 12; E. A. Molev, "Zapadnopontiyske goroda v antirimskikh voynakh Mitridata VI," in Terra antiqua Balcanica. Studia in Honorem Chr. M. Danov, GSU IF 77.2 (Sofia 1985), 287. 48 joined the side of Mithridates out of their own free will, seeking some protection against the barbarians. 137 The date of this alliance with the king of Pontus remains unknown.

Certainly it preceded 72 B.C. (vide infra). Some scholars put the date ca. 100 B.C., soon after the Kingdom of

Bosporus was secured for Mithridates; 138 numismatic sources seem to indicate a date closer to 88 B.C. 139

No sources suggest any involvement outside their immediate region by the Western Pontic cities in the hostilities of the Mithridatic wars. Nevertheless they could not completely avoid involvement in the power politics of that time. In 72 B.C. a Roman army under M. Terentius Varro invaded the Western Pontus. His soldiers stormed Apollonia and captured the remaining cities up to the mouth of

Danube. 140 A Roman garrison was established in Mesambria

137Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 767; Molev, "Zapadnopontiyske goroda," 287.

138Vulpe, "Histoire," 95. Reinach (Mithridate, 95) proposed a slightly earlier date: 104/103 B.C.; cf. Borozdina, "K istorii," 197; Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 161f.

139 Price ("Mithridates VI Eupator," 8) dates the earliest stater of Mesambria bearing the effigy of Mithridates to ca. 88-86 B.C. "Mithridates" type staters from Odessos are slightly later. Changes in coin types are usually later (sometimes a few years later) than the political events they reflect.

140App., Illyr. 85; Eutropius 6.10; Eutropius, Breviarium 10: "Apolloniam evertit, Callatim, Parthenopolim, Tomos, Istrum, Burziaonem (= Bizonem) cepit belloque confecto Romam rediit." These events are mentioned in greater or lesser detail by virtually every modern historian 49 and possibly in other cities too.141

At some point a treaty between Rome and Callatis

(foedus Roma-Callatis) was signed. Its provisions are known to a certain extent from a fragmentary Latin inscription found in Callatis. 142 Both the date and exact provisions of the treaty are a matter of scholarly dispute.143

Undoubtedly in the case of war the treaty imposed on the partners certain duties, probably of a financial character, for in the extant part of the inscription both bellum face[re - -] (1. 3) and pequnia adiouanto (1. 4) can be read. dealing with the Western Pontus in the first century B.C., e.g. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 985f; Vulpe, "Histoire," 96f; Pippidi, Greci, 142f; Velkov, "GrScka," 100.

141IGB 12.314A; cf. Velkov, "Mesambria," 34.

142First published by Th. Sauciuc-S3veanu, "Callatis: Rapport pr61iminaire," Dacia 3-4 (1927-1932): 456f. Re­ published: S. Lambrino, "Inscription latine de Callatis," CRAI (1933): 280f; A. Degrassi, ILLRP, 2.516; E. Lommatzsch, CIL 1 .2676.

143Restorations of the inscription: cf. n. 14 2; for even bolder attempts see: A. Passerini, "II testo del foedus di Roma con Callatis," Athenaeum n.s. 13 (1935): 57-72 (the space on stone is not sufficient for his restoration - cf. E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, 2 [Berkeley 1984], 740, n. 52); St. Marin, "II Foedus romano con Callatis," Epigraphica 10 (1948): 104-130.

144This second clause is interpreted by Pippidi ("Autour de la date du "foedus" Rome-Callatis," in Polis and Imperium. Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon, ed. J. A. S. Evans [Toronto 1974], 191) as a reflection of alleged war reparations paid by Callatis for its involvement in the Mithridatic wars. More acceptable is the opinion of Lambrino ("Inscription," 281f) shared by Marin ("Foedus romano," 50

The original editors dated the inscription and the treaty in the period of Terentius Varro's expedition (72-70

B.C.).145 This was, however, quickly disputed. Various other dates were proposed: the first decade of the first century B.C.,146 114-107 B.C.,147 140 B.C.148 Scholars supporting early dates for the foedus use two kinds of arguments: those based on alleged "archaic" internal features of the inscription and those derived from our

(inadequate) knowledge of the political and economic history of the region.

llOff), that these words described mutual obligations in the case of war.

145Cf. n. 142. This date was accepted by majority of subsequent scholarship: J. Carcopino, La RSpublique Romaine de 133 & 44 av. J.C. (Paris 1935), 542; Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 986; Passerini, "Testo del foedus," passim; G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, 4.2.1 (1953), 11, n. 1; Pippidi, "Les premiers rapports de Rome et des cit6s grecques de l'Euxin," Riv. Storica dell'Antichitk 2 (1972): 28; idem, "La date du 'foedus' Rome-Callatis," in idem, Scythica Minora, 173-181; Stoian, "Cittci Tomis," 248; R. Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria. Die romische Politik gegeniiber den freien Stadten des griechischen Ostens (Hamburg 1971), 143; F. W. Walbank, review of Bernhardt's book (Gnomon 1986): 516f; Velkov, "Gracka," 100; Molev, "Zapadnopontiyske goroda," 289.

146Lommatzsch, CIL l2, comm, to n. 2676. 147 H. B. Mattingly, "Rome's Earliest Relations with Byzantium, Heraclea Pontica and Callatis," in Ancient Bulgaria. Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, 1 (Nottingham 1983), 243-246 and Gruen, Hellenistic World, 740.

148Marin, "Foedus romano," 127. 51

The paleographical reasons which allegedly indicate a date earlier than 72-70 B.C.,149 include the shapes of letters, the spelling and the formulae employed. These are supposedly more typical of (sometimes much) earlier epochs.150 Yet no other Latin inscription from Callatis or any other city in the region is known that is datable to the second-first centuries B.C. Therefore it is difficult to understand how palaeographical reasons can be employed to determine the date of the foedus Roma-Callatis, since there is nothing to compare it with. The linguistic arguments are not any stronger. Even the proponents of early dates could not find anything categorically excluding the date 7 2-70

B.C.151 The arguments about the formulae resembling too much those of much earlier treaties are purely conjectural, since the treaties in question are known only from Greek inscriptions. 152 Moreover only the Latin original of the foedus Roma-Callatis is still extant.

U9Marin, "Foedus romano," 103-130; Lommatzsch, CIL l2, comm, to n. 2676.

1S0Marin, loc.cit.j Mattingly, "Rome's Relations," 243ff.

151Mattingly ("Rome's Relations," 245f) admits, that all examples of "archaic" spelling typical of this inscription are attested in the Latin epigraphy of the Sullan period. Cf. Pippidi, "Date du 'foedus'," 174f.

152Mattingly, "Rome's Relations," 243ff. 52

Arguments by the second group tend to stress the

impossibility of signing such a treaty during the war 153 and to find earlier, technically possible and - according to

their proponents - more likely dates. These dates correspond

to the time of known Roman military operations in the

territories of Thrace (some a few hundred kilometers distant

from Callatis), as campaigns against the Scordisci in 114-

107 B.C. 154 Additinally, Marin thinks that Rome signed this treaty so early (140 B.C. in his opinion) in order to open the Western Pontic market to imports from Roman provinces.155

Arguments of this kind testify only to the vivid imaginations of their proponents.156 There is no evidence of any Roman interest in the Western Pontus before 7 2

B.C.157 The text of the foedus contains besides one provision which may be helpful in narrowing down its date.

153Gruen, Hellenistic World, 740.

154Mattingly, "Rome's Relations," 245f; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 740.

155loc. cit. This hypothesis is an obvious anachronism. Pippidi ("Autour de la date," 186-190) discusses and rejects Marin's arguments.

1360ne of Gruen's statements is worth quoting: "Lucullus, however, captured and subdued the Hellenic cities, including Callatis; not a propitious time for awarding the favor of an alliance." (p. 740) We know no details about the factual character of Eutropius' "Callatin ... cepit" and, after all, it was the usual Roman practice to conclude foedera with defeated enemies.

137Cf. Lambrino, "Inscription," 283ff. 53

The text was to be deposited in the temple of Concordia:

"[po/neretur loc]o optumo in faano Concor[diae]" (lines 14-

15). Despite some attempts to identify this faanum

Concordiae with the temple of Homonoia in Callatis, the text almost certainly speaks about the temple in Rome. 158 G. De

Sanctis remarked, that the temple of Concordia in Rome served as a repository of official documents at the time, when the Capitoline temple of Jupiter could not be used for this purpose for the reason of destruction by fire (83-69

B.C.). 159 The date 72-70 B.C. fits this time framework and should be accepted as the date of the foedus Roma-

Callatis.160

The status of Callatis was regulated by this treaty.

Some scholars supposed, that similar documents were signed

Al. Sufieveanu (Pontica 2 [1969]: 269-274) suggested that the temple of Homonoia is mentioned here. But this temple is first attested in the first century A.D. (Th. Sauciuc-SSveanu, Dacia 2 [1958]: 212) and even at that time no example of depositing state documents within the precinct of this shrine is attested. All this makes SuCeveanu's hypothesis very unlikely and the identification with the temple in Rome is the best solution - cf. Pippidi, "Une hypothfese sur le temple de la Concorde & Callatis," St. Cl. 16 (1974): 89-99; idem, "Date du 'foedus'," 179ff.

159G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, 4.2.1, 299f and n. 785. E.g. the text of the treaty with Astypalaia (IG 12.3, 173) concluded in 105 B.C. was deposited in the Capitoline temple of Jupiter, cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1 (London 1984), 67.

160B. Gerov, "Severnata granica na provinciya Trakiya," IAI 17 (1950): 25; Pippidi, "Autour de la date," I93ff; idem, "Date du 'foedus'," 173; Walbank, loc. cit. 54 with all Western Pontic cities.161 This could have happened, yet nothing in the extant sources indicates that it• * did. j • -j 1 6 2

The Roman rule over the Western Pontus did not last long. In 62 B.C. a new Roman army under C. Antonius Hybrida marched into this area. Dio Cassius (38.10) testifies that

Rome had her allies in this region. One of them was undoubtedly Callatis, the other perhaps Dionysopolis. 163

Antonius Hybrida abused his allies and this led to the uprising. The Roman army was defeated near Istros. 164 Most scholars think that the victorious side consisted of Getae,

1^erov, "Severnata granica," 25; D. M. Pippidi, "Le role de centres urbains dans le processus de romanization de la Dacie et la Scythie Mineure," in idem, Parerga, 241; Chr. Danov, "Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zur Griindung Konstantinopolis," ANRW 2.7.1, 116; Velkov, "Gracka," 99; R. Bernhardt, Polis und romische Herrschaft in der spater Republik (149-31 v.Chr.) (Berlin and New York 1985), 143; Molev, "Zapadnopontiyske goroda," 289.

162Walbank, loc. cit. Dionysopolis may have been an ally of Rome too - cf. my n. 163.

163Antonius (and presumably a part of his army too) spent the winter of 62/61 B.C. in Dionysopolis - IGB l2.13, 1. 16. Dionysopolis may have been a formal ally of Rome (as Callatis w a s ), but the fact of spending winter by Antonius Hybrida there is not sufficient proof of it. Even less can be said about the remaining Western Pontic cities, claimed by Regling (Antiken, 591) to be those allies of Rome mentioned by Dio Cassius.

164Ancient accounts about the defeat of Antonius' army: Livy, Per. 103; Dio Cassius 38.10.1-3, 51. 55

Bastarnae and the Western Pontic cities.165 But the alleged participation of the last named cities is not attested in our sources which attribute defeating the Roman army to the native tribes. The same applies to a hypothesis of V. PSrvan concerning Burebista's command of native forces in this battle.166

After the defeat of Antonius Hybrida Roman rule in the

Western Pontus was certainly greatly weakened and perhaps even interrupted for a few decades. Before the moment of

Ovid's relegatio to Tomis no Roman presence in this area is attested. The absence of external powers made it possible for the native tribes and states to gain strength. Soon after the retreat of the Romans a tribal state of the Getae ruled by king Burebista came into pre-eminence in the area of the lower Danube. In an inscription from Dionysopolis he is called the first and the most powerful king of the

1 Lambrino, "Inscription," 285f; Borozdina, "K istorii," 200f; Blavatskaya, "Greki i Skify," 212; Pippidi, Greci, 145; Yordanov, "Dobrudzha prez I khil. pr.n.e.," 121.

166V. PSrvan, Geticas o protoistorie a Daciei, Bucure?ti 1926, 78; again A. Petre, Pontica 4 (1971): 97-104; contra, Pippidi, Greci, 147; idem, "Relations," 175; I. H. Cri?an, Burebista and His Times (Bucure?ti 1978), 123. Even more fantastic is Stoian's hypothesis (in Omagiu lui Constantin Daicoviciu [Bucure?ti 1960], 559-563), according to which a democratic part of the population of the Western Pontic cities joined forces with the barbarians against the Romans supported by the upper crust of the Greek cities; cf. Pippidi, Greci, 146. 56

Thracians,167 but an embassy from Dionysopolis was dispatched to another native monarch and his father ruling in Argedaua.168

About the mid first century B.C. the expansion of the king of the Getae turned east, towards the Greek cities on the Black Sea coast. Dio Chrysostomus (36.1-4) writes that all cities from Olbia in the north to Apollonia in the south were destroyed. Since his account is not only rhetorical, but also over one hundred fifty years later than Burebista's invasion, 169 the local sources should be carefully considered too.

Istros indeed was destroyed by the invading barbarians and the archaeological excavations revealed extensive damage

167 IGB 1 2 .13, lines 22f. There is a vast literature about Burebista, mostly Rumanian and apologetic, e.g. R. Vulpe, "Le G§te Bur6bista, chef de tous les G6to-Daces," in idem, Studia Thracologica (Bucure?ti 1976), 39-61; I. H. Cri^an, Burebista and His Times (Bucure?ti 1978). Also: Hoddinott, Thracians, 146ff.

168IGB l2.13, lines 6-7. Mihailov (IGB l2, p. 54f) thinks that the ruler of Argedaua was Burebista's father. But, since the upper part of the inscription is badly damaged, there are some real doubts, whether indeed the embassy dealt with the father of Burebista - cf. H. Daicoviciu, Pontica 4 (1971): 89-96; J.& L. Robert, B&p 1972, 303. More likely perhaps the inscription refers to other Thracian chieftain; cf. P. Alexandru, A. Suceveanu, "Une nouvelle histoire de la Dobroudja," Dacia, 32 (1988): 165.

169This oration was delivered ca. 105 A.D., cf. Pippidi, "G6tes et Grecs," 184. 57 in the city, especially in the "sacred district".170 The honorary decree for Aristagoras (ISM 1.54) testifies to plundering of the rural territory, economic difficulties, attempts to mount some resistance to the barbarians, lack of adequate fortifications and rebuilding of them.171

Tomis is known to have resisted Burebista. The city

undertook emergency security measures, appointed officers

(hegemones) and forty citizen-soldiers to guard the city walls and the harbor. 172 These precautions apparently paid off and Tomis avoided destruction. The guardsmen were praised by the city for a job well done. 173

Archaeology does not provide any data concerning the destruction of Callatis, but this may be caused by the fact of changes of the shoreline, by which, as mentioned above, pre-Roman Callatis is now submerged. Nevertheless we may be

almost sure, that Callatis was destroyed too and had to be

rebuilt later, since one of its prominent citizens, Ariston, was called "the second founder of the city" (6GuT£po<;

170D. M. Pippidi, "Histria aux I-III si^cles," Dacia 19 (1975): 145 (further reference here); Cri?an, Burebista, 128.

171JSW 1.54, lines 6-8 (dangers), 9-12 (strengthening of city walls), 14-15, 27 and 31-32 (barbarians occupying the chora). Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 142, Cri§an, Burebista, 129.

172ISM 2.2, lines 2-26.

173 ISM 2.2, lines 27-64. Cf. Zlatkovskaya, "Plemennoy soyuz," 89-90. Stoian ("CittA Tomis," 250) thinks, that Tomis had to surrender to Burebista after futile resistance. Perhaps, but this fact is not reflected in sources. 58

. 174 k x i ara<;) .

Dionysopolis most probably avoided destruction. Nothing

is known about any attempt to resist Burebista's forces.

Instead the city dealt diplomatically with the king of the

Getae and, as the decree for Akornion (IGB l2.13) indicates,

the benevolence of Burebista was secured for

Dionysopolis.175 In 48 B.C. Akornion acted as Burebista's

ambassador to Pompey and having met the Roman general in his

headquarters in Heraclea Lyncestis managed to gain his favor

for the city too.176

Odessos was also attacked and probably destroyed, since

the citizens had to leave the city for some time.177

m The most recent edition of the decree for Ariston: D. M. Pippidi, "Sur un fragment de d6cret in6dit de Callatis," in idem, Parerga, 198). A. §tefan ("Le debut de la domination romaine sur les cit6s de la c6te ouest du Pont- Euxins date et circonstances," Eirene 12:622-629; eadem, "Callatis A l'6poque du Haut-Empire A la lumiAre des documents §pigraphiques," Dacia 19 [1975]: 161-172) thinks, that this second foundation of Callatis was the moment when Callatis joined the Roman Empire and was granted privileged status (unattested in sources). Pippidi ("Sur un fragment," 195-207) showed that analogically as in Istros, also in Callatis, the second foundation was in fact a rebuilding of the city destroyed by the Getae. The second foundation of the city is known from one more inscription: Th. Sauciuc- SAveanu, Dacia 1 (1925): 139-144, n. 2, 323f (cf. Robert, Btip 1958, 330).

175 JGB l2.13, lines 22-33. Cf. Danov, "Thraker auf Ostbalkan," 119.

176IGB l2.13, lines 32-38, date: Mihailov, comm., p. 56.

177Their return (k&0o8oc) is attested in IGB l2.46, 1. 2. A list of eponymous priests active after this event is preserved (IGB 1 .46). Cf. Velkov, "Odessos - Varna," 340; 59

Mesambria, thanks to its very strong geographical position on an off-shore island, was able to defend herself. 178 The armed resistance is attested by an honorary inscription for the strategoi (IGB l2.323): aTponrayriaavTGc

[€v toi rtpdc TGtov vel epaxev PaaiAGa]/ BupG/3iarav itol€(io)i

(lines 4-5). A large number of mid-first century B.C. inscriptions mentioning strategoi, taxiarchoi and guardsmen may also be connected to the war with Burebista. 179

There have been some claims that the reason for

Burebista's invasion was to curb the Roman conquest, 180 to punish the Greek cities for disloyalty, 181 to boost the

D. M. Pippidi, "'La second fondation' d'Istros h la lumi&re d'un document in6dit," BCH 92 (1968): 236; idem, "G&tes et Grecs," 184f.

178G. Seure, "Arch6ologie Thrace," RA 18 (1911): 423ff; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 17; idem, "Mesambria," 34.

179 IGB l2.324, 325, 326, and I. Venedikov, "Trois reliefs surprenants de Mesambria," in: NessSbre, 2. 95, nos. 4-6 (= SEG 30.702, 703, 704). Cf. Mihailov, IGB 1 , p. 285.

180E. Condurachi, SCJV 4 (1953): 515-523; H. Daicoviciu, in Actes du Premier Congr&s International d' fitudes Balcaniques et Sud-l2st Europ6en 2 (Sofia 1969), 65.

181C. Daicoviciu ("Dakien und Rom in der Prinzipatszeikt," ANRW 2.6 [Berlin and New York 1977], 904- 907) thinks that the Greek cities owed loyalty to tribal leaders like Burebista or earlier Rhemaxos who protected them for a fee (i.e. extorted money from them). Daicoviciu states further that the Western Pontic cities dissociated themselves from the Geto-Dacians under the pressure of Mithridates VI and the Romans, and that Burebista punished them for this disloyalty. Neither the alleged "protection" offered by Burebista nor his motives, as stated by Daicoviciu, find sufficient support in our sources. 60 economy of the kingdom by incorporating the Greek cities

into it or to facilitate trade, 182 or that Burebista was

simply building a great, unified state. 183 Those claims are based on very little; the sources attest only the destruction. Most likely the king of the Getae was aiming

only at plundering his victims.184

Very probably Burebista did not conquer all these Greek

cities during one campaign, but rather in a series of attacks beginning ca. 55 B.C. Olbia was probably his first victim, 185 later he turned south and continued the conquest of the Western Pontus until ca. 48 B.C. 186

After the death of Burebista (ca. 45 B.C.)187 his kingdom was plunged into turmoil and most likely was unable to exercise any control over the Western Pontus. 188 Some

Western Pontic cities may have become subjects of local

182$tefan, "Relations 6trang6res," 338; Cri?an, Burebista, 124f.

183Pippidi, Greci, 149f.

184Zlatkovskaya, "Plemennoy soyuz," 89f.

185Archaeological excavations revealed marks of destruction in Olbia, cf. E. Belin de Ballu, Olbia. Cite antique du littoral nord de la Mer Noire (Leiden 1972), 138.

186The most recent and comprehensive discussion of the dates is in Cri?an, Burebista, 126f.

187Danov, "Thraker auf Ostbalkan," 119.

188 In fact nothing is known about any control of this area by the Getae even during Burebista's reign; cf. Zlatkovskaya, "Plemennoy soyuz," 90. 61

Thracian rulers or at least looked to them for their protection. Odessos sought (and received) the benevolence of

Sadalas II, whose general Menogenes was praised in an honorary decree. 189 Mesambria, on the other hand, is known to have fought the Bessi, a Thracian tribe. 190

Burebista's reign seems to have constituted a traumatic experience for the Western Pontic cities. They rebuilt themselves after the invasion, but a long time had to pass before they regained their former strength. Strabo (7.6.1) still calls Istros and Tomis noAixvia and the "sacred sector" in Istros, destroyed during the invasion, remained deserted for about a hundred years. 191 The rebuilding was

169IGB lz.43 dated by Mihailov (comm., p. 96f) in 45/44- 42 B.C. Menogenes probably did not have direct power in Odessos (as was claimed by Blavatskaya, "Zapadnopontiyske," 178f and 250, and Velkov, "Odessos - Varna," 340), nevertheless he could greatly influence the city, cf. H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit 2 (Munich 1944), 310-314; Danov, Zapadniyat, 102, n. 3; Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 99.

190A certain Ariston, killed in this war, was honored in a late first century B.C. epigram (IGB l2.344). Cf. Velkov, "Mesambria," 34f. This epigram may refer to the attack of the Bessi against the Greek coastal cities ca. 13 B.C. (Dio Cass. 54.34.5-7). Danov {RE Suppl. 9:1072, s.v. "Pontos Euxeinos") thinks, that in this epigram Bessi substitute for Thracians in general. But the presence of Bessi in the Western Pontic region is well attested in the Roman epoch (Ovid, Tristia, 3.10.5, 4.67; ISM 1.324, 326, 327, 328, 330, 332). Hence there is no compelling reasoln to disbelieve the testimony of IGB 1 .344 that Ariston defended his city against the Bessi, cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 305.

191 D. M. Pippidi, "Les rois g&tes et les colonies grecques de Scythie Mineure," in Melanges Carcopino (Paris 1966), 769 (further reference to the reports from the excavations there) and idem, "'Seconde fondation'", 238. 62 deemed by the citizens of Istros so extensive, that they called it the second foundation of the city (SEuxEpa xxiaic) and until the second century A.D. used this fact as the fixed point in dating. 192 Most likely rebuilding Callatis was called the second foundation too. 193 In Odessos the return of citizens (k & 0 o 6o c ) may have played a similar role in social consciousness.194 There is even a hypothesis, that due to the traumatic experience of Burebista's invasion, the Western Pontic cities turned to Rome in order to obtain protection against the natives. 195 But except for

Akornion's mission to Pompey (a mission on behalf of

Burebista) no data about any relations with Rome for a few decades following Burebista's invasion are available.

192 ISM 1.191 (first century B.C. - first century A.D.), 193 (times of Hadrian). The second foundation is possibly attested in ISM 1.269 too. The relevant fragment of this inscription, restored by L. Moretti ("Su alcune iscrizioni greche di Histria," St. Cl. 24 [1986]: 74, c f . Moretti's commentary, 74f) reads: [*H AEiva xoO AEivoc x6 8]GixGpov [y Gv o h Gv ou Kxiaxou xt\<; tt6A,Ec , ] yuvr) k x A. (lines 1-2). About this "second foundation" see: Pippidi, "'Second fondation,'" 226-240; idem, "G&tes et Grecs," 186f; Velkov, "Gracka," 100.

193 _ - „ _ . Cf. n. 174.

194IGB l2.46 contains a list of eponymous magistrates who held their office after the return of citizens (k&Oo So c , lines 1-2).

195T. D. Zlatkovskaya, Meziya v I II vekakh n.e. (Moscow 1951), 23; cf. R. Vulpe, "Ovidio nella citta dell'esilio," in F. Arnaldi et al., Studi Ovidiani (Roma 1959), 47f. 63

For Ovid, relegated in A.D. 8 to Tomis (he came to this city in summer or autumn of A.D. 9), the Western Pontic region was a territory freshly acquired by the empire and he deemed the Roman rule there anything but stable:

hactenus Euxini pars est Romana sinistri:

proxima Bastarnae Sauromataeque tenent.

haec est Ausonio sub iure novissima vixque

haeret in imperii margine terra t u i .

(Tristia 2.197-200)

Thus A.D. 8 marks the terminus ante quem of incorporation of the Western Pontus into the Roman empire. Most scholars agree that this happened during the expedition of the proconsul of Macedonia M. Licinius Crassus (29-27 B.C.).195

Despite the almost universal agreement of the scholarship caution would be well advised here, since the Cassius'

(52.23.2-27 ) account describing Licinius Crassus' expedition does not allude to this alleged incorporation of the Western

Pontic. cities into the Roman empire. • 197

196This hypothesis was first formulated by Th. Mommsen, Romische Geschichte 5,1 3. It was accepted by subsequent scholarship: Vulpe, "Histoire," 104; idem, "Ovidio," 47f; Zlatkovskaya, Meziya, 29; B. Gerov, "Romanizmat mezhdu Dunava i Balkana," GS U FF 14 ( 1950): 4; idem, "Prouchvaniya varkhu pozemlenite otnosheniya v nashite zemi prez rimsko vreme," GSU FF 1.2 (1955): 21; Stoian, Tomitana, 33; idem, "Citta Tomis," 119; §tefan, "D6but de la domination," 629ff; eadem, "Callatis," 165; Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 152; A. Aricescu, The Army in Roman Dobrudja, vol. 86 of BAR International Series (Oxford 1980), 6 .

197 Cf. Pippidi, Greci, 180; §tefan, "Debut de la domination," 622; Velkov, "Mesambria," 35. 64

4. Pax Romana in the Western Pontus.

The status of the Western Pontic cities under Roman rule will be dealt with later (chapter II). The internal

situation of Tomis (and to some degree also of the remaining

Western Pontic cities) has attracted much of scholarly

interest. In Ovid's account Tomis was the city full of barbarians and Greeks mixed with them, e.g.:

turba Tomitanae quae sit regionis et inter

quos habitem mores, discere tibi cura est?

mixta sit haec quamvis inter Graecosque Getasque,

a male pacatis plus trahit ora Getis.

Sarmaticae maior Geticaeque frequentia gentis

per medias in equis itque reditque vias.

(Tristia 5.7.9-14) or: in paucis remanent Graecae vestigia linguae,

haec quoque iam Getico barbara facta sono

(Tristia,5.7.51-52)

Such statements were taken by some scholars at face value and as a result the whole notion of a Geto-Greek Tomis was conceived. 198 The local epigraphy strongly contradicts

198The most prominent example of this school of thinking is represented by an article by S. Lambrino: "Tomis, cit£ gr§co-g&te chez Ovide," in Ovidiana, Recherches sur Ovide publi&es £ 1'occasion du bimill6naire de la naissance du po&te (Paris 1958), 378-390; cf. also: Vulpe, "Ovidio," 51; Stoian, Tomitana, 32, 35; idem, "Citt& Tomis," 250. C. Tonfieva (”L'influence thrace ^ Odessos," IVAD 1956, 51-64) claimed a strong Thracian presence in Odessos. Quite 65 this picture of Tomis; out of ca. eight hundred names known to us only fourteen are of Thracian origin and similar proportions can be traced in Istros and Callatis. 199 The language of the inscriptions is koine Greek; the institutions and cults continued to be Greek. In other words during the Roman epoch Tomis and other Western Pontic cities were as much traditional Greek poleis, as other cities elsewhere. 200 Ovid had a vested interest in depicting Tomis as barbaric and generally unattractive place, since he hoped that Augustus out of mercy would terminate his 201 banishment.

The beginning of the Roman rule did not bring stable peace. Ovid 202 mentions many times the constant danger and barbarian incursions against Tomis. surprisingly even A. L. Wheeler, the editor of Ovid in the Loeb's series, was not aware what licentia poetica meant, since he wrote: "The townspeople [of Tomis] were a mixed crowd of half-breed Greeks and full-blooded barbarians. The latter were in the majority and chiefly of Getic, hence Indo-European, stock.... It was a rude community. Latin was almost never heard and the people spoke some hybrid Greek, but Getic and Sarmatian were so much in use that Ovid was forced to learn these languages." (Ovid with an English Translation. Tristia. Ex Ponto [Cambridge, Massachusetts 1939], xxvif).

199 Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 159f.

200Pippidi, Greci, 138, 285; idem, "Villes grecques, " 110; idem, "Tomis, cit6 g§to-grecque a l'§poque d'Ovide?," in idem, Parerga, 189-194.

201 P. M. Greene, "Ovid in Tomis," Grand Street 2 (1982): 119-122.

102 E. g. Tristia 2.191f; 3.10, 5-13, 49-68; 5.10, 15-27. 66

In the beginning of the first century A.D. the Western

Pontic cities were under the control of governors of

Macedonia. 203 At least from the military point of view the

Western Pontus was a separate administrative entity, subject to the praefectus orae maritimae (ripae Thraciae) .204 The praefectura controlled the Greek cities isolated from the remaining part of Macedonia by the territory of the Thracian

Kingdom. Its existence is attested from the time preceding the exile of Ovid until at least Nero. 205 The seat of the

203Gerov, "Prouchvaniya," 22.

2

205 Ovid (Ex P. 4.7 and 9) mentions Vestialis, the first praefectus known to us. According to Ovid, Vestialis occupied himself both with fighting barbarians and dispensing justice (the second responsibility: Ex P. 4.7, 1. 2). Cf. Barbieri, "Ancora," 170; Aricescu, Army in Dobrudja, 1 . 67 206 praefectus was located in Tomis; Roman garrisons were

stationed also in Istros and Callatis. 207 Roman soldiers oo

active duty and building activity of the Roman army are

attested in Tomis, 208 Istros209 and Callatis. 210

Many scholars 211 claim, that until A.D. 46 the Western

Pontic cities were subjects of the Thracian kingdom and,

when Claudius abolished the kingdom, the cities were

incorporated into Moesia. ThisThracian hypothesis is based

on four sources: Ovid's letter to Kotys (Ex Ponto 2.9),

Kotys' eponymous kingship in Callatis, Tacitus' statement

206Ovid (Ex P. 4.9, 1. 75) says about prefect Flaccus: "praefuit his ... locis modo Flaccus." Cf. Suceveanu, "Defense de Dobroudja," 222.

207Detailed analysis of Roman military presence in the Western Pontus: Suceveanu, "Defense de Dobroudja," 217-238.

208 Legio V Macedonica: CIL 3.7534, 7550; Legio XI Claudia: CIL 3.771; cf. Aricescu, Army in Dobrudja, 11, 14. Other units garrisoned in Tomis included: Cohors I Flavia Commagenorum, Cohors VII Gallorum, Cohors I Cilicum, Ala I Flavia Gaetulorum, Ala Gallorum Alectorigiana. Cf. Aricescu, Army in Dobrudja, 52.

209Bricks with stamps of the Legio V Macedonica were uncovered there, Suceveanu, "Defense de la Dobroudja," 226. Beneficiarii of the 13C legion are attested in Istros: ISM 1.137 and 302; cf. Aricescu, Army in Dobrudja, 52.

210 Bricks with stamps of three Roman legions (V Macedonica, XI Claudia, I Italica) were uncovered there, Suceveanu, Army in Dobrudja, 11 and n. 168, 14 and n. 234, 15 and n. 264.

211V. PSrvan, "A propos du 'basileus' Cotys de Callatis," Dacia 1 (1924): 363-367; Zlatkovskaya, Meziya, 37-41, 51; Pippidi, Greci, 160; idem, "Premier relations," 36; V. Velkov, "Dobrudzha v perioda na rimskoto vladichestvo," in Istoria na Dobrudzha, 128. (An., 2.64), that after the death of Kotys, his son

Rhoemetalkes was given arva et urbes et vicinia Graecis and

the name of a Roman tax district comprising among other the

Western Pontus: ripa Thraciae. The arguments are very

tenuous. Ovid's letter to Kotys reveals nothing about the

alleged sovereignty of the Thracian monarch over the Greek

cities. Kotys' kingship in Callatis was in all likelihood

only the honorary eponymous office. 212 Tacitus' statement

clearly indicates that the boundary of the kingdom of

Rhoemetalkes (and previously of Kotys) stretched up to the

Greek cities. To the Western Pontic cites the Thracian kings were neighbors (vicini) and not lords. In fact this

statement testifies, that in A.D. 19 the Western Pontic

cities were outside the kingdom of Thrace. 213 Without any

further arguments the name ripa Thraciae is not sufficient

evidence of Thracian control in the Western Pontus.

The first certain information about the administrative

position of Istros within the Roman empire is conveyed by

the so called ’OpoBGaia Aaj3€piou Ma£ipou21A - a Roman

212 BcictiAGuc was the usual title of eponymous magistrates of Callatis. Besides Kotys six other eponymous basileis are attested in this city, among them also Tiberius (vide infra chapter iv).

213 E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annales. Erlaiitert und mit einer Einleitung versehen von ..., 1 (Heidelberg 1963), 377.

214 ISM 1.68, for extensive commentary and further reference, see: Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 191-212 and SEG 24.1108- 69

document dated in A.D. 100. In this document the governor of

Moesia M'. Laberius Maximus confirmed the borders of the

rural territory of Istros and fishing rights of the city.

Laberius Maximus only confirmed the rights Istros had

acquired much earlier. A few letters from his predecessors

in the governorship of Moesia are quoted in this

inscription, the earliest one - dispatched by [C. Terentius]

Tullius Geminus - legatus Augusti pro praetore Moesiae ca.

A.D. 47-54 A.D. 215 By A.D. 54, therefore, Istros and

probably all Western Pontic cities were integrated into the

administrative structure of the province of Moesia. It is

unclear, however, when their incorporation into Moesia

happened. This province was created by A.D. 4, 216 but the

Black Sea coast may have stayed in the provincia of the

217 governors of Macedonia for some time. When later, under

1109 .

215 ISM 1.68, lines 49-61; the dates of Tullius Geminus' governorship: A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien, Budapest 1940, 28.

216R. Syme, "Lentulus and the Origin of Moesia," in idem, Danubian Papers (Bucharest 1971), 40-72; cf. A. Barnea, "Municipium Noviodunum: Nouvelles donn^es 6pigraphiques," Dacia 32 (1988): 55f; Alexandrescu, Suceveanu, "Nouvelle histoire," 165.

217Preafectus orae maritimae (ripae Thraciae) was his subordinate, Aricescu, Army in Dobrudja, 7. The Horothesia testifies that Istros (and most probably all Western Pontic cities) was annexed to Moesia before A.D. 54 and not under Vespasian as Al. Suceveanu (Viata economica in Dobrogea Romana secolele I-III e.n. [Bucure?ti 1977], 19, 22f) and Barnea ("Municipium Noviodunum," 55) think. 70

Domitian, Moesia was divided in two provinces, the Western

Pontic cities stayed in the eastern one - Moesia Inferior.

The long period of peace under Roman rule greatly contributed to the economic development of Western

Pontus. 218 While Strabo (7.6.1) called Istros and Tomis

TTolixvict, in Pliny's account (NH 4.44) they and Callatis are named the most beautiful cities. Tomis rose in fact to the greatest prominence in the Western Pontus: the city bore the title XajinpoT&xri. 219 By A.D. 212 Istros acquired the same title 220 and sometime in the third . century A.D. also

221 Mesambria prides itself in the title lamprotate. When in the beginning of the second century A.D. the k o i v & v tou

222 II6v t o u was organized, Tomis became its capital.

Comparatively large numbers of Romans settled in this city, especially in the second century A.D. 223 Also Odessos profited from the long period of peace; we know, for example, that under Antoninus Pius the city received an

218 Danov, Zapadniyat, 82f; Vulpe, "Histoire," 204; Stoian, "Cittci Tomis," 257.

Z19ISM 2.92, 96, 97, 105.

220D. M. Pippidi, "Note de lecturS," St. Cl. 11 (1969): 243ff, 249. This title is known from six inscriptions: ISM 1.89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99, 141.

221 IGB l2.317 dated by Mihailov (comm., p. 379) in the 1st part of the third century A.D.

222About the koinon vide infra chapter VI.

223 Doru^iu-BoilS, "Contribution," 160. 71

224 aqueduct.

In 170 A.D. the Kostoboki invaded the empire. Facing

this danger Tomis and Callatis restored the city walls. 225

All Western Pontic cities seem to have experienced some

economic difficulties caused by this invasion. 226

Probably ca. A.D. 187-197 the Romans undertook some

corrections of the boundary of Moesia Inferior and Thrace

and Mesambria was transferred to the second of those

provinces.227

The Pax Romana came to an end in Dobrudja in A.D. 238 with the first attack of the Goths. The immediate effects of

this first attack are not known. The next one came in 248

and then in 258-269. The second or third Gothic invasion

brought the destruction of Istros. 228 The city never

224M. Mirfiev, "Rimske termy v Varne," in Actes du Premier Congr&s International des Etudes Balkaniques et Sud- Est Europ&en, vol. 2 (Sofia 1969), 473-476.

Tomis: Vulpe, "Histoire," 250; Callatis: Vulpe, loc. cit.; §tefan, "Callatis," 168; Velkov, "Dobrudzha," 131. Cf. G. Forni, Dizionario epigrafico di antichitk romane, vol. 4, s.v. "Limes," 1270a.

Velkov, loc.cit.

227Gerov, "Severnata granica," 26ff (further reference there); Vulpe, "Mesambria," 37. This problem will be discussed in greater detail in chapter VI.

228 Istros survived the attack in 238; its monetary activity is attested up to the times of Gordian III (Pick, Antiken, nos. 521-530, cf. Pippidi, "Zum datum der Zerstorung Histrias durch die Goten im 3. Jh.," in: idem, Epigraphische beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit [Berlin 1962], 193). The last inscription known to us (commissioned by inhabitants of 72 regained its previous strength, but even in the fourth century A.D. the memory of its pre-invasion prosperity was still alive. 229 As Zosimos testifies (1.42), thanks to its strong city walls, Tomis avoided destruction. 230 The fate of the remaining Western Pontic cities during the Gothic wars is unknown. Their economy certainly suffered greatly; no local coins or inscriptions are attested from the end of the rule of Gordian III until the reign of Aurelian. 231 The reconstruction and reorganization of civic life after the

Gothic invasions fall outside the scope of this work.

vicus Secundinus) is dated in 246 (ISM 2.349). S. Lambrino ("La destruction d'Histria et sa reconstruction au IIIe si^cle ap. J.-C.," REL 11 [1933]: 457-463) analyzed the local sources in conjunction with SHA (Vita Maximiani et Balbini 16.3) and concluded that Istros was destroyed in A.D. 248. But the archaeological data from the extra mural quarter of Istros show that the economic activity there came to the end in the 3r quarter of the third century A.D. (Al. Suceveanu, "Depositul de statuete Romane de teracota de la Histria," SCIV 18 [1967]: 268). Perhaps then Istros was stormed by the Goths during the period of 258-269: E. Dorutiu-Boiia, "Zur Frage der Zerstorung Histrias im 3. Jh.," St.Cl. 6 (1964): 247-259; R. Vulpe, "Histrum ingressi Histriae excidum," St.Cl. 11 (1969): 157-172; Alexandrescu, Suceveanu, "Nouvelle histoire," 165.

229 Histros quondam potentissima civitas (Am. Marc. 22.8.43).

230 Cf. Vulpe, "Histoire," 270-274; Danov, Zapadniyat, 84f; Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 160; Velkov, "Dobrudzha," 133.

231§tefan, "Callatis," 168. CHAPTER II; STATUS OF THE WESTERN PONTIC CITIES UNDER ROMAN

RULE.

It was Roman policy and even more Roman political thinking to treat the Greek cities not as mere subjects but as friendly and allied states (socii et amicl populi

Romani), regardless of the actual freedom of these cities.

The topic of the freedom of Greek cities was very common in

Hellenistic political propaganda and politics since the

Persian expedition of Alexander the Great. It was inherited and adopted by the Roman Republic in the third/second century B.C.1 This concept of freedom basically differed from that of full sovereignty of every polis of classical

Greece and in very many cases consisted of internal autonomy combined with overall suzerainty of one or another monarch, with the payment of a tribute and even of the presence of a

jE. Taubler, Imperium Romanum 1 (Leipzig 1913), 434- 436; A. H. M. Jones, "Civitates Liberae et Immunes in the East," in Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler, ed. W. M. Calder and J. Keil (Manchaster 1939), 103-117; W. Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft. Das provinziale Herrschaftssystem der romischen Republik (Berlin and New York 1977), 193; Gruen, Hellenistic World, 132-157.

73 74 royal garrison in the city.2 The Romans, while re-arranging

3 the Greek world, used to reckon every city as belonging to one of the following classes: civitates foederatae, clvltates (sine foedere) llberae et Immunes or civitates stipendiariae.4

The first of them, the least numerous one, was regarded as the most prestigious. Civitates foederatae were formerly independent states allied with Rome, always (at least in

Similarly under Roman rule many members of local Elites had double citizenship: Roman and that of their city. The second one was perceived as the inferior one and no legal conflict resulted. Cf. M. Stahl, Imperiale Herrschaft und provinziale Stadt. Strukturprobleme der romischen Reichsorganisation im 1.-3. Jh. der Kaiserzeit, Hypomnemata 52 (Gottingen 1978), 38.

3 I.e. every civitas peregrina, since the Romans planted their colonies in the East too. Cf. Stahl, Imperiale Herrschaft, 36; F. G. B. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC - AD 337) (Ithaca 1977), 407f.

The classical works on the classification, rights and distinctions of the Greek cities under the Roman rules are still J. Marguardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, vol. I2 (Leipzig 1881), 70-85 and Th. Mommsen, Romische Staatsrecht, vol. 3 (Leipzig 1887), 707ff. Later, but not less important are: E. W. Henze, De civitatibus liberis quae fuerunt in provinciis populi Romani (Berlin 1892); Th. Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 (London 1909), 262-269, 353; J. S. Reid, The Municipalities of the Roman Empire (Cambridge 1913), 382-386; F. F. Abbott, A. C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton 1926), 39-74; H. Horn, Foederati (Frankfurt a. M. 1930); Jones, "Civitates liberae," passim; S. Accame, II dominio Romano in Grecia della Guerra arcaica ad Augusto (Rome 1946); G. H. Stevenson, Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Antonines (Oxford 1949), 82-105; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 93-239; Sherwin- White, Roman Foreign Policy, 58-70. theory) lying outside a province5 and ruling themselves according to their laws. The governor of the province did not have power over such a city nor could he even bring his lictores with fasces inside it. The practical corollary of this was that it made him unable to hold courts and act in his official capacity there.6 At least such was the legal theory. In practice, free cities, surrounded by the territory of a province, had to compromise their rights and sometimes governors (e.g. of Asia and Cilicia) established their residences and held court in free cities.7 Civitates foederatae could send embassies to Rome without asking the governor for permission.8 No garrisons were kept in these cities and the Roman soldiers may have been placed there only after a special decree of the Senate or during war.9

5Civitates foederatae did not belong to the provincia of a Roman governor which means that legally they were lying outside the province administered by this governor.

6Marquardt, St. V., 80; D. Norr, Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit, Miinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschungen und antike Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 50 (Munich 1969), 31f; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 102; cf. Millar, Emperor, 431.

7Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft, 221 f (cf. p. 222, n. 27 for further reference).

8Accame, Dominio Romano, 63; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 113.

9Marquardt, St. V., 78f; Horn, Foederati, 58f; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 98, 211. 76

Civitates liberae et immunes shared the same privileges,

differing only in the method of sanctioning them: civitates

foederatae signed a formal treaty of alliance (foedus) with

Rome, while the rights of civitates liberae et immunes were

confirmed only by a senatus consultum.10

Despite their name the obligation to pay tribute and

other taxes was not the decisive distinction of civitates

stipendiariae, because some free cities had to remit them as w e l l .11 Civitates stipendiariae customarily retained their pre-Roman judicial system, hierarchy of offices, and often

their coinage as well.12 They possessed also their

territories and local calendars.13 But they remained under

the control of a governor and their rights could be easily

10From a purely legalistic point of view this senatusconsultum was only an unilateral Roman act, but normally it could not be withdrawn without a serious offence committed by a city. Cf. Marquardt, St. V. , 76f; Accame, Dominio Romano, 46; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.) (Oxford 1958), 74; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 102, 111-119.

uMarquardt, St. V., 84f; Henze, De civitatibus, 4; Jones, Civitates liberae, 109, 117; Accame, Dominio Romano, 61f; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 113. This was true especially during an emergency, should it be a civil war or an external conflict, cf. Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft, 202, 235f.

12Abbott, Johnson, Municipal Administration, 52f.

13Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 103. 77 changed by him.1* Roman soldiers were often kept in these cities, even during peace time.15 It should also be remembered that civitates stipendiariae belonged to the most numerous class of Greek cities under Roman rule and that even great and important communities were among them: Cos,

Rhodes under Vespasian. In Bithynia one hundred twenty out of one hundred seventy-five cities, in Lusitania thirty-five out of forty-six cities were civitates stipendiariae.16

The Western Pontic cities are usually regarded as free, i.e. foederatae or liberae et immunes.11 Gerov18 and

14Marquardt, St. V. , 84f; Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 112f.

15Abbott, Johnson, Municipal Administration, 47ff; Accame, Dominio Romano, 39-41. These detachments were in many cities small, often similar in nature to a police force.

16Reid, Municipalities, 385; Abbott, Johnson, Municipal Administration, 47ff; S. M. Sherwin-White Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Epoch, Hypomnemata 51 (Gottingen 1978), 145-148.

17D. Dechev, "Prinos k3m istoriata na zapadnopontiyskite gradovite," IAI 17 (1950): 63; Pippidi, Greci, 159f, 174f; idem, "Role de centres," 244f; idem, "Histria aux i-iii si&cles," 143; H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte, 4th. ed. (Munich 1969), 512 and n. 3, followed by Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria, 143; §tefan, "D6but de la domination," 626f; Danov, Thraker auf Ostbalkan, 110-116; Velkov, "Dobrudzha," 135.

18Gerov, "Prouchvaniya," 22. 78

Suceveanu19 put forward the hypothesis that the Western

Pontic cities, having formerly been civitates foederatae (or

liberae et immunes), lost their privileged status in the

beginning of Vespasian's rule. This loss of the status of

free cities is linked to the fact that in A.D. 47-54 Tomis

appears to have become a seat of the governor of Moesia,

Tullius Geminus. 20 Suceveanu supposed that the freedom was

restored under Hadrian (ca. A.D. 128).21

The Western Pontic cities twice entered into the sphere

of Roman influences in the late 70s of the first century

B.C.and sometime before A.D. 8, possibly in 29-27 B.C.

During the war with Mithridates VI M. Terentius Varro in

72-71 B.C. invaded Dobrudja and subdued the Greek cities.

But Roman rule disappeared soon, since in 61 B.C. the army of the governor of Macedonia C. Antonius Hybrida suffered a

severe defeat near Istros. Not much later (55-50 B.C.) the

19Suceveanu, "Defence de Dobroudja," 230f and 222, n. 31; idem, "In legatura cu statutul juridic al ora^ului Tomis in epocS romana," Pontica 8 (1975): 124.

20This argument is incongruous, since Tullius Geminus is known to have received an embassy from Istros while in Tomis sometime in A.D. 47-54 (ISM 1.67, lines 49-54, 68, lines 50-54), that is well before the beginning of Vespasian's reign (A.D. 69). Reception of an embassy by the governor in Tomis is significant from the point of determining the status of this city, because a legatus could not act in his official capacity in a free city.

21According to Suceveanu ("Defense de Dobroudja," 231) this fact is marked by a title ’EA€u0€pio<; given to Hadrian in an honorific decree found in Tomis (ISM 2.47, dated to A.D. 138, not A.D. 128 as Suceveanu thought). 79

Greek cities from Olbia to Apollonia were invaded by the

king of Getae, Burebista. The Roman army re-appeared there

in 29-27 B.C., when the proconsul of Macedonia M. Licinius

Crassus waging war against local tribes reached the Danube

and the Black Sea in the vicinity of these cities. Probably

since that time the Western Pontic cities remained under

Roman rule, or at least under the prevailing Roman influence

forever, i.e. till the end of the Roman dominion on the

Danube.22

In 1932 T. Sauciuc-SSveanu published a partly damaged

inscription containing the treaty between Rome and Callatis

(foedus Roma-Callatls) . It was subsequently re-published and

restored in several different versions.23 Passerini's

restoration gained the largest following.24 The second major restoration was presented by Marin.25 These two

The history of this period and the beginning of the Roman rule in the Western Pontus are discussed in detail (with reference to all extant sources and secondary literature) in chapter I, pp. 47-63.

23For reference see chapter I, p. 49, n. 142, 143.

24Passerini, "Testo del foedus," 57-72; followed by: Lommatzsch, CIL l2.2676; cf. Pippidi, "Autour de la date," 132; idem, "Relations politiques," 174; Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft, 111.

25Marin, "Foedus romano," 104-130. Gruen (Hellenistic World, 740, n. 52) prefers Marin's restoration, since, as he asserts* "there is insufficient room on the stone" for some of Passerini's restorations. It seems however, judging by a facsimile of the inscription published in CIL l2, that Marin can be blamed for similarly fanciful restoration, e.g. in 1. 13 he reads: [e]xe[rcere]nt, even if the place on the stone allows only for four missing letters after xe. 80 restorations disagree substantially (see n. 27).

Since the stone upon which this inscription was cut is broken on all sides and no other example of a Latin text of a foedus between Rome and a city is extant, any far-reaching restoration must be questionable (to say the least). 26

Therefore it may be the safest solution simply to print the text of this treaty with restorations limited to those that are highly probable:27

26 Both Passerini and Marin translated passages of known Greek texts of treaties (e.g. with Astypalea) into Latin and based their restorations upon them. This method seems barely adequate.

27The above text on this page follows the text in capital letters printed by Lommatzsch in CIL 1 .2676; except for lines 14f, I accept Lommatzsch's restorations (based on the edition by Passerini) of only those words, whose substantial parts are extant. Other editors (Marin, Degrassi) also accept the restoration of lines 14f. Passerini's ("Testo del foedus," 62-70) restoration of lines 2-13 is (Passerini does not print line division): [Poplus Romanus hostes et inimicos poplis Callatini per suos agros et quibus imperat poplus Romanus ne sinere transire debeto dolo m]alo quo po[plo Callatino queive sub imperio eorum erun]t bellum face[re possint neve hostes neque armis neque p]equnia adioua[n]to [publica voluntate dolo malo. Sei quis po]plo Callatino bellu[m faxit, poplus Romanus, seive poplo Rom]ano queive sub inperio [eius erunt, poplus Callatinus, quod a foederibus po]plo Romano utei et [Callatino licebit, sei quis bellum] prior faxit [pjoplo [Callatino seive poplo Romano, turn po]plus Romanus popl[us Callatinus alter alterum adiouant]o sei quid ad hance [legem societatis exve hance lege? utisque volen]t[ibu]s ad(d)ere exime[re v]e[lint, quod voluerint? publico consilio? communi] voluntate licet[o, quodque addiderint id additum quodque e]xe[meri]nt id societat[e exemptum sit. Hoc foedus]. Marin's ("Foedus romano," 114) restoration of lines 2-13 reads: [- - dolo m]alo quo po[plus Romanus socique e]t b[e]llum face[re debento et propria p]equnia adiova[n]to, [sei aliquis faxit po]plo Callatino bellufm. Sei poplo Rom]ano 81

]A[ - ]A[------]

------m]alo quo po[plus -----]

------]T b[e] Hu m face [re

_ _ _ _ _ p]equnia adiovanto [------]

- - - - po]plo Callatino bellufm -----]

- - - Romjano queive sub inperio [- - - -]

- - - po]plo Romano utei et [------]

- - - - -] prior faxit [p]oplo [-----]

- - - - po]plus Romanus popl[-

10 ------]o seiquid ad hance [-----]

------]T[-ca. 2] si a(d)ere eximere [- -]

- - - - -]voluntate licet[- - - -]

- - - - e]xe[meri]nt id societate[- - - -]

- in tabulam ahe]nam utei scriberetur ac [fi] —

15 geretur Romae loc]o optumo in faano Concor[diae]

The exact wording of the treaty is unknown. Passerini believed that this treaty belonged to the category of foedera aequa.28 Thus both partners would be forbidden to support enemies of each other and obliged to maintain queiv[e] sub inperio [bellum faxit, pojplo Romano utei et [Callatinus pro]priod faxit [p]oplo [non aliter ac pop]lus Romanus popl[o faxit Callatin]o. Sei quid ad hance [firmandam societatem] ad(d)ere exime[reve vellent utriusque] voluntate, licet[o volentibus e]xe[rcere]nt id societat[e].

28Passerini, "Testo del foedus," 59ff. Passerini understands the foedus aequum as the category defined by Taubler, Imperium Romanum, 6, 47ff. 82 friendly neutrality in the case of war. His opinion was accepted by scholars who agreed with his restoration of the inscription.29 This is not, however, the universal opinion of the scholarship,30 and recently Gruen31 has put into question the whole classification of treaties into foedera aequa and Iniqua.

Even if the exact obligations incumbent on both sides can be disputed, the very existence of a foedus between Rome and Callatis cannot be put in doubt. The date of its concluding has caused a major scholarly debate. The majority of scholars tend to relate it to the period of the expedition of M. Terentius Varro or immediately following it

(7 2-70 B.C.) and for the reasons discussed above32 this date should be accepted.

Another question is whether only Callatis or all the

Western Pontic cities concluded such a treaty with Rome.

29Pippidi, "Autour de la date," 191f; Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft, 177.

30Lambrmo ("Inscription," 2 81f) and Marin ("Foedus romano," llOff) thought that according to the foedus Callatis was obliged to support Rome financially during wars. Such a hypothesis was strongly rejected by Passerini ("Testo del foedus," 71f) and Pippidi ("Autour de la date, 191f). One should note, perhaps, that notwithstanding the legal obligations, the comparatively much stronger position of Rome undoubtedly allowed her to exact services and payments from Callatis, especially in a case of war.

31Gruen, Hellenistic World, 14ff, 46-55.

32Chapter I, pp. 50-53. 83

Eutropius writes about Terentius Varro: "Apolloniam evertit,

Callatin, Parthenopolin, Tomos, Istrum, Burziaonem cepit."

(Brev., 6.10). This statement might suggest equal treatment of Istros, Tomis, Callatis and perhaps all other poleis to the north of Apollonia. Since we know that the legal status of Callatis was defined by the foedus, the conclusion would be that all the cities in question signed treaties of alliance with Rome. They would have been then among those allies of Rome, whose rights Antonius Hybrida abused and who defeated Antonius' army in a battle fought in 61 B.C< near

33 Istros.

However Eutropius' statement seems to be concerned only with the fact of extending Roman control over the cities mentioned above and conclusions concerning their legal status are not justified. Similarly it is by no means certain that Dio Cassius meant the Western Pontic cities while writing about the allies in Moesia. Characteristically he attributes the defeat of Antonius Hybrida to the

Scythians and the Bastarnae (38.10); the Greek cities are absent in his narration. Dionysopolis provided winter quarters to Antonius Hybrida,34 but surely any city would

The hypothesis identifying the Western Pontic cities with those allies mentioned by Dio Cassius (38.10) originates in Mommsen, Romische Geschichte 5:11, n. 1; cf. Regling, Antiken, 591. For further reference see: chapter I, pp. 54f.

34Cf. chapter I, p. 54, n. 163. 84 do so notwithstanding her legal position. Thus the extant

sources do not confirm the hypothesis that all the Western

Pontic cities acquired the status of civitates foederatae

along with Callatis in 72-70 B.C. It should be further

stressed that no reference to the foedera can be traced in

Western Pontic epigraphy after 70 B.C.

The question should be asked whether the Western Pontic

cities were perhaps civitates liberae et immunes sharing the

same rights (if not equal prestige) with civitates

foederatae.35 An attempt was made to answer this question affirmatively (at least with regard to Istros) on the basis of two fragmentarily preserved inscriptions36 containing

two decrees of a governor of Moesia Inferior M'. Laberius

Maximus (A.D. 100-102, vide supra chapter I, pp. 68f) and

copies of letters sent to Istros by previous governors of

this provinces (C. Terentius) Tullius Geminus (A.D. 47-54),

(Ti.) Flavius Sabinus (ca. A.D. 53-60), (Ti.) Plautius

35Such a possibility is not excluded by e.g. SuCeveanu, "In legatura," 124; §tefan, "Debut de la domination," 626f.

36 ISM 1.67 and 68. There are two copies of the same set of documents, executed probably at the same time. The last of documents quoted (the 2nd decree of Laberius Maximus) is dated October 25, 100. Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 191) for palaeographical reasons dates the inscription in the epoch of the Severi. Perhaps the original text is weathered from long exposure to the elements. Reinscribing of important texts was not uncommon practice, e.g. the inscription from Pergamum containing the "Astynomic Law" of the Attalid Period was engraved in the time of Trajan or Hadrian {SEG 13.521). 85

(Silvanus) Aelianus (A.D. 56-67) and (C.) Pomponius Pius

(A.D. 67-68). The first of these decrees (the Horothesia of

Laberius Maximus) established boundaries of the city's

ctiora. The second decree dealt with claims of the publicum portorium ripae Thraciae towards the ctiora of Istros.

Tullius Geminus confirmed the already existing boundaries of

the ctiora inherited by Istros. Flavius Sabinus allowed the

citizens of Istros to fish in the channel of the Danube

called Peuce and to transport fire brands used for pickling

fish free from custom duties. The subsequent governors confirmed these rights.

Pippidi37 asserts that the recognition of the city's

ctiora by the Romans and the immunity from taxation are proofs of the status of the city as a civitas foederata or

libera et immunis. He quotes a Roman decree concerning the

38 rights of Termessus Maior to its land, a senatus

consultum mentioning the income of Mytilene derived from its rural territory 39 and a senatus consultum concerning (among others) ctiorai and income of Plarasa and Aphrodisias.,0

37Pippidi, "Histria aux I-III si&cles," 144; idem, Greci, 174f; idem, ISM 1, pp. 205ff; cf. Doru£iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 152. 38 2 CIL 1 .589. This decree and rights of Termessus are discussed by Dahlheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft, 236-243.

39Sherk, RDGE 26b.

*°Sherk, RDGE 28B. 86

Since these cities are known to have been foederatae and the boundaries of their rural territories and immunity from taxation are mentioned, Istros too, so Pippidi reasons, was apparently a free or perhaps even an allied city.

One should note, however, that the documents quoted by

Pippidi do not belong to the same category as those pertaining to Istros. They are legislative acts, while the documents concerning Istros are just letters of the legatl.

In Roman political practice the status of free cities was dealt with either by treaties of friendship or by senatus

consults.1,1 A governor did not have such power over a free city, as the legati Moesiae Inferioris had with regard to

Istros.42 Moreover none of the documents pertaining to

Istros mentions a treaty or a senatus consultum which would have recognized the boundaries of the city's rural territory and provided it with tax immunity, instead Tullius Geminus mentions boundaries inherited by the people of Istros from their ancestors and Flavius Sabinus quotes the total dependence of Istros (as alleged by their ambassadors) on

41It seems that Termessus had a controversy with the publicani, but it was resolved by the lex Antonia de Termessibus and the city exercised full control of all taxes and custom duties on its territory (only the publicani, while on duty were exempt), CIL l2.589, col. II, lines 32- 36; cf. Dahlheim, Gewalt u n d Herrschaft, 240f.

42The dominant position of a governor is perhaps best illustrated by the language of the Horothesia (says Laberius Maximus) s Fines Histrianorum hoc esse con[stitui J (ISM 1.68, 1 . 2 ). 87 proceeds from pickling of fish as the reason of his action.

It is inconceivable, that the ambassadors would have refrained from calling the governor's attention to a foedus or a senatus consultum, should one have existed/3

Furthermore the texts give no details on the overall immunity from the taxation, especially from the tributum.

Instead one of the governors, Flavius Sabinus, decided to release from taxation the pickled fish industry in Istros.

He did it not because it had previously been guaranteed by a treaty or senatus consultum, but because "the revenue from the pickled fish is just about the city's only revenue"/4

The governor took the decision in his capacity of supervising the tax district which comprised the city's territory. It means that Istros and its ctiora remained under the power of a governor of Moesia (in his provincia) .

The Horothesia and related documents do not provide information about tax immunity allegedly enjoyed by Istros.

They also indicate that in the first and probably also second century A.D. this city most likely belonged (legally,

This is an argumentum ex silentio, but not a weak one: Istros had every reason to claim her rights to the economically vital territory to the north of the city and certainly would have preferred not to rely entirely on the good will of a governor of Moesia.

44ISM 1.68, lines 20-22 in translation of J. H. Oliver, "Texts A and B of the Horothesia Dossier of Istros," GRBS 6 (1965): 155. 88 not only geographically) to the province of Moesia

(Inferior). Almost certainly then Istros was a civltas stipendiaria.

The same inscriptions furnish some information about the status of Tomis: the governor Tullius Geminus met the ambassadors of Istros in Tomis (ISM 1.68, lines 52-54) and apparently came to the decision in favor of Istros there.

One should remember that governors could not normally reside and take legal actions in free cities.

For the greater part of the first century A.D. another high ranking Roman official permanently stayed in Tomis: praefectus orae maritimae (ripae Thraciae) .45 His main responsibility was providing security to the Western Pontic region ravaged by barbarian tribes and pirates. Neither he nor the governor of Moesia would have been able to complete this task unless they had military forces in the Western

Pontus. And actually Roman soldiers are attested in Istros,

Tomis, Callatis and Dionysopolis - both veterans and those in active service.46 There is good reason to suppose that they were quartered in Mesambria too.47 Almost certainly

45About this office see chapter I, pp. 66f.

46Cf. chapter I, pp. 66f and n. 206-210.

47In the late first century B.C. a certain Glaukias son of Athanaios was made by the people of Mesambria dveTTiax&0^6uxoc (IGB 1 .315, 1. 17), i.e. he was absolved from the onerous duty of giving quarters to the soldiers; cf. Mihailov's commentary, IGB 1 , pp. 277f. 89 there were permanent garrisons in Istros, Tomis and

Callatis, since in both cities bricks and tiles with stamps of legio I Italica, legio V Macedonica and legio XI Claudia were found.48

Usually such garrisons were not kept in free cities.

Their presence at least in Tomis, if considered in conjunction with facts mentioned above (seat of the praefectus and at least temporarily of the governor Tullius

Geminus), renders it fairly likely that until Hadrian this city was, like Istros, a civitas stipendiaria too. Probably

Hadrian moved two cohorts (IV and VII Gallorum) from Tomis to the East possibly granting freedom to the city. 49 The status of Tomis in the remaining part of the second and in the third century A.D. is not, however, unambiguous, since another military unit was garrisoned there under Marcus

Aurelius.50

48Cf. chapter I, p. 67. Detachments from these legions were kept in Istros, Tomis and Callatis long enough to establish special factories for themselves.

49This is the hypothesis of Suceveanu ("Defence de Dobroudja," 231; cf. Aricescu, Army in Roman Dobrudja, 46) based on ISM 2.47 which records Hadrian's title ’ElGuSGpioc. But Greek cities bestowed this title on emperors for various reasons (Jessen, RE 5:2350f, s.v. "Eleutherios," 7). Therefore we cannot be sure that in A.D. 138 (date of ISM 2.47) Tomis became civitas libera et immunisj especially we know nothing about any privilege amounting to exemption from taxation (immunitas).

50Aricescu, Army in Roman Dobrudja, 47. 90

The legal status of Callatis during the period of the

Roman Empire is unclear. Those few pieces of information

about the Roman soldiers stationed in this city are, in my

judgement, insufficient to prove that Callatis lost its

status of civitas foederata. On the other hand this status

was never attested again after 70 B.C.

Unfortunately no information concerning the political

status of Dionysopolis, Odessos and Mesambria is available.

There is no reason to believe that the Romans should have

estimated these cities more important than Istros or Tomis.

At the present state of our knowledge we can only guess that

these three Western Pontic cities acquired the same, the most common status, that of civitates stipendiariae. CHAPTER III: DIVISIONS OF THE CITIZEN BODY IN THE WESTERN

PONTUS.

In the Greek world the citizen body of individual poleis was often divided into smaller social groups: tribes, demes, phratrai and other units. Fairly numerous

inscriptions make it possible to study the social organization in the six cities that concern us in the present study: Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis,

Odessos, Mesambria.

It seems useful to sketch the patterns of internal organization of the citizen bodies in their respective metropoleis first, since it is well known that colonies often adopted constitutional arrangements from their mother-cities.1

J. Oehler, RE 1:2825, s.v. "’Anoixia;" N. Ehrhardt, "Probleme der griechischen Kolonisation am Beispiel der milesischen Griindungen," Eos 73 (1985): 84f.

91 92

1. Miletus. a) The tribal system in Miletus:

The tribal system and other subdivisions of the population of this important city of Ionia have been discussed for a long time, and particularly in recent years the discussion has brought good results.2 The archaic period in Miletus, as elsewhere, is not sufficiently documented; actually nothing certain is known about the tribal structure before the fifth century B.C. This situation, i.e. the lack of documentation, has afforded opportunities for scholars to formulate various hypotheses on the primitive social divisions and their evolution. Although in Miletus only four

Ionian tribes are attested: Oinopes, Boreis, Hopletes,

2 There is a vast literature on these subjects. From among older works the following should be mentioned: B. Haussoullier, "D&mes et tribus, patries et phratries de Milet," Rev. Phil. 21 (1897): 38-49; E. Szanto, Die griechischen Phylen (Vienna 1901), 55-61; Bilabel, Ionische Kolonisation, 119ff; Hiller v. Gaertingen, "Miletos," 1600ff; K. Latte, RE 20:1000, s.v. "Phyle." More recent works are: C. Roebuck, "Tribal Organization in Ionia," TAPhA 17 (1961): 495-507; J. M. Cook, "The Eastern Greeks," in CAH, 2d ed.,3.3 (Cambridge 1982), 20Of; D. Roussel, Tribu et cit£ (Paris 1976), 211-296; Ehrhardt, Milet, 98-113; M. Pi6rart, "La constitution de Milet A la lumiire de ses colonies,"in Actes du VIIs Congr&s International d'Spigraphie grecque et latine, 439f; idem, "Ath&nes et Milet. I. Tribus et dAmes mil6siens," MH 40 (1983): 1-18; N. F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, no. 176 (Philadelphia 1987), 320-327. 93 Argadeis,3 there is no reason to doubt the existence of all

six.4 Although indirect, the proofs are as follows: division of the population of Milesian colonies into six tribes (e.g.

Cyzicus - the oldest one); analogies to the other states of

Ionia (Erythrai, Teos, Colophon, Samos); the number six constantly appears in Milesian institutions (six tamiai, six

Molpoi).5

The only question is whether this was the very primitive system or a product of modifications in the archaic period. Four out of six Milesian6 tribes (Hopletes,

Argadeis, Aigikoreis, Geleontes) bear typical Ionian names, common in Athens too, while the remaining two (Oinopes,

Boreis), embracing most probably the non-Ionian population,7

Reference to sources and earlier literature: Ehrhardt, Milet, 98; Pi6rart, "Ath&nes et Milet," If; Jones, Public Organization, 321f.

4Roebuck, "Tribal Organization," 497; Roussel, Tribu et citS, 211; Pi6rart, "Ath&nes et Milet," 2f; Ehrhardt, loc. cit.; Jones, Public Organization, 321.

5Latte, "Phyle," 1000; Ehrhardt, loc. cit.; Jones, Public Organization, Ilf, 321.

All six tribes (Aigikoreis, Argadeis, Boreis, Geleontes, Hopletes, Oinopes) are traditionally referred to as Milesian, even if the existence of only four of them is actually attested for Miletus.

7Ehrhardt, loc. cit.,; Roebuck, "Tribal Organization," 500. 94

are of rather unclear derivation.8 Roussel put forward a

hypothesis that the very primitive system consisted of only

four tribes and that Oinopes and Boreis appeared only ca.

600 B.C. Their presence in the colonies Roussel explains

assuming that they followed the example of their mother-

city. 9

This theory has been received rather cooly by

Pi<§rart10 and Ehrhardt,11 who correctly remarked that the

existence of these tribes in the Milesian colonies is strong

proof of their beginning in the pre-colonisation period. We

should also add that their names, difficult as they are to

understand,12 point to their very archaic beginnings.13

The case of Ephesus has an important bearing here too.

There in the fifth century B.C. one ( ’ E£aGi q ) of five known

tribes consisted of six smaller numerical units

(chiliastyes), four of them named after the Ionian tribes

(Argadeis, Boreis, Geleontes, Oinopes), which suggests that during the mass migration of the archaic period the

8Roussel, Tribu et cit4, 215.

9Roussel, Tribu et cit4, 211f.

10Pi6rart, "Athdnes et Milet," 2f.

u Ehrhardt, Milet, 98.

12Despite some attempts by Roebuck ("Tribal Organization," 500).

13F. Cassola, La Ionia nel mondo Miceneo (Naples 1957 ), 250. 95

primitive tribes became reduced to mere subdivisions of the

tribe Epheseis.14 If this happened in the archaic period

(which is not open to doubt), the tribes Boreis and Oinopes must have been created very early in Ephesus (or her metropolis) and we are justified in supposing that this was

the case in Miletus too. These Ionian tribes are attested in

Miletus down to the Imperial epoch and were transferred with

settlers to numerous Milesian colonies.

The tribes in Miletus were divided, most probably each of them into two parts, as we know from inscriptions

’ApyaSCov npwri}, * OnliiSov 66or€pt)c,15 often regarded as

chiliastyes. Recently Ehrhardt argued strongly that these units must have been something else, because such numerical denominations of the chiliastyes are unknown elsewhere.16

UD. Knibbe, RE Suppl. 12:275-278, s.v. "Ephesos;" Cook, "Eastern Greeks," 200f; Ehrhardt, Milet, 98, n. 5. Fresh examination of Inschr. Ephesos 3.906 proved the existence of another chiliastysi Aigikoreis (D. Knibbe, Forschungen in Ephesos 9.1.1: 107-109, 177). This discovery makes more plausible Roussel's hypothesis (Tribu et cit6, 211f), that the primitive tribes Hopletes and Aigikoreis were also reduced to the position of the chiliastyes in Ephesus. Cf. Jones, Public Organization, 312f.

15Robert, BlZp 1964, 444; SEG 20.6; further bibliography and references to sources in: Ehrhardt, Milet, 103.

16Ehrhardt, Milet, 103. This hypothesis, formulated first by Th. Wiegand (SB. Berlin [1904]: 85) supported by A. Rehm (Das Delphinion in Milet [Berlin 1914], 159) and G. Dunst ("Zu den altmiletischen Phylen," Forschungen und Fortschritte 35 [1961]: 272f) is based mainly on the existence of the chiliastyes in Samos, Ephesus, Chios. Recently Jones (Public Organization, 321ff) has gathered new 96

It seems unnecessary, if not impossible, to try to resolve this problem here; the chiliastyes are not known from any

Western Pontic city.

b) Tribes in the Milesian colonies:

Istros. Pippidi,17 followed by Ehrhardt,18 put forward a

hypothesis that Istros modelled its tribal system entirely

on the Miletus pattern with six phylai in the archaic period

and thereafter. Inscriptions have thus far provided

information for three of them: Aigikoreis (ISM 1.333),

Boreis,19 Argadeis (ISM 1 .334), and maybe Geleontes if an

inscription of uncertain origin attesting this tribe really

comes from Istros.20

arguments supporting the hypothesis of the chiliastyes.

17Pippidi, Greci, 251.

18Ehrhardt, Milet, 102; cf. also E. Doru^iu-Boiia, "Triburile la Tomis in epoca romanS," St. Cl. 12 (1970), 126; eadem, "Contribution," 157.

19ISM 1.97 and perhaps 1.191, if Pippidi's restoration ("'Seconde fondation'," 228, photo; ISM 1, pp. 325f) of 1. 2 is to be accepted. But this inscription is badly mutilated and only the last letter (v) of the name of the tribe in the genitive plural is extant. The space on the stone allows for 7-8 letters, so Pippidi reads lines 1-2: 0166/ [xi}c BopG«]v <|>uAfi<; eu€pyGxai This restoration is quite arbitrary and Pippidi himself admits (ISM 1, p. 326) that the restoration in 1. 2 of [ ’ OnAfixw]v or [Oivdrcwjv is also viable.

20 ISM 5.132; the discussion of its origin - see: Mihailov, SEG 30.849; Dorutiu-Boiia, "Triburile Tomis," 117-126; Ehrhardt, Milet, 102, n. 51. The attribution of 97

All the names of the tribes were attested in the

Imperial epoch, at least two of them (Aigikoreis, Boreis)

rather late, viz. , in the first half of the third century

A.D. But the existence of the phylai in earlier epochs

should not be contested, since we possess three earlier

inscriptions, where the tribes are mentioned, however without being named.21

The earliest of these (ISM 1.58) contains a decree of the phylai for a certain Meniskos the euergetes. The tribal assembly decided to name the 12th day of Anthesterion after him (lines 15-17). On that day, after sacrifices to the gods are fulfilled, a banquet (ct)vo8o<;) is to be organized and

Meniskos is to be crowned with a golden wreath in

recognition of his services rendered to the tribes (lines

17-21). The CniaxoTtoi elected for that year were responsible

for organizing the ceremony (lines 21-24). And when public banquets are held Meniskos and his descendants are to be provided with the same gifts as priests (lines 24-27); the

inscription may well refer here to the distribution of meat. 22 In the entrenchment clause the decree prescribes a

this inscription to Istros is accepted by Jones (Public Organization, 278).

21 ISM 1.54 (mid first century B.C.), 1. 23; 57 (second century A.D.), 1. 30; 58 (second century B.C.), lines 5, 10- 11, 21, 31.

22Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 159. 98 fine of five pieces of gold payable to the tribes and a proclamation of sacrilege in the event that the episkopoi fail to conduct the sacrifices or to crown Meniskos (lines

27-32).

This interesting decree sheds light on the internal organization of the tribes in Istros. They held public assemblies which had the power to decide about religious matters and to amend the calendar.23 It is unclear what the relation of the tribal assembly was to the ordinary assembly of the people (8t)|j.oc). Presumably the same constituency

(i.e. all citizens of Istros) was allowed to participate in both24 and it seems probable that both were presided over by the same official - the epimenios.25 The tribes must have had a treasury and possibly officers responsible for financial affairs, since in a case of negligence the episkopoi were liable to a fine (lines 30-31) payable to the tribes; there had to be an office in charge of collecting such fines.

Since the tribes charge the episkopoi with administrative and religious responsibilities, these officials appear to be tribal magistrates with (probably) a

23Cf. S. Lambrino, "Les tribus ioniennes d'Histria," Istros 1 (1934): 117-126.

2AJones, Public Organization, 279.

25For the ordinary assembly: ISM 1.54, 1. 2; in the case of the tribal one: ISM 1.58, lines 27-28; cf. Lambrino, loc. cit. 99 yearly term of office. 26 The episkopos is attested once more in a second-century B.C. decree of the neoi (ISM 1.59,

1. 25), but no meaningful context is extant. It is by no means sure that the tribal official was referred to in this second decree too.27

There is a comparatively late inscription from

Istros, 28 containing an honorific decree for a benefactress

Aba. She is praised, among others, for having distributed money to the citizens: ESw k Gv rot q 6E E[v ] rai q (fculcti c Kara

TtEvxriKOVTap/xiav Siav£vGnr|p[£]voi q (lines 30-31). The word pentekontarchia is commonly used as a military term, meaning the office of a pentekontarchos or a company of sixty four

26 ISM 1.58, lines 21-24: E m p£/[A]Ea0ai (../.) [roue k ]a[r'E/roe ai ] poupGvoue E t u c t k 6 t t o[ u ] e . The responsibility of the episkopoi and their status as elected officials is certain. Their term of office, restored by Pippidi, most probably was indeed one year, considering the usual Greek political practice. Cf. detailed discussion of the episkopoi in Lambrino, "Tribus ioniennes," 123-126.

27The episkopoi as elected magistrates (for other meaning of the word EmaKOTtoc see: LSJ, s.v.) were a rather rare institution. They are attested only on Rhodes in cities of Rhodes and Kamiros (IG 12.1.731, 50); cf. Szanto RE 6:199, s.v., 2; Pippidi, ISM1, p. 159. Various meanings of the word episkopos are discussed by I. Stoian ("Les donn§es nouvelles concernant les tribus histriennes dans un fragment de decret," in idem, Etudes Histriennes [Bruxelles 1972], 71-78), yet without firm conclusion concerning the nature of this office as mentioned in ISM 1.59. The episkopoi as tribal board are unknown outside Istros (Jones, Public Organization, 279).

28ISM 1.57, dated by Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 150) in the 2nd half of the second century A.D. 100

29 light-armed men. The context in the passage just quoted strongly suggests that it here signifies a tribal subdivision.30

It remains unclear, whether in Istros the word pentekontarchia referred to 1/50 of a tribe or to a group of fifty citizens belonging to i t.31 No direct analogy from any place in the Greek world is readily available. The closest parallel seems to be furnished by a tribal subdivision pentekostys, known in a few Doric poleisx Argos,

Cos, Rhethymnon.32 The character of it was probably not the same in all of these places: in Cos and possibly in

29LSJ, s .v . Cf. M. Launey, Recherches sur les armies hell4nistiques, vol. 1 (Paris 1949), 557ff; D. M. Pippidi, E. Popescu, "Les relations d'Istros et d'Apollonie du Pont a l'§poque hell&nistique," Dacia 3 (1959): 256ff.

30Robert, B.tip. 1962, 239; Pippidi, in the commentary on ISM 1.57, p. 155; Ehrhardt, Milet, 105. Detailed, but preliminary discussion in: Pippidi, Popescu, "Relations d'Istros," 256f.

_31Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 155) understands the pentekontarchia as a group of fifty citizens. His opinion is based on the analogy with pentakostys (about it vide infra) . Similarly Jones, Public Organization, 278f.

3ZG. Manganaro, "Epigrafia e istituzioni di Creta," in Antichith Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi, vol. 2 (Catania 1978), 43-48; P. Debord, "Chiliastys," REA 86 (1984): 207f; Jones, Public Organization, 113f, 222, 238. The pentekostys is attested also in Sparta, but there it was a military unit, originally fifty men strong (A. Toynbee, Some Problems of Greek History [London 1969], 391f; Jones, ibidem, 120). 101

Rhethymnon it was a unit numbering fifty citizens,33 while for Argos Pi6rart postulated identification of pentekostys with territorial subdivision of the fourth Argive tribe, corresponding to a kome.3U The slightly different name and the fact that Argos and Cos (and Rhethymnon) were Dorian states, never engaged in the colonization of the Western

Pontic area, should discourage us from looking for any analogy.

Tomis. For a long time only four tribes were known:

Argadeis, 35 Aigikoreis, 36 Hopletes 37 and Oinopes. 38 This

33Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos, 162-165; Manganaro, "Epigrafia e istituzioni," 46f; Cf. Debord, "Chiliastys," 205.

3aM. Pi6rart, "Phratries et 'Komai' d'Argos," BCH 107 (1983): 269-273. Cf. Debord, "Chiliastys," 207f, 209f. This is, however, not a universally accepted opinion, cf. Jones, Public Organization, 114 and n. 11.

35ISM 2.35 (lsc half of the first century B.C.), 52 (130-138 B.C.), 179 (second century A.D.); all dates according to Stoian, ISM 2.

36ISM 2.252, 253 (both the period of the Severi), 164 and 251 (second/third century A.D.); all dates according to Stoian, ISM 2. The last of them was contested by Pi6rart ("Athfenes et Milet," 15ff) since this is the inscription of uncertain origin connected with Tomis only by Pick (Antiken, 84f ) and Regling {Antiken, 590, n. 1), and because the name of the tribe is in the form Aigikoreis instead of the form Aikoreis, more common in Tomis. The most recent editor, Stoian, attributes (in the ISM 2) this inscription to Tomis. Since all inscriptions attesting this tribe originate in the Imperial epoch, it is impossible to verify the hypothesis of J. Kleinsorge {De civitatum Graecarum in Ponti Euxini ora occidentali sitarum rebus [Halle 1888], 80) that the original name of the tribe AiyiKOpGic was shortened to 102 gave Stoian the opportunity to formulate a theory that only these four tribes existed in Tomis, and he even tried to collect further arguments supporting his hypothesis, 39 but had to withdraw from this position, when the fifth one -

Boreis - became attested.40 Also the sixth tribe

Geleontes - has now been attested in Tomis.41 Thus Tomis adopted the full Milesian tribal system. This fact was correctly predicted by Szanto.42 It is much less certain, however, that the tribes in Tomis were territorial (as in

AiKopEic in the Roman epoch.

37ISM 2.123 (second century A.D.), 254 (third century A.D.); both dates according to Stoian, ISM 2.

38ISM 2.255 (second/third century A.D.), 375 (third century A.D.); both dates according to Stoian, ISM 2.

39Stoian, Tomitana, 257f; idem, "Contribution a l'6tude des tribus de Tomis," St. Cl. 3 (1961): 198f.

40JS!M 2.122 (1st half of the third century A.D.), first published by Stoian, "Le culte des Dioscoures et les tribus tomitaines h. la lumi^re d'un monument r6cemment publid," Dacia 10 (1966): 345ff.

41Dorutiu-Boil3 ("Triburile Tomis," 119) discovered it on a partly damaged inscription published by G. Tocilescu in AEM 19:99, no. 49 (= ISM 2.300; dated by Stoian, p. 286 in the second-third century A.D.). The phyle Geleontes is attested also in ISM 2.301 (second-third century A.D. according to Stoian).

42Szanto, Griechischen Phylen, 57. 103

Miletus in the classical epoch) and not personal/ 3

A few inscriptions provide some information about the tribal magistracies in Tomis. In the 1st half of the first century B.C. the tribe of Argadeis crowned its former phylarchos (phylarchesas on the stone). 44 One more honorific decree (ISM 2.52) testifies to the existence of the office of prostates, at least in A.D. 130-138. In the second century A.D. the phyle Argadeis had at least one additional official- a grammateus (ISM 2.179). Nothing can be said about the relations between these magistrates or their areas of responsibility.

In the second century A.D. the tribe of Hopletes honored one of its members, Apatourios son of Euelpistes, who served as the prostates, twice as the phylarchos and also as the Gtti uGAriSGi c "cou o i k o u (ISM 2.123). Thus we know that Hopletes (and perhaps also the other tribes in

Tomis / 5 had their club-house with a manager, an office

A3This is the hypothesis of PArvan ("Nouvelle inscription," 275f) accepted by Doru^iu-BoilA ("Contribution," 158), but greeted with justified skepticism by Jones (Public Organization, 277 and n. 3).

‘'‘'I S M 2.35. About the office of phylarchos sees E. Kie(31ing, RE xx 990, s.v. Phylarches.

*5PArvan, "Nouvelle inscription," 274; Danov, Zapadniyat, 86; Zlatkovskaya, Meziya, 116f. 104 important enough to be commemorated by an honorific decree.46 This inscription indicates also that it was possible to accumulate all these offices in the hands of one individual, albeit this was not always the case, since in one year Apatourios was phylarchos for the second time and prostates and epimeletes apparently for the first time. Also his father was a prostates only (ISM 2.123, 1. 4).

Presumably the internal organization of all tribes in

Tomis was similar, if not identical. Thus we may suppose that in the Roman epoch at least (and possibly in the first century B.C. too)47 a tribe in Tomis had a fairly elaborate structure of offices with a prostates, a phylarchos,48 a

46V. PSrvan ("Une nouvelle inscription_de Tomi," Dacia 1 [1924]: 273f) thought that the epimeletes in Tomis was both the administrator proper of the club-house and the tribal treasurer. It is possible, but the only inscription which attests the existence of this office in Tomis does not contain any indication of such broad responsibility of the epimeletes.

47For the first time a former phylarchos (phylarchesas) of the Argadeis is attested in the 1st half of the first century B.C. (ISM 2.35).

48It is not certain which of these offices was superior, possibly the prostates, because in ISM 2.123 it is mentioned on the_f_irst place, then comes the disphylarchos, and the epimeletes (clearly the least important) is mentioned on the last place. Stoian (ISM 2, p. 152 he calls prostates, "patron" (the same Jones, Public Organization, 278), but he neither explains what the function of this alleged patron was nor provides arguments why this office was superior to the phylarchos. npoaxAriic ttk <}>v At) c was a very rare institution in the Greek world. The only instance it is attested besides Tomis is in eastern Phrygia (MAMA 1.22); cf. H. Schaefer, RE Suppl. 9:1297, s.v. "rtpoax&r'nc •" 105 grammateus and an administrator of the club-house. The attested activity of the tribes in Tomis is mostly ceremonial.49

The known tribal office holders in Tomis are:

Argadeis:

Kerkion son of Timomachos, phylarchos, 1st half of the first century B.C. (ISM 2.35)

T. Flavius Poseidonios, prostates, A.D. 130-138 (ISM 2.52)

Markianos son of Markianos, grammateus, second century A.D.

(ISM 2.179).

Hopletes:

Euelpistes son of Poseidonios, prostates, second century

A.D. (ISM 2.123, 1. 4)

Apatourios son of Euelpistes, prostates, twice phylarchos, epimeletes of the tribal club-house, second century A.D.

(ISM 2.123, lines 2-4).

Odessos. Tribes in Odessos are mentioned only in two inscriptions, 50 but one of them (IGB 1 2 .47bis) contains a full list of the six Milesian tribes. This inscription was cut in the Imperial period, but, as in the case of Istros, there is no good reason to doubt the existence of the tribes

49Jones, Public Organization, 277.

50 2 IGB 1 .47bis (221 A.D.) and 63bis (Roman epoch after Claudius). 106 in pre-Roman Odessos too.31 The second inscription (IGB l2.63bis) probably contains a reference to banquets staged for the tribes.52

Dionysopolis. Tribes are attested by only one, comparatively late inscription.33 The names of the tribes were not inscribed, but we know that there were seven of them, commonly regarded as six Milesian tribes and the tribe of the Romans (which will be dealt with separately).34

51 Jones (Public Organization, 275) remarks that the four last named in IGB l2.47bis tribes (Geleontes, Argadeis, Aigikoreis, Hopletes) are arranged in the traditional Attic- Ionian order. This may reflect the order of tribes brought to Odessos with the original colonists from Miletus.

32The honorand, Claudius Aquila, is praised by the people and council in following words: dirorcliipdaav/xa d>i>Aoti g xG Koti axGjiaaiv xd G£ G0ouc (lines 17-18). Jones (Public Organization, 275) understands this passage as a reference to traditional banquets for the tribes of Odessos.

53 IGB lz.15ter = IGB 1.30. L. Robert ("Inscriptions grecques," 207f) reads lines 6-7: xt)<; nGvx[a/rt6XG(i)c J3ouAGi>xat c - - -] . If this restoration is viable (Mihailov accepts it in the IGB), this inscription must have been commissioned after A.D. 187 (about the pentapolis cf. infra - chapter VI).

34Doru£iu-Boiia, "Triburile Tomis," 126; G. Mihailov, "Documents 6pigraphiques de la c6te bulgare de la Mer Noire," in Actes de VII8 Congrds d'Spigraphie grecque et latine, 269; Ehrhardt, Milet, 101, n. 43; Jones, Public Organization, 276. No positive evidence of this identification is available. The seven tribes of Dionysopolis have been identified with the six Milesian tribes and the phyle of the Romans only by analogy to Odessos, cf. Mihailov's commentary on IGB l2.15ter, p. 64. 107

2. Meaara. a) The tribal system in Megara:

The tribal system was less complicated and has been less discussed than that of Miletus. Historians are unanimous55 that for the entire history of the city down to the second century A.D. the citizen body of Megara was divided into three Dorian tribes: Hyleis, Pamphyloi, Dymanes, attested by a few inscriptions. Only in the second century A.D. the fourth tribe - Hadrianidae - was established,56 but this, of course, could not have any impact on the colonies.

A few words should be said about tribes in the Megarian colonies of Pontic Heraclea, Byzantium and Calchedon, which took part in the foundation of Mesambria and Callatis. In

Calchedon there were sixteen units, which could have been tribes,57 hecatostyes or something else of purely local character. 58 These units are not attested either in Megara or in Mesambria. The citizen body of Byzantium - another

55E. L. Highbarger, The History and Civilization of Ancient Megara (Baltimore 1927), 98; Hanell, Megarische Studien, 138; R. P. Legon, Megara. The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 BC (Ithaca and London 1981 ), 47; Latte, "Phyle," 998; Jones, Public Organization, 94f.

56JG 7.72, 74, 101; cf. Jones, Public Organization, 96f.

57H. Merle, Die Geschichte der Stadte Byzantion und Kalchedon von ihrer Griindung bis zum Eingreifen der Romer in die Verhaltnisse des Ostens (Kiel 1916), 75.

58They were most probably hecatostyes, as was postulated by Hanell (Megarische Studien, 143f) and restated by Jones (Public Organization, 283f). 108 metropolis of Mesambria - was divided into hecatostyes.59

It is known that there were three tribes in Pontic

Heraclea which are commonly regarded as Hyleis, Pamphyloi and Dymanes.60 But recently Burstein61 pointed out that among the nine tribes of the Heraclean colony Prusias ad

Hypium there were three called: Megaris, Thebais, Dionysias.

These names reflected the origins of the primitive settlers.

This tribal system must have been transplanted from

Heraclea, especially since our evidence suggests that many colonists from Thebes and other Boeotian cities took part in

62 the foundation of this Pontic city.

b ) Tribes in the Megarian colonies:

Callatis. No inscriptions or any other sources on the tribes are extant, but some scholars have found no reason to doubt

59Merle, Geschichte, 70; V. P. Nevskaya, Vizantiy v klassicheskuyu i elllnisticheskuyu epokhl (Moscow 1953), 54; Jones, Public Organization, 284f.

60Hanell, Megarische Studien, 141 (further reference there); Jones, Public Organization, 282 (without any fresh arguments to support this hypothesis).

61Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 21.

62Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 12-16 (broad reference to sources and the literature there). Jones (Public Organization, 282, n. 2) criticises Burstein's hypothesis as "wholly speculative." But even more so is this better established one, which prescribes the system of the three Dorian tribes (Hyleis, Dymanes, Pamphyloi) for Heraclea (and some of her colonies). 109

63 the existence of the Doric tribal system there. They have

believed that the social organization - along with the

hierarchy of offices, some cults and the calendar - was

transplanted from Megara which may have sent an oiklstes to

help her colony - Pontic Heraclea - in founding a new

settlement. But it is instructive to note that this general

rule did not operate in every case, as we can see from the

example of Prusias-on-Hypius, where almost certainly the

Doric tribes never existed at all. The hypothesis that the

same tribal system as in Prusias (Megaris, Thebais,

Dionysias), was also established in Callatis is of course

possible. At any rate, the problem of divisions of the

citizen body in Callatis will remain an open one and will

not be resolved until more sources are available.64

Mesambria. Nothing certain is known about the tribes or

other forms of divisions of the citizen body in this city

founded by settlers from Megara, Byzantium and Calchedon.

The fact that the original colonists came from the cities

63 E. Popescu, "Die Inschriften aus Kleinskythien," in Actes du Vir Congr&s International d'4pigraphie grecque et latine, 284; Pippidi, Greci, 82. Jones (Public Organization, 276) perceives the question of the nature of the tribal system in Callatis as open.

64As a matter of fact the very existence of any tribal system in Callatis has not been confirmed by our sources yet. Tribes, however a common feature in Greece, were by no means a universal trait of the social structure of all poleis. Cf. Latte, "Phyle," 995f. 110 whose social organization differed greatly (vide supra) renders impossible the formulation of any plausible hypothesis concerning the tribal system in Mesambria.

In the context of social structure one more Mesambrian institution should be examined here. Two Hellenistic inscriptions from Mesambria add (scant) information about hikadeis.65 Both are partly damaged, but apparently one of them (IGB lz.308octies, lines 3-4) refers to sacrifices, while the other one (IGB l2.308septies, lines 5-7) contains an honorific decree moved by the hikadeis, who decided to crown an unidentified person with a gold wreath. Mihailov, who edited these inscriptions, suggests that the hikadeis were a body similar to the Olbian financial board of enadeis.66 He offers no persuasive argument and the inscriptions mentioned above do not provide any convincing proof.

As far as I know, the institution, or board of hikadeis is not attested in any inscription from other parts of the Greek world. In Attica, however, the eikadeis

(hikadeis has the same meaning in Doric dialect) constituted a board of worshippers of Hero Eikadeus and Apollo

65IGB l2.307septies (third century B.C.) and 307octies (third-second century B.C.). Both dates according to Mihailov, IGB 1 , pp. 266f.

“Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 274. Ill

Parnassius ,67 The parallel seems to be obvious.

Nevertheless difficulties remain. First of all these Attic

eikadeis were an Ionian institution while Mesambria was a

Doric state. Hard evidence is needed to show that the

practical meaning of these two similar words was the same.

Neither in Mesambria nor in Megara or, as far as I know, in

any of her colonies is the epithet Eikadios (Hikadios)

attested for any deity. All these reasons compel us to be very cautious about concluding that the hikadeis were a

religious group of some kind.

One other solution is also possible. The Lexicon of

68 Hesychius reads: 6iic&6iic» xivdt Although such a tribal subdivision is not attested anywhere, some analogies may be furnished by similar units of citizen

69 bodies, such as the dekades in Chios, or the triakas in

Sparta, Cos, Acrae, Athens, Corinth, and probably Phocis.70

67IG 2Z.1258, 1596, 2631, 2632. About the eikadeis in Attica see: F. Poland, Geschichte des Griechische Vereinswesens (Leipzig 1909), 64; E. Ziebarth, RE 5:2098, s.v. "EiKa86i<;;" idem, Das Griechische Vereinswesen (Leipzig 1896), 38, 182.

68According to K. Latte (in the introduction of his edition of Hesychius, pp. Xf, XLIIf) Diogenianos the grammarian (second century A.D.) was Hesychius' source.

69 W. G. G. Forrest, "The Tribal Organization of Chios," BSA 55 (1960): 188.

70Sparta (attested only as a military unit): W. G. G. Forrest, A History of Sparta (London 1968) 46; Jones, Public Organization, 120; Cos: Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos, 161-164, Jones, ibidem, 238f; Acrae: Jones, ibidem, 172; Athens (sacral society in the deme Peiraieus): Jones, ibidem, 63; 112

The dekades were groups of ten m e n .71 A triakas in Corinth was very likely a personal unit (inside a tribe) comprising

thirty members.72 In Cos it possibly constituted 1/30 part of a tribe.73 In Mesambria then the hikades could have been a tribal subdivision, either groups of twenty men or 1/20 part of a tribe. Such tiny subdivisions of tribes do not seem unlikely in Mesambria, whose overall free population definitely did not exceed a few thousand. This archaic,

Doric name hikadeis1U seems to point to an archaic character for this institution. It therefore either originated in the first period after the foundation of

Mesambria (ca. 513-510 B.C.) or was brought by the first settlers. The hypothesis of the hikadeis as a subdivision of a tribe in Mesambria thus seems to me more likely than the other two alternatives presented above.

A third century B.C. Mesambrian catalogue of heroes

(IGB l2.318) reads in col. II, 1. 3: Kuvdao [ upo<; ] . This, of

Corinth: Jones, ibidem, 99-102; Phocis: L. Robert, Hellenics 5:10-12.

71Forrest, loc. cit.

72Jones, Public Organization, 100.

73Sherwin-White, Ancient Cos, 163f; cf. Debord, "Chiliastys," 205. This is, however, disputed by Jones (Public Organization, 238f).

7AF. Bechtel, Die griechischen Dialekten, vol. 2 (Berlin 1923), 346, 462, 487, 540, 542, 584, 693. 113 course, brings to onq's mind the names of one of Megara's five komai (Kynosoureis) and a hecatostys Kynosouris.75 Yet the evidence of this inscription is far too tenuous to speculate that the citizen body in Mesambria was organized in komai or hecatostyes.

75About this forms of public organization in Megara see Jones, Public Organization, 95f. L. Robert ("Inscriptions grecques," 217, cf. Mihailov, IGB lz, p. 280) first noticed the similarity on the name of the Mesambrian(?) hero Kynosouros and a kome and hecatostys in Megara. 114

3. Clisthenic tribes.

Pippidi76 formulated a hypothesis that fifth-century B.C.

Istros, following the Athenian example, introduced a new pattern of tribal organization based on a decimal system. He linked it with political changes mentioned by Aristotle

(Pol. 5.5. If, p. 1305b) and connected it with a putative

Athenian military intervention on behalf of the democracy.

The new system of ten territorial tribes was, according to

Pippidi, reflected in some institutions, such as oi 6€ica.77

Pippidi's theory is very interesting, but its main weakness lies in a complete lack of sources to support it.

We cannot even be sure (as Pippidi seems to be) that Istros or, for that matter, any Western Pontic city in fact belonged to the Delian League.78 The passage in the

Politics does not confirm any Athenian involvement in the constitutional affairs of Istros, but rather indicates that the changes from oligarchy to democracy were slow and resulted entirely from internal reasons.79

76D. M. Pippidi, St. Cl. 6 (1955): 892f; idem, Greci, 82; idem, "A propos des tribus d'Istros A l'^poque romaine," in Le monde grec. Hommages A Claire Preaux, ed. J. Bingen (Bruxelles 1975), 464f.

77ISM 1.28, 1. 7. The date, according to Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 117): second century B.C.

76Cf. chapter I, p. 33.

^Constitutional changes in Istros will be discussed in chapter V. 115

Some parallel can also be drawn from the example of

Miletus - the metropolis of Istros, with which she continued to have fairly close links for a long time. 80 In the second half of the fifth century B.C. a new tribal system was implemented in Miletus (however the old "Ionian" tribes did not disappear) and for a long time it was regarded as a decimal one strictly modelled on post-Clisthenean Athens.81

Recently, however, Pi6rart82 and Ehrhardt83 produced strong

3 4 arguments supporting A. Rehm's theory that the new

Milesian system consisted from its very beginnings of twelve tribes. If Rehm is correct, the example of Miletus cannot support Pippidi's hypothesis of tribal changes in Istros.

80A fourth century B.C. inscription, containing an isopoliteia treaty between these two cities is worth mentioning (ISM 1.62). Cf. also Ehrhardt, Mllet, 235.

81Haussoulier, "Dfemes et tribus," passim; Hiller v. Gaertingen, "Miletos," 1600; Pippidi, "A propos des tribus," 464f; Roussel, Tribu et citS, 296; Jones, Public Organization, 322f.

32 Pi6rart, "Athfenes etMilet," 5-8; idem, "Constitution de Milet," 439f.

83Ehrhardt, Milet, 98f.

8ARehm, Delphinion, 138. 116

4. The tribe of the Romans♦

For a long time a 'Penatwv was known in Tomis (ISM

2.256) and Istros (ISM 1.142, 415). Stoian put forward the hypothesis that this rather unusual tribe, apparently

created under Roman rule, was in fact something else - a

conventus civium Romanorum. 85 He persisted in this view despite the fact that an inscription (ISM 2.256, lines 1-3,

5-6) reveals that one member of the tribe of the Romans in

Tomis was a certain Teimokrates son of Alexandros, almost

certainly a local person (originally from Nikomedia) without

Roman citizenship. He also identified a an€ipa 'Penaa ov attested in Tomis (ISM 2.100) with the conventus civium

Romanorum.86

His theory has not found many followers; 87 the great majority of scholars dealing with this problem have pointed out that the tribe was a normal one named i>Af| ' Pwncw wv in honor of the lords of the world. 88 It consisted not only of

85Stoian, Tomitana, 68, 169, 257; idem, "Contribution," 194f, 197f.

86Stoian, " Contribution," 19 7 f .

87To my knowledge only L. Mrozewicz (Rozw6j ustroju municypalnego a postepy romanizacji w Mezji Dolnej [Poznan 1982], 53) accepted Stoian's interpretation of the tribe of the Romans.

88 It was Kleinsorge (De civitatum Graecarum, 26) who first formulated this opinion. 117 89 Roman citizens, but also of people admitted to the citizenship of the Western Pontic cities during Roman rule

90 (e.g. Teimokrates son of Alexandros native of Nikomedia).

The decisive argument was furnished by the inscription from Odessos (IGB l2.47bis) which reads: i oise G ia l v ’ Epp£i C TUV uluv

2 Oivo-- Bo- 'P u ­ m e-- 'Ap- Ai yi - 'O-

TT(i)V p€- pal - 6 v - ya- KO-

(i)V uv TUV 6£- p£- ov

uv uv

The tribe of the Romans is treated here equally with the other tribes as they all dedicate herms, and doubtless it did not differ substantially from them.91

Tribes of the Romans were not a common feature in the

Roman world. As far as I know, outside Western Pontus, the

92 only attested oA.f| ' Popai ov is in Messene. In Messene this tribe was composed entirely of foreigners, while in

89As e.g. Latte ("Phyle," 1008) and (Danov, Zapadniyat, 85) suggested.

90 Pippidi, "A v propos des tribus," 468f; Popescu, "Inschriften," 284; Dorutiu-Boiia, "Triburile Tomis," 121, 125f; eadem, "Contribution," 157; Mihailov in the commentary on IGB l2.47bis, pp. llOf; Ehrhardt, Milet, 102; Jones, Public Organization, 278.

91Mihailov, IGB l2, pp llOf; cf, Jones, Public Organization, 90.

92IG 5.1; cf. Jones, Public Organization, 146f. 118

Tomis citizens belonged to the tribe of the Romans too. In

Aphrodisias and Hierapolis in Phrygia a uli) ' Pujiai c is attested.93 Its denomination is similar but not the same as that of the Pontic tribe of the Romans. On the other hand the tribe "of the Romans" is attested in three out of six

Western Pontic cities: Istros (ISM 1.142, 415), Tomis (ISM

2.256), Odessos (IGB lz.47bis), and possibly also

Dionysopolis (IGB l2. 15ter = IGB 1.30). Apparently at a certain moment in history in most of the Western Pontus it became fashionable (or politically expedient) to honor the

Romans in this manner. We do not have any data suggesting that the tribes of the Romans existed in Callatis and

Mesambria too, but it is not unlikely.

93Aphrodisias: MAMA 8.413d, 1. 11; cf. Jones, Public Organization, 336. Hierapolis: T. Ritti, Fonti Letterarie ed Epigrafiche, vol. 1 of Hierapolis: Scavi e richerche (Rome 1985), 118-122 (the tribe Romais is mentioned as first in a list of 14 tribes in Hierapolis), cf. SEG 25.1369. CHAPTER IV: HIERARCHY OF OFFICES.

A. EPONYMOUS OFFICES.

1. Eponymous magistrates in Istros, Odessos. Tomis and

Dionysopolis.

Istros

A certain Aristagoras son of Apatourios was praised in a mid-first-century B.C. decree, because (among other commendable things) he volunteered to become an eponymous official of Istros. The decree reads: lcctl rdv Gtkovuhov xfjc tt6A6ojavov (ISM 1.54, A, lines 21-22). There can be, therefore, little doubt, that in the mid-first century B.C. a priest of Apollo (Ietros)1 was the eponymous magistrate of Istros.

There is at least one earlier extant decree (ISM 1.26) by the boule and demos of Istros dated according to a priest of Apollo Ietros, inscribed in the second century B.C. and

1 Apollo Ietros was a tutelary god of various Black Sea Milesian colonies: Myus, Sinope, Apollonia (Pontica), Tomis, Tyras, Olbia, Panticapaeum, Hermonassa. Cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 133-142. 120 possibly one more decree dating in the third century B.C.2

The custom of dating inscriptions according to the eponymous priest of Apollo Ietros dates back at least into the fourth century B.C., from which time three private dedications dated this way are preserved.3 In the third century B.C. a body of orphanistai and a certain Peisistratos of Thasos had

2 ISM 1.63. This is a badly damaged inscription dated ’ Erti i€p€(i) ’ Air6A,l(ov [05 ’Ir|Tpo0] (restoration by Pippidi, loc. cit.). This restoration is unconvincing, because if the priest of Apollo Ietros was the eponymous magistrate at that time, it would have been redundant to inscribe the name of the god. Indeed nowhere else can we find the name of Apollo inscribed in this place. We would rather expect the name of the priest, perhaps followed by his patronymic. Another possibility is that Apollo undertook his own priesthood in the year of this inscription. Pippidi is inconsistent: he does not suggest this solution in his commentary to this inscription, for he calls the Dioscuri the first example of divine eponymy in Istros (ISM 1.142, p. 278, third century A.D.) only to mention this inscription as the example of divine eponymy in the commentary on ISM 1.222 (p. 368) . This attribution must remain conjectural for now. Secondly Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 172) thinks that this inscription, although found in Istros, may convey a honorary decree by Apollonia for her ally - Istros. But no other decree from Apollonia is known to have been dated according to a priest. This is probably a decree or dedication executed by some group from Istros.

3 ISM 1.144, 169, 170. These three inscriptions are roughly contemporaneous (dated according to the eponymous priesthoods of two brothers Hippolochos and Hegesagoras), their date, established by means of studying letter shapes, remains controversial. V. PArvan (Histria 4:533) and S. Lambrino ("Deux types mon6taire d'Histria," Ar4thuse 1 [1930]: 101-108) dated them in the end of the fifth century B.C. (accepted by Jeffery, Local Scripts, 368). Pippidi (cf. ISM 1, p. 303) studied more carefully the stemma of the family involved in these dedications and concluded that a more plausible date is the 1st half of the fourth century B.C. 121

their dedications dated according to the priest of Apollo/

Four dedications dated according to the priest of Apollo

come from the second century A.D.5 and two more from the

third century A . D .6

The eponymy of the priest of Apollo Ietros is thus

attested without any major interruption from the early

fourth century B.C., until the third century A.D. Given the

importance of the cult of Apollo in Miletus and her colonies

it is certainly possible that the priest of Apollo was the

eponymous magistrate of Istros since the foundation of the

city, but no proof of this hypothesis can be found. The

analogy with Miletus is not helpful either, because the

prytaneis were the eponymous officials there in the period

of colonization.7 These magistrates are not attested at all

in Istros, and, in the light of our sources, one cannot

assert that the prytaneis held the first eponymy in this

‘'ISM 1.184 and 145 respectively.

5ISM 1.137, 198, 203 and 204.

6ISM 1.142 and 222.

7Ehrhardt, Milet, 193. Later a stephariephoros was the eponymous official of Miletus and Bilabel (Ionische Kolonization, 129f) saw a certain analogy with Istros, since Aristagoras was praised for taking the crown of Apollo up (ISM 1.54, lines 22, 29-30). But this does not hold, because the crown was a common distinction of priests, in Istros and elsewhere, e.g. of the priests of Zeus Polieus (ISM 1.54, lines 19-20); cf. F. Sokolowski, Lois sacr€es de l'Asie Mineure (Paris 1955), 11, n. 2; Ehrhardt, Milet, 203. 122

Milesian colony.8

A list of eponymous priests of Apollo Ietros can be created:

Hippolochos son of Theodotos, 1st half of the fourth century

B.C.9

Hegesagoras son Theodotos, 1st half of the fourth century

B.C. (ISM 1.144)

Xenochares son of Apollonios, third century B.C. (ISM 1.145)

Nik[osthenes]?, third century B.C.10

Hestiaios son of Mikkalion, second century B.C. (ISM 1.26)

Aristagoras son of Apatourios, four times, mid-first century

80f course, the prytaneis could have been the eponymous magistrates of Istros in the period immediately following colonization by the Milesians. If so, the eponymy changed to that of priests of Apollo Ietros (= "healer") in memory of liberation from some plague (I owe this suggestion to Professor A. G. Woodhead).

9 ISM 1.169 and 170. Date: n. 3. Hegesagoras and Hippolochos were brothers (cf. the stemma of their family in ISM 1, p. 283) and it is possible that Hegesagoras preceded his brother in priesthood of Apollo.

10ISM 1.184. Pippidi does not explain the reason(s) behind this bold restoration of the name ot the priest. The name Nikosthenes is not otherwise attested in Istros.

11 ISM 1.54, A, 1. 1: ' IGpwjiGvou ’Apioxaydpou xou ’Anaxoupiou x6 xExapxov. His previous eponymous priesthoods are referred to in the same decree in lines 21-23 (first), 26-30 (second, after three years interval), 31-34 (third). One year later his fourth priesthood followed (lines 34-36). 123

Iulius Severus, A.D. 129-16012

Diogenes, mid-second century A.D. (ISM 1.203)

Diogenes son of Athenados, twice, 2nd half of the second

century A.D.13

C. Iulius Pollio, end of the second century A . D .14

Dioskoroi, four times, 1st half of the third century A . D .15

Zeus Polieus, third century A.D. (ISM 1.222).

One more possible eponymous priest from Istros is

Hieron son of Antianax, mentioned in a dedication for

Demeter undated by the editors.16

The reason for the divine eponymy was almost certainly

the impossibility of finding appropriate (i.e. rich and

willing to cover the expenses of the eponymous magistracy)

mortal candidates for the priesthood of Apollo. In all

IZISM 1.137. This eponymous priest bears the title unarixdc (= proconsul) and the person in question could be either Sextus Minicius Faustinus Cn. Iulius Severus, the governor of Moesia Inferior 129-131 A.D., or L. Iulius T. Statilius Severus, the governor in ca. 160 A.D. Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 274f.

13JSJ*f 1.198, lines 2-3: ' iGpojiGvou Aioy[£]/vou ’ AStiv&Sod P' •

14ISM 1.204, cf. Pippidi's commentary on Iulius Pollio (p. 353).

15ISM 1.142, lines 2-3: * IGpejiGvwv/ Aiocncdpov xd S'. About the divine eponymy cf. Pippidi, "A propos des tribus," 467 and ISM 1, p. 278.

16ISM 1.109. The provenance of this inscription is not certain; most likely it comes from Istros (cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 252). 124

likelihood, the divine eponymy made it possible for the city to use the temple treasures for this purpose. Already in the mid-first century A.D., in the period of barbarian invasions devastating the rural territory of Istros, the city suffered

from lack of candidates. At that time a wealthy benefactor

Aristagoras saved the day.17 From the decree in honor of him we know that the eponymous priest was supposed to organize solemn processions 18 and apparently also to pay for them, since expenditures covered from Aristagoras' own resources are mentioned several times in this inscription.

The eponymous priest also had to perform some procedural duties. We know for example that a person honored by the city was granted an official audience with the priest.19 Possibly he was supposed to entertain him in the prytaneion (or some other official place), as eponymous magistrates elsewhere did.

17ISM 1.54, lines 26-30 and 34-35. Divine eponymy was quite a common occurrence especially in the Roman epoch, cf. L. Robert, La Carie. Histoire et gSographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques vol. 2 (Paris 1954), 213.

l6ISM 1.54, lines 22-24: TiavriYtipGai navS^iioic xai Ttonnai[c] ... to6c 0€oi>c ... ExGt n[ii ]a6v .

19 ISM 1.6, 1. 8 and, if Pippidi's restoration is correct, also ISM 1.28, lines 12-13. 125

Odessos

Nothing is known about eponymous magistrates in Odessos before 44 B.C. Possibly the earliest preserved inscription commissioned by the polis of Odessos in the second-first century B.C. is so damaged that out of its dating formula only Gni is extant.20 Danov21 supposed that a npwxoc apxwv was the eponymous official in the classical and early

Hellenistic epoch and that a priest of Theos Megas Derzelas took over from him in later Hellenistic epoch. No sources confirm this first hypothesis, the second one is based on an

22 inscription dated: iGpopGvou 0Gou MGy&lou AGpCGla. This formula does not, however, mean that a priest of Derzelas was the eponymous magistrate, but that the god himself took up this honor.23 Therefore it tells nothing about the god whose priest was the eponymous magistrate of Odessos. Some scholars think that the priest of Apollo, the tutelary god of Miletus and her colonies, could be eponymous offical.2A

20P. M. Fraser, Samothrace. The Inscriptions on Stone (London 1960), no. 6 .

21Danov, Zapadniyat, 107; idem, "Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos," in ANRW 7.1 ( 1979), 289 .

21IGB l2.47bis, 1. 5. Fraser (Samothrace, 33f) shares Danov's opinion on the alleged shifting of the eponymous magistracy to the priest of Derzelas.

23Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 94; Robert, Btp 1981, 332.

2AZ. Gofieva, "Pretres 6ponymes d'Odessos et de Dionysopolis," Kilo 62 (1980): 49-53; Ehrhardt, Milet, 197- 198. Both of them pointed out the importance of Apollo in Milesian colonies and the substantial amount of theophoric 126

This hypothesis is more plausible than that of the eponymy of the priests of Derzelas, since the original colonists brought cults and institutions from Miletus. Yet for lack of hard evidence it remains conjectural.

We have an early first-century A.D. inscription (IGB l2.46) which lists forty six priests of an unnamed god active after the return of the citizens from exile caused by

Burebista's invasion (|i6x& xf|v k&0o8ov). L. Robert25 suggested that it was a list of eponymous priests, and thanks to a newly uncovered inscription, which attests the name of one of those priests as without doubt eponymous, this hypothesis gains new strength.26 The list of known eponymous magistrates (priests) of Odessos can be constructed as follows:

Hegemon son of Sostratos, 44 B.C.27

names containing Apoljj- stem (also among the priests from the catalogue IGB 1 .46) and the fact that official documents were stored within the sacred precincts of the temple of Apollo (IGB 1 .43, lines 36-37).

25L. Robert. "Inscriptions grecques," 192f; followed by Mihailov, IGB 1 , p. 104.

26Fraser (Samothrace, p. 34, n. 4) expressed doubt whether the priests listed on the catalogue mentioned above were indeed eponymous magistrates. V. Tersieva (INMV 9 [1973]: 295, no. 4) published an inscription in which Zenis was named the eponymous priest: Crt* i€p6 Z^vGi . This Zenis is generally identified with Zenis son of Agathenor (IGB l2.46, 1. 28). Cf. Gofieva, "Prdtres 6ponymes," 50; Ehrhardt, Milet, 197.

27The names from Hegemon son of Sostratos to Moschion son of Zoilos follow IGB 1 .46. 127

Noumenios son of Hellen, 43 B.C.

Kotys son of Dernaios, 42 B.C.

Metrodoros son of Metrodoros, 41 B.C.

Apatourios son of Apatourios, 40 B.C. 28 Hestiaios, 39 B.C.

Amyntor son of Hellen, 38 B.C.

Apollas son of Hekataios, 37 B.C.

Hellen son of Noumenios, 36 B.C.

Parmenon son of Artemidoros, 35 B.C.

Apollas son of Dionysios, 34 B.C.

Apollas son of Apollonios, 33 B.C.

Amyntor son of Aiantides, 32 B.C.

Hermaphilos son of Hellen, 31 B.C.

Aiantides son of Apollas, 30 B.C.

Teimokrates son of Epimenes, 29 B.C.

Parmenion son of Parmenion, 28 B.C.

Posideos son of Apollas, 27 B.C.

Artemidoros son of Apollodoros, 26 B.C.

Noumenios son of Apollonios, 25 B.C.

Asklepiades son of Artemidoros, 24 B.C.

Apollonios son of Promathion, 23 B.C.

Markos Antonios Athenaios, 22 B.C.

Dionysios son of Zopyrion, 21 B.C.

Aristeides son of Aischrion, 20 B.C.

28 His patronymic in Mihailov's restoration ’ A ti[o AA,o 6- vel ’ Ap[x€m 6 ]upou . 128

Zenis son of Agathenor, 29 19 B.C.

Agathenor son of Zenis, 18 B.C.

Parmenon son of Zoilos, 17 B.C.

Metrodoros son of [K]onon, 16 B.C.

Artemidoros son of Noumenios, 15 B.C.

Hellen son of Epimenes, 14 B.C.

Eupolemos son of Attes, 13 B.C.

Posseis son of Xenon, 12 B.C.

Artemidoros son of Hestiaios, 11 B.C.

Posidonios son of Noumenios, 10 B.C.

Hephaistion son of Dionysios, 9 B.C.

Aristokles son of Zenis, 8 B.C.

Phileinos son of Aleximachos, 7 B.C.

Promathion son of Apollonios, 6 B.C.

Dionysios son of Hekatodoros, 5 B.C.

Herotimos son of Agathenor, 4 B.C.

Posseis son of Diogenes, 3 B.C.

Noumenios son of Hippomedon, 2 B.C.

Dionysios son of P[os]sei[s], 1 B.C.

[D]ionysios son of Apatourios, A.D. 1

Moschion son of Zoilos, A.D. 2

Dion[ysios], beginning of the Roman epoch 30

29A1so attested by the inscription published by V. Tersieva, INMV 9 (1973): 295, no. 4.

30 2 IGB 1 .50, not dated by the editor. This is a catalogue of ephebes. Only one name is Roman (Oualerios, 1. 18), so it must have been inscribed before the Roman 129

Hadrian, A.D. 117-138 (IGB l2.49)

Theos Megas Derzelas for the 14 cti time, A.D. 215 A.D. 31

Theos Megas Derzelas for the 15th time, A.D. 22132

Theos Megas Derzelas, A.D. 238.33

If the catalogue of priests after the return from exile is not taken into consideration all eponymous magistrates known to us are superhumans (by standards of Odessos the emperor was a god too) . Undoubtedly the eponymous magistracy was a liturgy in Odessos similarly to Istros. But we may notice, that Derzelas was the eponymous priest in 215 for

14th time and in 221 for 15th time; perhaps some mortals volunteered for this honor in the meantime, unless, of course, some other deity had to do so.

Epimenioi

A typical decree of the boule and the demos of Istros or Odessos is dated in its preamble as follows:

citizenship became widespread, probably in the late first century B.C. - first century A.D.

31 IGB l2.47, the inscription bears a consular date too.

32IGB l2.47bis, the inscription bears a consular date too.

33IGB l2.48, consular date too. The inscription is partly damaged, also in the part where the information about the number of Derzelas's eponymy was inscribed. 130

£rci HT^vi eOovxoc 9€OKpixou (ISM 1.8). Out of twenty two decrees from Istros, of which the preambles are preserved well enough that they can be studied, fifteen34 are dated that way certainly and two more probably.35 The same applies to four36 out of six decrees from Odessos. The former epimenioi (£tu ht]vi €6aav [rote ] in Acc. pi.) are also known from a broken third century B.C. inscription (IGB l2.36, 1. 4) from Odessos. All of those inscriptions mentioned above were probably inscribed in the third-second century B.C.37

34 JSif 1.1, 5, 7, 8 , 9, 12 (all third century B.C.), 15 (ca. 200 B.C.), 17 (third/second century B.C.), 26, 27, 31, 36 (all second century B.C.), 37 (third/second century B.C.?), 46 (third-second century B.C.), 54 (mid-first century B.C.). All dates according to Pippidi, ISM 1.

35Restored: ISM 1.20, 1. If ... £ tii [pt|vi/Eu o v t o c ] (ca. 200 B.C.) and 55, 1. 2f ... [ Em pr|vi Euov ]/roc (beginning of the first century B.C.). Pippidi prints in his corpus two further inscriptions with the epimenios restored in the preamble (4 and 13). Since those restorations are purely conjectural (no letters extant) they will not be taken into consideration here.

36 IGB lz. 38 (third/second century B.C.), 43 (45-42 B.C.), 43bis (end of the first century B.C.; all dates according to Mihailov, IGB l2) and A. Salad, BCH 52 (1928): 397f = Fraser, Samothrace, no. 6 (cf. L. Robert, Review of Fraser, Samothrace, Gnomon 35 [1963]: 57f).

37Salad, BCH 52 (1928): 395ff dated the inscription from Samothrace in the Roman epoch. Fraser (Samothrace, 33-34) thinks that its date could be earlier. 131 38 Certain scholars have claimed that the epimenioi had been a democratic institution which had replaced the previously existing priestly eponymy. This hypothesis will be dealt with later. One should first look for sources of this magistracy, especially in the mother-city of these

Western Pontic cities.

The epimenioi in Miletus are known from just one inscription, dated in the period 470-440 B.C.39 According to this decree the epimenioi were a body of officials in charge of capturing certain individuals, executing them, paying bounty out of their estate, and their president was to expedite these matters. Wilamowitz saw them as a monthly office corresponding to the Athenian prytaneis; Giunfjvioc in sg. would then be a magistrate similar to the GmaT&TTic tuv irpuxAvGov/° But the epimenioi in Miletus are attested by

38V. V. Latychev, Issledovaniya ob istorii i gosudarstvennom stroye goroda Olvii (St. Petersburg 1887), 295f; T. V. Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennyye ustroystva zapadnopontiyskikh gorodov v epokhu ikh avtonomii," VDI (1949.3): 40; eadem, Zapadnopontiyske, 193f.

39Th. Wiegand, "Vierter vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen der Koniglichen Museen zu Milet," AA (1906): 17-18 = SGDI 4.35 = SIG*.58; re-published with extensive commentary by M. Pi6rart, "Les Giupfjvioi de Milet," Ant. Cl. 38 (1969): 365-388. The date 470-440 B.C. is according to H.-J. Gehrke, "Zur Geschichte Milets in der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v.Chr.," Historia 29 (1980), 17-31. N. Robertson ("Government and Society at Miletus, 525-442 B.C./" Phoenix 41 [1987]: 378f) is inclined to put this date slightly earlier, in years immediately following 479 B.C.

A0U. v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, AA (1906): 17-18. This far-reaching hypothesis was basically accepted by M. Tod 132

this one inscription only, while the prytaneis in Athens by a large number of sources. If the analogy to other Ionian

cities is applicable here, one may cite a decree41 from

Erythrai where the epimenioi are mentioned alongside the prytaneis. In the inscription from Odessos referred to above

(IGB l2.36) the prytaneis crowned the epimenioi with a wreath. So in Odessos the epimenios may have been the president42 of the prytaneis, but those two magistracies were not identical.

There is little reason to believe that this was the case in Miletus. More likely the epimeneia in Miletus, as

far as it is known from the inscription mentioned above, was an extraordinary office of broadly defined functions.43

J. P. Barron, however, put forward a hypothesis, that

(GHI l2, p. 67) and with some reservations by Hiller v. Gaertingen ("Miletos," 1598). Cf. Blavatskaya, loc. cit. For Robertson ("Government and Society," 380) the epimenioi were a presiding committee of the boule. Mihailov ("Documents §pigraphiques," 269) thought that the epimenios acted as a president of the prytaneis.

1,1SEG 31.969, dated to 351-344 B.C.

42Cf. Mihailov in the commentary on IGB l2.36.

43Glotz, CRAI (1906): 522ff; Pi6 rart, " * Em piivi oi de Milet," 376. One cannot agree with A. G. Dunham (The History of Miletus Down to the_Anabasis of Alexander [London 1915], 133ff.) that the epimenioi were financial officials. Their sphere of duty was much broader than one might expect of financial magistrates. They seem to have combined the responsibilities of three Athenian boards: CvSGica, noA-tixcd and np&KTop€c (I owe this remark to Professor A. G. Woodhead). 133 this magistracy in fact had been created after 450/449 B.C. and that it had replaced the old, oligarchic prytany in

Miletus.44 It seems quite difficult to reconcile this hypothesis with the attested presence of the epimenioi in three Milesian colonies (Istros, Odessos, Kios45), especially since this office was not very common elsewhere.46 More likely the epimeneia existed in Miletus at least since the seventh century B.C. and was adopted in some Milesian colonies.47

Recently N. Ehrhardt48 formulated an interesting hypothesis concerning the beginning and evolution of the epimenioi in Miletus. According to him the epimenioi were formerly (perhaps since the eighth century B.C.) priests responsible for monthly sacrifices. Since the dates of these sacrifices somehow coincided with those of meetings of the

44J. P. Barron, "Milesian Politics and Athenian Propaganda," JHS 82 (1962): 4-5.

45Cf. Tod, GHI 2, p. 149 and Ehrhardt, Milet, 211 and n. 1298.

_46E. Szanto (RE 6:178f, s.v. "' Eni nrjvi oi ,") names the epimenioi - the state magistrates, not priests only in Smyrna, Bargylia, Amorgos and Nesos. G. Busolt (Griechische Staatskunde, vol. 1 [Munich 1920], 477) adds Lampsacus and Ilium. Erythrai could be added to this list too {SEG 31.969) .

47Cf. the discussion of this problem in Ehrhardt, Milet, 210ff.

48ibidem, 212-213. Robertson ("Government and Society," 381) accepts Ehrhardt's explanation of the etymology of the word epimenioi. 134 assembly, the epimenioi grew to the presidency of it. They may have been introduced to Milesian colonies with their enlarged, political capacities. Not all elements of

Ehrhardt's hypothesis are equally well supported by the meager sources for Milesian early history, but for now it provides the most likely solution to the problem of the apparently Milesian source for the Western Pontic epimeneia.

Indeed during the first century B.C. in Istros the epimenios presided over the assembly/9

Even though many Western Pontic inscriptions seem to have been dated according to the epimenios, there are serious doubts whether this was the eponymous office there.

First of all Dunham and Busolt50 remarked that the term of office of an epimenios was one month, which would preclude this magistracy as eponymous. Then Pippidi51 and L.

49 ISM 1.54, 1. 2: £ni utjvi Gtiovxoc xfjc £KKlT|aiac.

50Dunham (History of Miletus, 130) speculated that because of_fear of tyranny in Miletus the term of office of the epimenioi was one month. Busolt (Griechische Staatskunde, 477) came to a similar conclusion on the basis of the name epimenios. With regard to Odessos, Danov ("Philippopolis," 289) writes that the epimenioi were the presidents of the assembly serving a one month long term of office.

51Pippidi, "§tiri noi despre organizarea interna a ceta^ii Histria in perioada autonomiei," SCIV 5 (1954): 438- 441; "Nouvelles donn6es sur constitution d'Histria pr6 romaine," Nouvelles Etudes d'Histoire 1 (1954): 94-97; "Neue Nachrichten iiber die Verfassung Histrias in voromischer Zeit," in idem, Epigraphische Beitrage, 43-46. Cf. idem, Greci, 80; idem, "A propos du culte de 1'Apollon a Istros," in idem, Parerga, 263. 135

Robert52 concluded that the epimenios was but a "false

eponymous" whose name served only the purpose of giving

sanction to documents and dating the decrees. In Istros the priest of Apollo Ietros continued to be the proper eponymous magistrate. This opinion has been universally accepted by

the subsequent scholarship.53

In those rare cases when a decree is dated both according to a priest and to an epimenios, the name of the

latter is given after the month date, e.g.:

['E tc' i ]€p6o> ‘Ecxiaiou xoO MiKKaAio-

voc, UT|vd<; Taup66voc, E8o£€

xfji |3o u >.t)i Kai xei Siipon Ettipt}v i -

Euovxoc EunoAEp.ou kxA . (ISM 1.26, lines 1-4)

Such an arrangement of the preamble could indeed suggest that the term of office of an epimenios was one month, but it does not provide convincing proof of it. We would have proof if we had several inscriptions from the same year, dated according to different epimenioi. But we do not have them. Nor does the name epimenios unequivocally

52B£p 1955, 163; 1956, 186; "Inscriptions grecques," 192; Gnomon (1963): 67-68. In the last-quoted article Robert compared the dating of decrees according to the epimenios to placing names of gymnasiarchoi in ephebic lists, those of agonothetai in catalogues of victors and those of agoranomoi in documents pertaining to market places.

53Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 83; Ehrhardt, Milet, 211, n. 1301; Isaac, Greek Settlements, 276, n. 408. 136

testify to the monthly term of office.54

One should note that in the Hellenistic epoch (and

earlier and later too) the poleis of Istros and Odessos were

not indifferent towards dating their official documents

inscribed on stone, as Mesambria used to be (vide Infra).

Two Hellenistic decrees from Istros are dated both according

to a priest and an epimenios.55 The remaining thirteen (or

possibly fifteen) are dated exclusively according to the

epiinenios. One cannot see any sense in dating decrees

according to magistrates with monthly terms of office. No

analogy from elsewhere can be provided and the whole idea would have been extremely impractical.

More likely in Hellenistic Istros and Odessos the

epimenios was an annual office, probably the president of assembly, performing his duties on a regular basis once a month (€nl piivi ). One must agree with Pippidi and Robert, that a priest of Apollo Ietros was still giving his name to

Szanto (loc. cit.) writes that the name epimenios applied also to officials (priests), elected for a longer term of office, who performed sacrifices once a month. Cf. LSJ, s.v.j Ehrhardt, Milet, 212.

55ISM 1.26 and 54. If we can trust Pippidi's restoration in ISM 1.1, dated according to an epimenios, one of the previous years is indicated according to a priest of Apollo Ietros (lines 6-7). Usually the "true" eponymy is indicated by € ttI + the name of a priest, but in the preamble of ISM 1.54 we read ' IGponCvou (1. 1) and piivi 66ovro<; - both in the genitive present participle. Therefore the genitive case used for the epimenios elsewhere does not place him in strong opposition to the "true" eponymous. 137 the year. Yet as far as the decrees of the boule and the demos are concerned the years were apparently known by the names of the epimenioi, who, as Pippidi and Robert suggested, were taking the responsibility for putting measures to the vote.56 Although the expression "false eponymous" is commonly used, it does not describe well the position of the epimenios in Hellenistic Istros or Odessos.

Perhaps, "alternative" or "parallel" eponymous would be better here?

The following names of epimenioi from Istros are known

(all dates according to Pippidi in ISM):

[- -]doros son of Harm[o]d[i]os, third century B.C. (ISM

1 .1 )

[A]gathokles, third century B.C.(?) (ISM 1.4)

[..8-9..]s son of Krate[...], third century B.C. (ISM 1.5)

A[ . . . ] okle [....?] son of Le [ .... ], third century B.C. (ISM

1.7)

Theokritos, third century B.C. (ISM 1.8)

D[io]nysi[os] son of [Hi]eron, third century B.C. (ISM 1.9)

Glaukios son of Polyphemos, third century B.C. (ISM 1.12)

Polyainetos son of Hephaistodoros, end of the third century

B.C. - beginning of the second century B.C. (ISM 1.46)

[- - -]n son of Theognetos, third-second century B.C. (ISM

1.23)

56Cf. n. 51 and 52. 138

Di[on]ysios son of Bianor, ca. 200 B.C. (ISM 1.15)

[Apato]urios son of Parmenis[kos ], ca. 200 B.C.57

Eupolemos son of Kleomedon, second century B.C. (ISM 1.26)

Aristomenefs], second century B.C. (ISM 1.31)

Poseidippos son of Poseidippos, second century B.C. (ISM

1.36)

Theodotos, second/first century B.C. 58

Athenados son of Apollodoros, mid-first century B.C. (ISM

1.54)

Phi lode [ mos ], 2nd half of the first century B.C. - 1st half of the first century A.D. (ISM 1.55)

[- ---- ] son of Apoll[odot]os vel (supplevi) Apoll[odor]os, non dated (ISM 1.37).

Two more decrees were once dated according to epimenios, but any plausible restoration of names proves to be impossible.59

Not long after Philodemos' term of office the epimeneia in Istros ceased to exist. Our sources do not room allow for speculation regarding the circumstances of this

J 7ISM 1.20. In ISM 1.20 restorations of the name of the epimenios Aristodemos (S. Lambrino, "Fouilles d'Histria," Dacia 3-4 [1927-1932]s 400, no. 3) or Apatourios (Pippidi, ISM) are only exempli gratia.

5*ISM 1.13, probably an epimenios, [Cmhtjvi Gu/ovtoc ] restored by Pippidi; it is in the usual place in preamble.

59ISM 1.7, 27. 139 discontinuance. In the preamble of a second-century A.D. inscription (ISM 1.57) conveying a honorary decree for a woman named Aba, an €tui|rn( Cwv takes the place previously occupied by the epimenios. His position in the government of

Istros may have been similar to that of the epimenios.60

In Odessos the names of following epimenioi are known to us:

[- - -] son of Parmenon, third-second century B.C. (IGB l2.38)

Diogenes son of Antitheos, 45-44 B.C.61

[Nou]menios, end of the first century B.C. 62

The preamble of one other inscription originally dated according tothe epimenios does not permit restoration of names.63

Both in Istros and Odessos some inscriptions were dated according tothe priest and the others in the same period according to the epimenios. There are three inscriptions extant dated in their preambles according to both priest and

60Pippidi (in the commentary on ISM 1.57, p. 153) thinks that the epipsephizon presided over the assembly, as the epimenios used to do. There is nothing in our sole source attesting the office of epipsephizon in Istros to confirm or contradict this supposition. It must therefore remain only a hypothesis based on analogy with other places in Greek world (cf. Swoboda, Griechische Staatskunde, 180, n. 4.).

61 IGB l2.43, the dates Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 96f.

62IGB lz.43bis, the dates Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 100.

63Fraser, Samothrace, no. 6 . 140

epimenios.6A Dates given in the body of a decree seem to be given according to the priest.63 This renders impossible

the hypothesis66 that the epimenios replaced the priest as the democratic eponymous magistrate in the Hellenistic epoch. Those two magistracies were contemporaneous in the third-first centuries B.C. The epimeneia seems to have been a shortlived institution, limited to Hellenistic Istros and

Odessos, paralleling in this epoch the proper eponymy.67

Tomis

Three inscriptions 68 dated Grtl iGpGw attest that in

Tomis, just as in Istros and Odessos, a priest was the

64 From Istros: ISM 1.26, 54 and probably one commissioned by Odessos too: Fraser, Samothrace, no. 6 .

63Istros: ISM 1.28, 1. 5 and perhaps 1, lines 6-7.

66Cf. n. 38.

67This impression, however, may depend on the nature of our sources: most decrees - the only documents ever dated according to the epimenios - come from the Hellenistic epoch. But in the preamble of the valuable honorific decree for Aba (ISM 1.57, dated to the second century A.D. ) we find the epipsephizon in the place occupied in the Hellenistic epoch by the epimenios. Therefore in all likelihood, lack of post-Hellenistic inscriptions attesting the existence of the epimenioi in Istros and Odessos is not caused by the paucity of sources, but by the disappearance of this institution.

68ISM 2.2, 4 (both second century B.C.) and 5 (ca. 100 B.C.). 141

eponymous magistrate. There is no conclusive evidence to

establish what god was worshipped by the eponymous priest.

The analogy with Istros has influenced many scholars 69 to

suppose that Apollo Ietros was the deity in question. This

analogy may be valid, but the sources at our disposal do not allow an answer to this question.70

Four names of eponymous priests are known:

Aristophanes, second century B.C.71

Sarapion son of Dioskourides, second century B.C.

69 It seems that this hypothesis originates with Dittenberger, Syll. , p. 515f (commentary on no. 325); cf. Bilabel, Ionische Kolonisation, 129. PSrvan (Histria 4:535f), Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 215), Popescu,(Inschriften, 278) and Isaac (Greek Settlements, 267) accept it as proven. Regling (Antiken, 598, n. 2) remarked that a formula €nl iGpGo ’AndAlwvoc (ISM 2.5) attested the eponymy of a priest of Apollo. This is an obvious misunderstanding: in fact the formula quoted above is an example of divine eponymy.

70Danov (Zapadniyat, 85) does not try to specify the god's name. Stoian (Tomltana, 148-160; ISM 2, p. 30) thinks that the eponymy of the priest of Apollo Ietros was very probable, yet not certain. Earlier ("In Ieg3tur3 cu eponimatul la Tomis," SCIV 9 [I960]: 309ff) he remarked that Ietros was not the only cult name of Apollo in Tomis and that a priest of, e.g., Apollo Agyeus was equally likely candidate for eponymy. Ehrhardt (Milet, 198) does not proceed beyond expressing his skepticism.

71The first three names are preserved in ISM 2.2. This inscription contains two decrees of the boule and demos concerning the defence of the city. The first one, dated according to the priesthood of Sarapion son of Dioskourides (1. 1), mentions (1. 25) one of the previous eponymoi: Aristophanes. The second decree, dated according to the priesthood of Theophilos son of Noumenios (1. 27), quotes the decree promulgated in the year of Sarapion (lines 28- 29). Hence the order of their terms of office is established. 142

Theophilos son of Noumenios, second century B.C.

Apollo, ca. 100 B.C. (ISM 2.5)

Demeter, end of the second century B.C.- beginning of the

first century B.C. (ISM 2.36).

All names belong to the second-first centuries B.C. The priestly eponymy most probably continued into the Roman epoch too, if we may judge from an inscription commissioned in A.D. 200-202,72 in which [oi rt6/p]i i€p€a 0' (side A,

lines 17-18) are mentioned.

Dionvsopolis

About 48 B.C. a prominent citizen of Dionysopolis was praised for services he had rendered to the city; among others he undertook voluntarily a priesthood of Dionysos, which had lain vacant for several years. The inscription reads: xou x6 £nc Aiovjucxou ouk Exov'uoC

i€pfj ... £Tt€S(i)K€v£aox 6v (IGB lz.13, lines 13-15). Gofieva

interpreted this fragment as strong evidence that the eponymy of Dionysopolis was held by a priest of Dionysos.73

Unfortunately Greek syntax does not allow for such an

12ISM 2.82, the date is discussed by Stoian, ISM 2, p. 107.

73Godeva, "Pr§tres 6ponymes," 52. 143

interpretation; Dionysos is indeed described as the

eponymous in this fragment, but this title reminds the

reader that Dionysopolis derived its name from the name of

the god.7*

If the inscription discussed above is excluded we do

not have any firm evidence concerning the eponymy of

Dionysopolis.75 In a later epoch the priest of Dionysos

almost certainly could not be eponymous, because in the

preamble of a third-century A.D. inscription dated according

to the archiereus (of the Emperor's cult) and pontarch two

priests of Dionysos are mentioned.76 This single piece of

evidence is not sufficient to speculate when the archiereus

replaced the original eponymous of Dionysopolis.77

*GoCeva's interpretation would require the accusative (rdv £ti

75Cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 198.

76IGB l2.14, cf. Mihailov's commentary (p. 58).

77There must have been an eponymous magistrate preceding the archiereus and pontarch, because this office was created in the beginning of the second century A.D. (cf. chapter VI). 144

2. Eponymous Magistrates in Callatis and Mesambria.

Callatis was a colony of Heraclea Pontica, Mesambria was a colony of Calchedon, Byzantium and Megara {cf. chapter

I). In both cases the constitution was probably modelled on

Megara's pattern, because Calchedon, Byzantium and Heraclea

Pontica were Megara's foundations and Greek colonies, when establishing colonies themselves, were accustomed to summon an oikist from their original metropolis. This practice is confirmed in Sicilian colonies of Megara78 and one may suppose that in the Pontic area the rules did not differ

from the general pattern.

Megara frequently changed the title of its eponymous magistrates. The earliest direct sources for the administrative history of Megara are dated to 310-300

B.C.79 and therefore nothing certain is known about the eponymy before the late fourth century B.C. Based on analogy with some early colonies of this city (Calchedon, Heraclea

Pontica, Callatis, Mesambria, Chersonesus) Thamm formulated a plausible hypothesis for an eponymous magistracy in Megara

78According to Thucydides (6.4) and Diodorus (13.59.4), while founding Selinus, Megara Hyblaea asked her metropolis (Megara) for an oikist and he was sent to it {cf. M. I. Finley, A History of Sicily to the Arab Conquest [London 1968], 31), perhaps with a certain amount of new settlers (Legon, Megara, 76). Cf. Graham, Colony and Mother City, 14.

79Hanell, Megarische Studien, 144f; c f . Legon, Megara, 55. 145 as early as the eighth century B.C. It seems that the office of basileus was the first to hold it. 80

The monarchy possibly pre-dated the synoikism of five komai of Megara and disappeared as a form of government by the beginning of the seventh century B.C.81 The basileus as the eponymous officer survived until the third century B.C.

When Megara participated in the Boeotian League (223-192

B.C.), the arction assumed the place of the eponymous magistrate. Contemporary ephebic lists, however, were dated according to the grammateus or gymnasiarches. During imperial times the strategos usually held the eponymy, yet

80M. Thamm (De re publica ac magistratibus Megarensium [Hallis Saxonum 1885]) thought that the eponymy of the basileus was the original one. To the best of my knowledge this hypothesis has been universally accepted, cf. Legon, Megara, 55. The problem of monarchy in Greece was studied recently in great detail by P. earlier, La royautd en Grece avant Alexandre (Strasbourg 1984). About Megara - Carlier, 40lff. About eponymy in Byzantium cf. Legon, Megara, 55; Carlier, 469f. It should be stressed here that continental Greece lacks analogies for eponymy of the basileus and a body of aesymnetae. The only possible exception is Argos before the mid-fifth century B.C., but even there the character (hereditary or eponymous) of the "monarchy" is disputed, cf. E. Zwolski, Ustrdj panstwowy w staroZytnym Argos (Lublin 1967), 29-33 and Carlier, 381-395 (he gives also a list of monarchies in classical Greece - 485, some addition to it: D. Knoepfler, "La royaut6 grecque," REG 99 [1986]: 333f). The eponymy of the basileus is however typical of colonies of Megara and some Ionian cities, cf. Hanell, Megarische Studien, 147ff.

81Legon, Megara, 53ff. Carlier, Royaut4 en Grece, 403, n. 165 very correctly criticizes the naive modernizing and vagueness of Legon's account of the disappearance of the hereditary monarchy in Megara. He accepts however the hypothesis of the hereditary monarchy in Megara preceding the eponymous one (403). 146 one inscription was dated according to the archiereus (IG

7.107) .8Z

Callatis

Callatis was founded by Heraclea Pontica when Amyntas

I ruled in Macedonia, therefore sometime in the second half of the sixth century B.C. No sources on eponymy in the period immediately following the establishment of the colony are available. One may only suppose that the basileus was an eponymous magistrate there, just as in other Megarian colonies (including Heraclea Pontica 83 ) at that time and presumably in Megara too.

The earliest sources come from the Hellenistic epoch.

There are nine inscriptions extant dated according to eponymous magistrates, perhaps three of them cut in the third century B.C. They typically begin as the one edited by

V. PSrvan:8A 0aai A£o<; Et>J3ouXl 6a. This is the formula

82Reference to sources (mostly inscriptions edited in IG 7) and meager secondary literatures Hanell, Megarische Studien, 145f.

83 Heraclea had the eponymous basileus, yet this office is attested there only by inscriptions cut in the Roman epoch, Hanell, Megarische Studien, 153; Carlier, Royautd en Grece, 480 (n. 730 contains the list and some analysis of these inscriptions).

AA (1915): 250, no. 4. Cf. IG 12 Suppl., p. 69; Robert, BEp 1955, 161. The first editor dated it on the basis of letter shapes to the second century B.C. 147 85 well known from Megarian decrees. The same type of formula is attested six more times and the following names of the magistrates are known to us:

1. Ei |io< o 'AaicAaniaSa, 86 third century B.C.

2. Ei|o.o<;,87 third century B.C.(?)

3. Ev>J3ouAt 8ct<;, third century B.C.

4. ' Hpaitov o ' iKCai ou ,88 Hellenistic epoch

5. AyaSdc Ampev, 89 Hellenistic epoch

85IG 7.1, 2, 3.

86Sauciuc-S3veanu, "Callatis," (1924): 126-129, no. 1; simultaneously edited by Tafrali, "Cit§ Callatis," 258f, no. 1. This inscription was studied many times in following years, cf. D. M. Pippidi, "Grottes Dionysiaques a Callatis," BCH 88 (1964): 62ff. Dated to the third century B.C. by Sauciuc-S3veanu (259f) on the bases of shapes of letters. The date has never been disputed (nor has it been studied by anyone).

87Sauciuc-saveanu, "Callatis. Rapport pr#liminaire," Dacia 9-10 (1941-1944): 287, no. 1. The editor remarked that the shapes of letters are similar to those in the inscription referred to in the previous footnote, hence the date of this inscription may be also the third century B.C. Simos and Simos son of Asklapiadas can be one person.

88Th. Sauciuc-S3veanu, "EiaayayEl <; la Kallatis," in Volum omagial inchinat lui Ion I. Nistor (Cern3uti 1937), 91-96. Cf. Robert, BlSp 1939, 232. The first editor dated the inscription in the Hellenistic epoch. The inscription is dated according to the kingship of Agathos Daimon and the eisagogeis active at that time registered (&vt6vGyp°h|k*v ) those active during the kingship of Heraion son of Hikes ios. Therefore one may suppose that Heraion preceded Agathos Daimon in holding the office of basileus.

a9Cf. n. 8 8 . 148

90 6 . Kotuc 6 ' Pot |!T|T66>,Ka, early first century A.D.

7. [TiJ3Gpioc] Kaiaap,91 A.D. 15.

We know one more name of a basileust $A,(aGio<;) $&poc attested in a third century A.D. inscription as one of co­ dedicators of a Nemesis statuette.92 There is no indication, however, whether the basileus was still the eponymous magistrate at such a late date.

1. Taf rali93 thought that the name of Simos was not

Greek and that Simos himself was a hellenized barbarian, a king of a Thracian or Scythian tribe controlling Callatis.

In fact Simos is a quite common Greek name 94 and the Greek name of his father (Asklapiadas) makes Tafrali's hypothesis even less plausible. Simos was most probably one of the regular eponymous magistrates of the city.95

90Sauciuc-saveanu, "Callatis," (1924): 139f; Tafrali, "Cit6 Callatis," 265f. Cf. Robert, "Inscriptions grecques," 149f. Date - vide infra.

91Lower part of the inscription edited by: Th. Sauciuc- SSveanu, "Callatis. Rapport pr^liminaire," Dacia 3-4 (1927- 1932): 450f; upper part: Pippidi, "Grottes dionysiaques," 153f. Cf. Robert, BEp 1967, 383. Date and restoration: vide infra, pp. 149f.

92G. Bordenache, "Antichita greche e romane nel nuovo museo di Mangalia," Dacia 4 (1960): 506-509; discussed by D.M. Pippidi, "Un nuovo pontarco callatino del III secolo e.n.," Dacia 4 (1960): 511-514. Cf. Robert, Btp 1962, 226.

93Tafrali, "Cit6 Callatis," 263.

94Cf. Pape-Benseler, Worterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen, s.v. See also LGPN 1, pp. 406f.

95Already remarked by Sauciuc-S3veanu, "Callatis," (1924), 131f and P. Roussel, Btp 1926, 273. 149

5. As J. & L. Robert remarked96 Agathos Daimon is the name of a god and not of a mortal, as it was interpreted by the first editor of the inscription.

6 . Kotys son of Rhoimetalkes is generally identified with the well-known Thracian king (A.D. 12-19).97 Rhoimetalkes is a rare name limited to the ruling families primarily of

Thrace, less common in Bosporus, Paphlagonia, Caria and

Armenia. 98 The only Kotys son of Rhoimetalkes known so far is the king of Thrace mentioned above. The names of

Thracians and Getae in western Pontic epigraphy are very rare and it is hardly conceivable that any barbarian, other than a member of a royal family from a neighboring tribe, could be admitted to the highest office in Callatis. It is highly likely, therefore, that this basileus Kotys is identical with the Thracian monarch.

What remains uncertain is the character of his office

99 100 and the date he held it. Tafrali proposed A.D. 12-19 -

the date of Kotys' rule in Thrace. This could be accepted

96B&p 1939, 232.

97First noticed by the editors: Sauciuc-SSveanu, op. cit. 142; Tafrali, op. cit. 267. Cf. Hanell, Megarische Studien, 155; Stein, PIR2 1554; Carlier, RoyautG en Grece, 481, n. 737.

98 Pape-Benseler, W&rterbuch, s.v.) Kahrstedt, Kotys, RE 11, s.v. Kotys; idem, RE 1A: 1003-1006, s.v. ' Poi jatit&Akiic •

99 Stein, loc. cit.

100Tafrali, "Cit§ Callatis," 265f. 150 with the assumption that the title basileus mentioned in

this inscription refers to Kotys as the Thracian monarch.

This is, however, far from certain. Indeed one should

remember that the Western Pontus had been incorporated into

the Roman Empire by A.D. 8 and there is no indication in the

sources that Kotys was ever granted rule over Callatis.101

It should be stressed next that the formula €ttI /3aai A6oc is

typical of dating according to eponymous city officials.

There is no need to think that the case of Kotys was

exceptional. Even if already the Thracian monarch, in

Callatis he was elected to be the local basileus.102 He may

have even been granted this dignity while being still the

crown prince only, therefore it seems reasonable to fix the

date of his eponymy simply in ca. A.D. 1-19.

7. The name of Tiberius was restored by Pippidi.103 He

noted that the shapes of the letters corresponded to those

101Tacitus while describing the partition of the Thracian kingdom after the death of Rhoimetalkes writes that Augustus "in ea divisione arva et urbes et vicina Graecis Cotyi ... cessit. " (An. 2.64) . This may mean only that Kotys received the territory adjacent to the Western Pontic cities without exercising any control over them. Cf. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, vol. 1, 377.

102During the Hellenistic epoch foreign rulers were sometimes granted with eponymous magistracies in Greek cities, Demetrius Poliorcetes and Antiochus I Soter in Miletus (Syll.3 322). Cf. Hanell, Megarische Studien, 155; L. Robert, "Divinit6s 6ponymes," Hellenica 2 (1946): 50f (especially n. 6 ).

103 Pippidi, "Sur un d€cret des thiasites de Callatis," St.Cl. 8 (1966): 94ff. 151 from the beginning of the first century A.D. and since the imperial title was not accompanied either by AutOKp&Twp or

E€(3otox6c he concluded that only the name of Tiberius would fit. His further conclusion, a more conjectural one, was that Tiberius was elected basileus in Callatis in the very year when, as he thought, the province Moesia was created

(A.D. 15). 104 This hypothesis does not appear very plausible now, when we know that Moesia was organized ca.

A.D. 1-4.105

Hanell106 formulated a hypothesis, that at a certain point in Callatis, just as in Chersonesus, the basileus ceased to be the eponymous magistrate. Following an inscription restored by G. Tocilescu107 he thought that in the Roman epoch a priest of Apollo Agyeus took over this dignity. L. Robert proved decisively that Tocilescu's restoration was wrong and in fact Apollo Agyeus was most likely the eponymous basileus. 108 Thus the eponymy of the

1

105Cf. chapter I, p. 69, n. 216.

106Megarische Studien, 155.

101AEM 11 (1887): 32, no. 32 = IGR 1.656. The line in question was restored by Tocilescu: [ ’ Eni iGpGox; ’ A]tt6A,Avoc ’AyuGo? ....

108Robert, BiSp 1939, 232; in Robert's restoration: [ ’ Eni 0oaiA6oc ’ A]Tt6XA.c«>voc ’AyoGoc (...). His restoration of the inscription has been universally accepted: Pippidi, "Nuovo pontarco," 511-514; idem, Greci, 82; §tefan, "Callatis," 169. 152 basileus continued well into the Roman epoch, maybe even up to the third century A.D. In all likelihood the basileus was the eponymous magistrate in Callatis from its foundation and remaind so for over seven hundred years. 109

Pippidi thought that in Callatis, as in Heraclea

Pontica, the basileus became a magistracy of a religious character.110 This is certainly possible considering the common ancient practice of unifying sacral and civilian aspects in the same office. In Callatis for instance basileus Flavius Pharon together with the archons dedicated a statuette to Nemesis.111 In my opinion this single piece of evidence is not sufficient to make any firm conclusion about the character of the office of the basileus.

One may be sure, however, that the basileus was something more than just an honorary magistrate giving his

109 Cf. D. M. Pippidi, "D6 crets honorifiques de Callatis," Dacia 6 (1962): 469-473.

U0Pippidi, Greci, 82, followed by Popescu, "Inschriften aus Kleinskytien," 278. It seems that this theory of the priestly character of the basileus in Megara and its colonies originates in: Le Bas, Foucart, Inscriptions de PSloponnese, p. 13 (cf. B. Latyschew, "La Constitution de Cherson6sos en Tauride d'apr^s des documents 6pigraphiques," BCH 9 [1885]: 286). Carlier (RoyautS en Grece, 401, n. 157) analyses a fragment of Dieuchidas (F.Gr.H., Jacoby, III B, n. 485, F 10) and concludes that the basileus performed sacrificial functions there. Religious functions of the basileus in Heraclea: Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 19 (further bibliography there) and Carlier, RoyautS en Grece, 480, n. 730.

ulCf. n. 92. 153 name to a year. In at least one late Hellenistic inscription containing an honorific decree, the basileus is in charge of entertaining the commended person at the prytaneion. 112

The basileus is also named once as a president of the board of archons (Flavius Pharon 113 ). Flavius Pharon was at the same time pontarch and archiereus, i.e. the chief priest of the emperor's cult in Western Pontus.

In the inscription dated according to the basileus

Simos son of Asklapiadas the preamble continues:

2 ...pr|v6 c Aiovuciou, rcpoon oojivmv-

3 roc 'Ayfjpovoc t o O DuQievoc ...

This suggests that the proaisymnon was a magistrate of monthly term of office, corresponding perhaps to the

U 2Szanto, AEM 10 (1886): 198-200 = SGDI 3089. Szanto (200f) dates it in the period after the death of Attalos III (133 B.C.) and before 72 B.C. There is a very similar Hellenistic inscription (A. Aricescu, "Nota asupra unui decret Elenistic inedit din Muzeul Regional de Arheologie Dobrogea," St. Cl. 5 [1963]: 315-318 = SEG 24.1023), unfortunately partly damaged in the place where the title of the official to entertain the commended person in the prytaneion was inscribed. Robert (Btsp 1964, 287) restored the title of basileus there. S. G. Miller (The Prytaneion [Berkeley 1978], no. 334) agrees with this restoration. This is plausible, but not certain of course. The same function of the basileus is attested in Eresos too (Carlier, RoyautS en Grece, 457, 481, n. 738).

113Cf. n. 92. The formula used is: &pxovr€c oi TtGpi $A(otOiov) $&pov. Such formulae typically indicated a president of a body of magistrates - Poland, Griechische Vereinswesen, 76f; Pippidi, "Nuovo pontarco," 512. 154

Athenian secretary of the prytaneis.114 In Callatis however

the proaisymnon is referred to in the inscriptions quite

exceptionally. Apart from this mentioned above only one more

broken inscription preserves a name of the proaisymnon,

again in the preambles Ai66opoc 6 H[- -].US

Mesambria

The second Megarian colony in Western Pontus was

founded jointly by settlers from Megara and its colony

Calchedon and strengthened later by escapees from Calchedon and Byzantium.116 Undoubtedly the Megarian constitutional tradition was prevailing there. Therefore we would expect the basileus to have been the eponymous magistrate in

114 Pippidi, Greci, 83; Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 19. The proaisymnon is attested as a city magistrate in other Black Sea Megarian colonies too: Chersonesus (IOSPE 1 .352, 690, cf. Latyschew, "Constitution de Chersonisos," BCH 9 [1885]: 280-283) and Calchedon (Inschr. Kalchedon, 10, 11, 12). Tafrali, ("Cit6 Callatis," 263) thought that Hagemon had been a governor of the barbarian king Simos. Since Simos was in fact an ordinary city magistrate, this theory does not require any further refutation.

115Pippidi, "Decrets Callatis," 469-473 = SEG 24.1021. The editor reconstructed also the initial formula: [ ’ Eni 0aaiA,£oc - -]. This seems possible, considering that all preserved preambles of decrees from Callatis begin their date this way.

116Cf. chapter I, pp. 28-31. 155

Mesambria too.117

Twelve decrees 118 from Mesambria are preserved well enough so that their preambles can be studied. Interestingly enough none of them is dated according to an eponymous magistrate (for that matter they are not dated at all). No apparent reason for this indifference towards indicating on stone the dates of official dealings of the city can be found easily. It is possible that Mesambria borrowed this practice from Calchedon, where it was almost equally widespread.119

The basileus (a certain Laios son of Boiotos) is known from one third-century B.C. inscription from Mesambria

117This assumption was made by Danov, Zapadniyat, 121. J. & L . Robert (B£p 1971, 428) were of the same opinion.

118 2 IGB 1 .316 (after the fourth century B.C.), 307bis, 308, 308quater, 308quinquies, 308sexies, 308duodecies, 309, (all third century B.C.), 312 (second century B.C.), 314b (before 71 B.C.), 314a (c a . 71 B.C.), 317 (third century A.D.) - all dates according to Mihailov, IGB lz.

119None of the decrees published in Inschr. Kalchedorx is dated by means of a formula: ’ Eni + the title and a name of the eponymous magistrate. Twice the date is mentioned further in the text : Cni (JaaiAeioc (8. 1 ) and 0aaiA£uuv (19. 5). Perhaps then the epigraphical tendency of not putting names of eponymous officials in the opening formulae was transmitted to Mesambria from Calchedon. This hypothesis must remain, however, quite conjectural, because the earliest inscriptions from Calchedon, in which preambles are preserved, were cut in the Hellenistic epoch (1, 2, 6, 7; n. 19 is later - the time of Augustus). The epigraphic customs of the period of colonization (sixth and fifth centuries B.C.) remain unknown. 156 120 (Pctai A,G6(i)v Kal yunvaaiapxwv). He does not give his name

to the year there, but only dedicates the inscription to

Zeus Hyperdexios. The only thing we can learn from this

inscription is the fact of the existence of the office of

the basileus in Mesambria in the third century B.C. Whether

the basileus was the eponymous magistrate there, remains

conjectural for now. The inscription does not provide any

information about the position of the basileus in Mesambria

at that time, because, as Robert noticed, 121 the link

between two offices held by Laios is only occasional. Yet

the term of office of both of them may have been one

year, 122 which would fit the hypothesis that the basileus

was the eponymous magistrate in Mesambria too.

120 2 IGB 1 .322bis. More often quoted is the edition by V. Velkov, "Zur Geschichte der Mesambria Pontica im III Jh. v. U. Z.," in Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge 1967 (Oxford 1971), 110. The date, according to Robert (Bfip 1971, 428), is perhaps the end of the third century B.C.

121 loc. cit., cf. earlier, RoyautS en Grece, 481 (and n. 740). 122 Carlier, loc. cit., came to this conclusion on the basis of the participial form of words describing them. B: OTHER OFFICES.

1. Istros.

Archons Archons seem to have been a late invention in

Milesian colonies; they are attested first in Olbia, ca. 330

B.C. 123 The very existence of a body of archons in Miletus is doubtful and the terms: &pxovt6c/ otpxal are usually perceived as designating non-religious magistracies in 124 general and not one particular office. These terms are not attested in Miletus before the early Hellenistic epoch. 125 Thus the office of the archons known in Milesian colonies most probably was not modelled upon their metropolis.

In inscriptions from Istros the word &pxod is used three times in the meaning of offices in general (held by an

122IOSPE l2.25+31; cf. J. Vinogradov, "Die historische Entwicklung der Poleis der nordlichen Schwarzmeergebietes im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.," Chiron 10 (1980): 87.

lzZiBilabel, Ionische Kolonisation, 126f; R. Werner, "Die Dynastie der Spartokiden," Historia 4 (1955): 435; Vinogradov, "Historische Entwicklung," 87; Ehrhardt, Milet, 208. ’Apxtf is a common Greek word, frequently employed with reference to any office (e.g. Ath. Pol., passim).

125Ehrhardt, Milet, 208.

157 158 individual).126 Nevertheless the existence of archontes in

Istros should not be doubted. Individual archons are attested four times 127 and the body of archontes is mentioned in eight inscriptions.128

The exact date when the archonship was introduced into

Istros cannot be established. It may have happened in late fourth century B.C., since this magistracy is first attested

126ISM 1.12, lines 11-12, 15, 1. 6 and 37, 1. 6; cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 209, n. 1282.

127ISM 1.22, 1. 9 (end of the third - beginning of the second century B.C.), 120, 1. 3 (second century B.C.), 180, 1. 4 (second century A.D.) and 373, lines 8-9 (A.D. 157). ISM 1.120 contains a dedication to Demeter commissioned by a certain Apollonis. It reads: [ ’ Ano] lAevi c ••• [ Ai)p]TiTpi ap£aoa (lines 1-3). The first editor of this inscription Pippidi (St. Cl. 4 [1962]: 128) read this passage as indicating that Apollonis was actually a city official-archon. Ehrhardt (Milet, 209, n. 1282) expresses his doubts whether Apollonis held the archonship in Istros and proposes to translate her title as "Beamtin" (of unspecified character). His criticism goes too far. The archonship in Istros is attested in other inscriptions too and women are known to have held high offices in this city (Aba honored in ISM 1.57) and elsewhere (cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 260). When the arche is mentioned in the meaning of magistracy in general the plural is used and the context indicates that it was just one of many unspecified duties fulfilled by the honoree, e.g.: Gl c x€ x&c &p/x&C xai GmpGAGiac Taacr6|i€vo<; (ISM 1.12, lines 11-12, similarly in JSAfl.15, lines 6-7 and 37, lines 6-7). This is not the case with Apollonis. Therefore there is no reasonable doubt that she was a city magistrate-archon in Istros and not simply a "Beamtin".

128Third century B.C.: Ifflf 1.7, 1. 2; 9, 1. 3; 12, 1. 3; ca. 200 B.C.: ISW1.20, 1.6; second century B.C.: 26, 1. 5; third century A.D.: 67, lines 36, 51; 68, lines 10, 15, 29, 39, 51 and undated: ISM 1.37, 1. 2. 159 129 there in the third century B.C. and in Olbia (another

Milesian colony) it was active already in 330 B.C. 130

In the Hellenistic epoch the archons are known to have introduced motions before the people 131 and the council and people.132 The formula used is: oi &pxovr€c Glnav. The archons did not, however, monopolize this form of political activity: out of nineteen Hellenistic decrees preserved well enough that the preambles can be analyzed, only five were carried on the motions of the archons, 133 the remaining fourteen were proposed by individual citizens. 134 No decree later than the first century B.C. is known to have been introduced by the archons, but the number of those extant 135 is too small to draw any firm conclusions.

The archons participated in other governmental activities too. Ca. 200 B.C. they probably negotiated with

129 ISM 1.7, 9, 12.

130 Cf. n. -123. - _

131 ISM 1.7, 12, perhaps also 37, but this inscription is not dated by the editor (Pippidi).

132ISM 1.9, 26.

l33Cf. n. 131 and 132.

l3t,ISM 1.1, 4, 5, 8, 15, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31, 36, 46, 48, 54.

135Just two: ISM 1.55 and 57. Many dedications commissioned in Roman times and inscribed in the name of the people and the council are attested, but they do not contain full sets of formulae; in particular nothing can be said concerning who introduced the motions leading to their passage. 160 a Carthaginian merchant for grain, apparently at a bargain price, since the merchant was later honored by a decree of the people. 136 In the second century B.C. the city of

Istros decided to hire a physician from Cyzicus, Diokles son of Artemidoros; probably the archons made the recommendation to the people. 137 In one fourth/third century B.C. decree the archons are charged with commissioning a stele, but the alleged Istrian origin of the inscription conveying this decree is uncertain.138

The extant sources do not provide any information about the participation of the archons in the legislative activity of the city of Istros nor about their official duties in the

Roman epoch. The archons seem, however, to have been a magistracy of great importance since the governors of

Moesia: C. Terentius Tullius Geminus, T. Flavius Sabinus,

Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus and C. Pomponius Pius addressed their letters to the people, council and archons

136JS!Af 1. 20, lines 5-6: rt[apa/KA.T|061 c urtd rev dp ] x^vxtov . Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 192) suggested that this inscription indicated the archons' responsibility for the financial and economic affairs of the city. Possibly, but the sources are too tenuous to pursue this line of argument. The archons acting on behalf of the city may have made some arrangements with this Carthaginian merchant in an emergency caused by inadequate local supply of grain.

137ISM 1.26, lines 10-11: [&]£i6ECc tE 6t& xa0r/[a und rwv &p%6vr](i>v.

138 ISM 1.65. Date: Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 183; origin, ib., pp. 182f; cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 209, n. 1282. 161 of Istros.139

The following archons of Istros are known:

Apollonis, second century B.C. (ISM 1.120)

Artemidoros, early second century A.D. (ISM 1.180)

L. Pompeius Valens, A.D. 157 (ISM 1.373 = CIL 3.12489).

Military offices Nothing is known about military magistrates of istros before ca. 200 B.C. In that year

Agathokles son of Antiphilos was honored by the city for

(among other things) having served it well as a axpa[Tri]yd<;

€ni tt)? [X«]pac [owJtokp&top (ISM 1.15, 1. 42). The existence of an ordinary strategos is attested in a second century B.C. inscription (ISM 1.45). Agathokles was elected by the people to the office of strategos autokrator under the threat of a Thracian invasion against the rural territory of istros. His magistracy was clearly an extraordinary one, probably giving Agathokles full power to conduct military operations as he saw fit. 140 We learn from the same inscription that Agathokles distinguished himself

139JSAf 1.67, lines 5-6, 25, 36, 51; 68, lines 10, 16, 26, 39, 51. The wording is very similar in all instances, e.g.: $A<5t(J3ioc) EaPGivo? n[ pG

u0Elsewhere in Greece the office of strategos autokrator was created in situations of emergency or necessity of conducting important operations far from home. Cf. Robert, BSp 1961, 419 (further reference there); Pippidi, Greci, Bit} idem, ISM 1, p. 92. 162 even earlier having defended the ctidra of Istros as a ro^&pxric commanding mercenary soldiers against Thracian robbers.141 Apparently these measures were no longer sufficient in the face of a major invasion conducted by

Zoltes, "the archon of the Thracians".142 As the strategos autokrator Agathokles defended the rural territory of Istros with volunteer citizens and barbarians (ISM 1, lines 42-45).

The powers of the strategos autokrator are not precisely defined in this inscription; nothing suggests that they were anything more than military ones.143

Practically nothing can be said about ordinary strategoi. In the only inscription (ISM 1.45) attesting this magistracy in Istros no meaningful context is preserved. In another Pontic colony of Miletus - Olbia - there were six strategoi, supposedly one to a tribe. 144 Similar arrangements may have been adopted in Istros, yet until new sources are uncovered, this supposition cannot be pursued

141 ISM i 15, lines 8-14. Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 87 f.

142Called by this title in 1. 35 of ISM 1.15.

143Agathokles negotiated with the king of the Thracians, Rhemaxos (ISM 1.15, lines 46-51)._But apparently he did not do this in his capacity as strategos autokrator, since the inscription reads: aip6[06ic] rcpGCfJGuTiK (1. 49). At the moment of_the negotiations Agathokles most likely was still the strategos, since he had the responsibility for guarding the rural territory of Istros (1. 47).

144IOSPE l2.135, 136, 137, 138; IOlb. 79-85; cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 103, 206. 163 any further.

Another extraordinary magistracy is attested in a second-century B.C. inscription: nauarchos autokrator.145

Hegesagoras son of Monimos of Istros was honored by the city of Apollonia for having successfully conducted a relief expedition in the war with Mesambria. Both the navy and soldiers dispatched by Istros were placed under his command and he was engaged both in sea and land operations.146

The number of nauarchoi in Istros is unknown.147 It seems that the office of nauarchos was of Milesian origin, since it is attested both in Miletus148 and a few of its 149 colonies." If so, possibly Kallikrates son of

Kallikrates, known from a third-century B.C. inscription, was a nauarchos too.150 His title is not recorded in this

145 ISM 1.64, 1. 10. Cf. Pippidi, Popescu, "Relations d'Istros," 245-248; Robert, BtSp 1961, 419, pp. 194-201.

146 ISM 1.64, lines 8-9 (ships and soldiers under Hegesagoras' command), 16-17 (siege), 19-22 (sea battle).

147 D. M. Pippidi, "Note sur 1 'organisation militaire d'Istros ci l'#poque pr6romaine," in idem, Scythica Minora, 59.

148CIG 2860, col. 1, 1. 12; 2880, 1. 8; Milet. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899, 1.3.167, 1. 3. Cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 194, n. 1117.

149 Ehrhardt, Milet, 194, n. 1117.

150ISM 1.112. Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 255. 164 inscription, but he commanded a sea expedition151 and therefore he was more probably a nauarchos than a strategos.

Two minor (as it seems) military offices are recorded in Istros: a taxiarchos and a toxarches. A second century

B.C. inscription (ISM 1.121, 1. 1) testifies that a certain son of Meidias was a taxiarchos. Pippidi thinks that in

Istros, by analogy as in Athens, the regular army was organized in taxeis, each of them composed of members of the same territorial tribe and commanded by a taxiarchos elected by the assembly. 152 He further asserts that this organization was introduced in Istros after the democratic takeover in the mid fifth century B.C. 153

This interesting hypothesis is, however, based on dubious premises. First of all nothing confirms his hypothesis concerning the territorial tribes in Istros allegedly introduced after the Athenian pattern.154 Nor are

Athenian constitutional influences attested in Istros.

Furthermore the word taxiarchos had different meanings outside Athens; in the Hellenistic epoch especially it could

15iISM 1.112, 1. 1: [Tt]GitAGi)K6TGc.

152First in his "Note sur 1 'organisation," 63; elaborated in "Note sur 1 'organisation militaire d'Istros," Klio 41 (1963): 165ff; also: Greci, 88f and ISM1, pp. 261f. Accepted by Popescu, "Inschriften," 286.

153Pippidi, "Note sur 1 'organisation," (Klio), 166.

154Cf. chapter III, pp. 114f. 165 be applied to an officer of mercenaries or cavalry.155

Therefore, we do not know what exactly this term meant in

Istros and whether the Athenian analogy is applicable or not. It is not even certain that a taxiarchos was an elected magistrate. Pippidi restores the 1. 1 of the inscription ISM

1.121 as: xal;iapx[Tj

Toxarches is attested only once, in an inscription ca.

200 B.C. (ISM 1.15) which reads: a[ip€/0]€ic to£&pxtic (lines

11-12). The toxarches was a citizen chosen to command mercenary soldiers, presumably archers.157 The lone piece of evidence does not allow us to determine whether the toxarches was a magistrate or, perhaps, an ad hoc elected

155F. Lammert, RE 5A:85-87, s.v. "T«5t$i<;" 75, s.v. "Ta£iapxoc."

156As far as I know taxiarchos is not attested in Miletus or her colonies.

157L. Robert, Hellenics 11/12 (1960): 271; Pippidi, "Note sur 1'organisation," (Klio), 164f; Idem, ISM 1, pp. 87f. 166 commander of mercenaries.

One more title of an official involved in military affairs, yet without combat duties, is attested in Istros: t£i x°tioi6c • 158 The teichopoios may have been an extraordinary magistracy or a liturgy, since the inscription recording it states that a certain Aristagoras son of

Apatourios undertook it at the moment when Istros was deprived of city walls and that he rebuilt them. 159

The following military magistrates of Istros are known:

strategos autokrator: Agathokles son of Antiphilos, ca. 200

B.C. (ISM 1.15) nauarchos autokrator'. Hegesagoras son of Monimos, second century B.C. (ISM 1.64)

taxiarchos: son of Meidias, second century B.C. (ISM 1.121)

toxarches: Agathokles son of Antiphilos, ca. 200 B.C. (ISM

1.15)

teichopoios: Aristagoras son of Apatourios, mid-first century B.C. (ISM 1.54).

Financial magistrates There is no evidence concerning the financial administration of Istros before the Hellenistic epoch. Since the third century B.C. inscriptions testify to

1 5ft ISM 1.54, 1. 9 (ca. mid-first century B.C.).

l59ISM 1.54, lines 7-8, 11-12. 167 the existence of oikonomoi and meristal.160 It does not seem probable that these magistracies were first introduced in istros much earlier than this date, since elsewhere they were typically Hellenistic creations.161 All evidence pertaining to these offices belongs to the third-second century B.C., but considering the governmental conservatism of the Greeks one may suppose that oikonomoi and meristai were also part of the administrative structure of Roman

. 162 istros.

Pippidi formulated a hypothesis that the meristai in istros corresponded to Milesian anataktai. 163 The anataktai were financial officials in charge of preparing the state budget and allotting money to various sectors of the government. 164 Such broad powers are not confirmed for the body of the meristai (always in the plural in our sources)

i60ISM 1.6, 19, 21, 34.

16lOikonomoi are first attested in Priene in 330 B.C. (Inschr. Priene 6), cf. E. Ziebarth, RE XVII, 2118 s.v. "Oikonomos." About meristait Poland, Griechische Vereinswesen, 378, 414.

162The titles oikonomoi and meristai are attested only at the close of honorific decrees. The single honorific decree from Roman Istros (ISM 1.57) is damaged and the last part of it cannot be read. Therefore the absence of evidence from the Roman epoch may be purely accidental.

163Pippidi, Greci, 84; cf. Popescu, "Inschriften," 285f; Ehrhardt, Milet, 219.

164Evidence and discussion: Ehrhardt, Milet, 219f, especially nn. 1379, 1380. 168 in Istros. Their attested duties were limited to allotting funds for inscribing decrees on orders of the people and the council, as in ISM 1.6, lines 3-5: rd 66/ fcvAAopa Souvai t 6v o i k o v 6jaov,/ pGptaai 8£ roi>c pGpiar&c »165

The oikonomos (in Istrian inscriptions always in the singular), as the inscription quoted above testifies, was responsible for making payments on order of the people and council.166 According to the same inscription (ISM 1.6) the boule and demos ordered the oikonomos to send gifts to the honored person.167

If Pippidi's restoration of a badly damaged second- century B.C. inscription is accepted, a tamias should be considered an official with authority paralleling that of

165The same area of responsibility is attested also by heavily restored inscriptions: ISM 1.19, 1. 16, 21, lines 5- 6 .

166The same duties also occur in the heavily restored: ISM 1.19, lines 15-16 and 21, lines 4-5. ISM 1.34, lines 8-9 records their title, but without any meaningful context.

1670ne cannot even be sure whether the oikonomoi in Istros were elected magistrates, as e.g. in Priene, Magnesia, Ephesus (cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian [Oxford 1966], 241) or public slaves entrusted with making payments from the city treasury under the supervision of the meristai. The first possibility may seem more likely, because their attested area of responsibility was broader than just conducting the physical act of paying the state money; as ISM 1.6, lines 5-7 testifies, the oikonomos was also charged with sending gifts to the honoree. 169

168 the oikonomos. Furthermore it is unclear whether the tamiai and oikonomoi were parts of the administrative structure of Istros at the same time and, if so, their interrelationship too remains totally unclear. 169

The tamiai may have been magistrates of the Milesian origin, since they are attested both in Miletus (as administrators of a temple treasury) and in many of its colonies.170 The single, heavily restored inscription mentioned above does not allow one to draw any conclusions concerning the nature of this magistracy. Therefore

Pippidi's hypothesis171 about six tamiai each year holding office in one month terms is unsubstantiated.

Both the meristai and the oikonomos were on our evidence simply executors of the people and council's orders. Of course these magistracies could have had much broader powers and perhaps some responsibilities of their

168ISM 1.28, lines 9-10: [x6 6£ av&Xtona] / Souvai xdv x[a(iiav]. This is the only instance of the tamias attested (?) in the epigraphical sources of Istros.

169One cannot exclude this possibility too, that the tamias may be the oikonomos under another name. (I owe this suggestion to Professor A. G. Woodhead).

170The evolution of the tamiai from temple to city magistrates and the nature of this office: W. Schwahn, RE 4A:2101-2104, s.v. "Tamiai;" the list of cities, where the tamiai are attested: ib., 2132-2133. Cf. Ehrhardt, Milet, 217f (here also reference to the tamiai in Milesian colonies).

171D. M. Pippidi, "Note de lectura," St. Cl. 21 (1983): 108f. 170 own, independently of the boule and demos, but on these matters our sources shed no light. The few inscriptions extant suggest that the people of Istros in association with the council made all important financial decisions.

It seems, however, that in the second century B.C. the board of the Ten (oi SGxa) could make at least some recommendations, if not decisions of their own. A broken inscription (ISM 1.28) contains a decree, probably of the boule and demos, which bestows on the honoree tax immunity for his money-exchange business. This privilege was granted thanks to the previous decision of the Ten: [jcanrdt t6 S6y]/na tojv SGxa (lines 6-7). It is not certain whether the people and the council simply repeated the decision of the Ten or corroborated it, thus giving to it the authority of law. The

Ten in Istros are not attested in any other source and the precise nature of this body is unknown. 172

Apparently during the Roman epoch the office of loYicjTTic was introduced. Its presence is attested by two inscriptions, 173 unfortunately the name of the officeholder in each case was chiselled off. These inscriptions do not provide us with any meaningful information about the office

172T. V. Blavatskaya ("0 finansovykh kolegiyach Olvii i Istrii," KSIMK 22 [1948]: 57-58; eadem, Zapadnopontiyske, 194) equates the Ten in Istros with £vv€a, who administered the treasury in Olbia. She supposes that the Ten in Istros put taxes on money changers and were able to relieve some of them from taxation. Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 118f.

1 73 ISM 1.178, 179 (second century A.D.). 171 of logistes, but due to the administrative uniformity of the

Roman empire we may suppose that its nature in Istros was the same as elsewhere.174 Most probably the logistes was an imperial official supervising the local government particularly with respect to administering finances.175

Other economic magistracies One of the best documented offices in Istros is that of the agoranomoi. They are attested from the third century B.C.176 until A.D. 157.177

m Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 314f. Cf. Jones, Greek City, 136f; Abbott, Johnson, Municipal Administration, lit.

175In both inscriptions the unknown logistes is praised for having performed his duties with honesty: loyicx6[tiaav]/xa tucttG[c ] (ISM 178, lines 9-10; the same formula in ISM 179, lines 10-11). The word Tuaxi<; suggests the honorand's involvement in city's finances.

176The earliest certain evidence of the existence of agoranomoi in Istros is a stamp on the neck of a locally made oinochoe with the name and title of an agoranomos, Artemidoros son of Theokles (M. Coja, Histria 5:46, no. 28 = SEG 30.802b) dated by the editor to the third century B.C. Possibly the name of another agoranomos is attested in a stamp on a 1/2 mina weight: E0[- -]NH[-] (C. Preda, "Pond histrian descoperit in satul Istria, jud. Constanta," SCN 1 [1980]: 117ff) dated by the editor to the third century B.C. ISM 1.246 (as restored by Moretti, "Su alcune iscrizioni," 71), 1. 5 reads: [&Yop]avonfj[CTa]vxGc • This inscription was dated by Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 382) in the fourth/third century B.C. which would make it the earliest evidence of the agoranomoi in Istros. Moretti (op. cit., 12) remarked that for palaeographical reasons this date was too early and proposed the date close to that of ISM 1.175, i.e. the second century B.C. (ISM 1, p. 308). Therefore the inscription on the oinochoe quoted above should still be considered the earliest evidence confirming the existence of the agoranomoi in Istros. 172

The exact date of the creation of this office in Istros is

unknown; nothing indicates that it preceded the fourth/third

century B.C. and one can be almost certain that the

agoranomia was not a magistracy of Milesian origin. 178

The agoranomy was usually a collective magistracy; the

number of the agoranomoi varied from city to city, ranging

e.g. from ten in Athens to five in Olbia, to two in Tralles

and Akrai. 179 In Istros, with a single exception, the

inscriptions mention only one agoranomos at a time. 180 One

177ISM 1.373 = CIL 3.12489, lines 6-9: muneraque fe/cit Histro in/ oppido arcon/tium et aediliciu. in the Roman epoch the Greek word &yopav6po<; was a common translation of the Latin title aedilis; cf. J. Oehler, RE 1:883, s.v. "Agoranomoi." This time the aedilis in the Latin text designates the agoranomos, cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 486.

178 In Athens the Agoranomoi are first attested in the fifth century B.C., elsewhere in the fourth century B.C. and later (Oehler, "Agoranomoi," 883; Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 4.1.1, 491), in Miletus only in the Roman epoch (Moretti, "Su alcune iscrizioni," 72). Therefore this magistracy could not be introduced into Istros in the period of foundation and any later Milesian influence on its creation cannot be seriously considered, since it is uncertain whether the agoranomia already existed in Miletus in the third century B.C., when it is first attested in Istros. Pippidi (Greci, 85) speculates that the office of the agoranomoi was introduced in Istros at the same time as the democratic regime. The sources extant do not confirm this hypothesis.

179Oehler, "Agoranomoi," 883.

l80ISAf 1.54, 175, 176, 373; SEG 30.802b; D. Tudor, "Comunicari epigrafice X," Pontica 12 (1980): 245, nos 16, 19; possible evidence (names without the title agoranomos in stamps on weights): Preda, "Pond histrian," 118; L. Ruzicka, "Inedita aus Moesia Inferior," NZft. 50, N.F. 10 (1917): 77, n o . 9. 173 inscription (ISM 1.246) restored by Moretti contains a dedication for a Hero 181 by three former agoranomoi

([Ayop]avo|i^[aa]vt€c ) • On the basis of this inscription

Moretti concludes that Istros had three agoranomoi, the same number as Larissa Cremaste, Karthaia, and Cos. 182 This is possible, but this inscription does not confirm this hypothesis beyond doubt. Clearly, since the dedication was commissioned by three former agoranomoi, it is conceivable that they held their respective magistracies in different years. Furthermore the upper side of the stone on which the inscription is preserved is broken and the original number of the dedicators might have been greater than three.

Therefore the question of the number of the agoranomoi in

Istros at one time must remain an open one.

Certainly in the mid-first century B.C., but probably in other periods too, the term of office of an agoranomos was one year with possible re-election. 183 The agoranomia in Istros, as in many other Greek cities, was an elected magistracy.. , 184

181Perhaps for Heros Agoraios as in ISM 1.17 6 . Restoration in Moretti, "Su alcune inscrizioni," 71.

182Moretti, "Su alcune iscrizioni," 72f.

183Term of offices JSM1.54, 1. 38, re-elections 1. 43.

l6l>ISM 1.54, lines 42-43. Cf. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 491 (prevalence of elected agoranomy over chosen by lot in the Hellenistic epoch). 174

A mid first-century B.C. inscription (ISM 1.54, 1. 41)

attests the name of the official building of the agoranomoi:

ctyopavdjiiov. This building has not been uncovered yet; its

most likely location was in the agora. 185 According to the

testimony of ISM 1.54 the agoranomion in Istros was erected

at the expense of Aristagoras son of Apatourios, an

agoranomos himself. 186 We do not have any information about

the building which housed the agoranomoi before the mid-

first century B.C.; one cannot exclude the possibility that

it was located in the same place as the new one, since the building activity of Aristagoras seems to have been

restricted to the restorations after the destruction caused by Burebista's invasion.

The most commonly attested duty of the agoranomos was overseeing trade in the marketplace, especially weights and measures. The names of agoranomoi appear in stamps on weights 187 and on pottery. 188 The stamp on a vessel could mean that the agoranomos checked its capacity.

igq 'Cf. Oehler, "Agoranomoi,” 825.

186 ISM 1.54, lines 41-42. Similar acts of benefaction: Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 146.

187 Preda, "Pond histrian," 118 (cf. Preda's commentary, p. 117); Ruzicka, "Inedita," 77, no. 9.

ia*SEG 30.802b; Tudor, "Comunicari epigrafice X," 245, nos 16, 19. 175

Aristagoras son of Apatourios is also praised for having sold grain, wine and other unspecified things at a low price.189 The same inscription indicates that the activity of this kind was expected of an agoranomos:

T|yopav6iAT|CT£v d>[c]/ GrtpGuGv avSpi xalcp xaituyaBq. 190

A list of the agoranomoi in Istros can be presented as follows:191

Artemidoros son of Theokles, third century B.C. (SEG

30.802b)

192 *£0[- -]NH[-], third century B.C. son of [E]umares, second century B.C. 193

[Amei]nias son of Pherekles, second century B.C. 194

[Aischi]nes son of Antikrates, second century B.C. 193 son of [Eu]phranor, second century B.C. (ISM 1.175)

189ISM 1.54, lines 39-40.

190 ISM 1.54, lines 38-39. Buying foodstuff and reselling it at below the market prices was a standard activity of the agoranomoi in the Greek world; cf. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 432; Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 146; P. Veyne, Bread and Circuses. Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London 1990), 134.

191An asterisk (*) marks the names of officials known only from stamps on weights and therefore most likely holding the office of agoranomoi, even if their title is not attested.

192Preda, "Pond histrian," 118.

193ISM 1.246, 1. 1, cf. n. 176.

19AISM 1.246, 1. 2; cf. n. 176.

195ISM 1.246, 1. 3; cf. n. 176. 176

Philotheos son of Menippos, second century B.C. (ISM 1.176)

Ari s to[-], undated 196

197 [-]AKI0[-], undated

*Meniskos, undated 198

Lucius Pompeius Valens, A.D. 157. 199

In many Hellenistic cities an extraordinary office,

si tones, was in charge of buying grain and reselling it at reduced price to relieve famine.200 The body of the sitones is not attested in Istros in a straightforward manner, but a wealthy benefactor, Diogenes son of Diogenes was praised for providing money so that grain could be bought: ottgx; cti TWV r\H xu[i 6^m.i ] (ISM 1.1, 1. 6). The crucial first lines of this inscription are damaged, so that we cannot be sure whether this passage refers to the activity of the sitones, or whether the word aixovGw is used as a common verb and the action of buying corn was performed by some other officials, the agoranomoi perhaps. 201 Nor does the

196Tudor, "Comunicari epigrafice X," 245, no. 16.

197Tudor, "Comunicari epigrafice X," 245, no. 19.

198 Ruzicka, "Inedita," 77, no. 9.

199ISM 1.373 = CIL 3.12489.

200Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 433; Jones, Greek City, 217f; C. Preaux, "Institutions 6conomiques et social des villes hellenistique principalement en Orient," Recueils de la Society Jean Bodin 7 (1956): 131f.

201 Cf. Pippidi's commentary (ISM 1, p. 58). §tefan ("Getreidekrisen," 654ff) and Danoff (RE Suppl. 9:1083f, 177 word aitik&, attested by two further inscriptions, 202 necessarily allude to the sitones as a body of magistrates.

It could easily refer to funds apportioned by the city for future purchases of corn administered by regularly elected officials.203

A second-century A.D. inscription (ISM 1.180, 1. 2) testifies to the existence of an eutheniarclies in Istros.

This office is mentioned in the context of other magistracies held by a prominent citizen of Istros,

Artemidoros, and nothing certain can be said about it. The eutheniarches could be either a commissioner buying corn204 or an official in charge of organizing public banquets. 205

In Istros, as elsewhere, this magistracy was most likely created in Roman times.206

Heqemones and citv archives In Hellenistic Istros hegemones were responsible for inscribing (or perhaps rather

s.v. "Pontos Euxeinos,") think that the sitonia as an office existed in Istros, analogically as in Olbia. Danoff links its alleged creation to Istros' government's attempts to diffuse social conflicts.

202ISM 1.18, 1. 22 and 20, 1. 8 .

203 Cf. Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 98f.

204 Cf. LSJ 714, s.v. £i>0Tivi

205 I. Stoian, "Une nouvelle inscription agonistique d'Histria," in idem, Etudes Histriennes, 111.

206Pippidi, "Histria aux I-III sifccles," 147. 178 commissioning) decrees of the people and council on stelae and placing them in an appropriate place. This office is attested in inscriptions dated in the third and second centuries B.C. 207 The hegemones — certainly acted as a board of magistrates, since their name is always attested in the plural. Their number remains unknown.

V. PSrvan suggested that the hegemones were primarily military commanders active especially in periods of barbaric incursions. 208 This is not confirmed by the extant sources 209 and the analogy to hegemones — in other Greek cities does not make it compelling. 210 In Istros the hegemones were apparently minor civilian magistrates.

The meager amount of sources extant makes studying the problem of the archives in Istros rather difficult. It does not seem, however, that there was only one repository of

207Third century B.C.: ISM 1.6, lines 1-3; 8, lines 21- 24; 11, lines 2-5; 19, lines 27-30. In ISM 1.30, 1. 9 (second century B.C.) the word riyGndvac is extant, but the context (or effectively, lack of it) makes it impossible to judge whether their usual duties were mentioned in this inscription.

208 PSrvan, Histria 4:544f. This hypothesis was broadly accepted, cf. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 194; Popescu, "Inschriften," 286 (he admits that the powers of the hegemones are unclear); Danoff, "Pontos Euxeinos,” 1083.

209 Pippidi, Greci, 86f; idem, ISM 1, p. 79. Cf. idem, "Note sur 1'organisation," 57.

210 The hegemones — are attested as: chairmen of council's committee in Megara or of the council in Calchedon, military magistrates in Rhodes (Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 374 , 478, 482) and Tomis (vide infra). 179 stelae containing the decrees of the people and council. In the third century B.C. the stelae could be set up in the precinct of the temple of Apollo (ISM 1.6 and 28), by the altar of the Gods of Samothrace (ISM 1.11 and 19) and by the altar of Zeus Polieus (ISM 1.8).211

Gvmnasiarches. aaonothetes A gymnasion in Istros is attested from the second century B.C. 212 to the third century A.D. (ISM 1.181). No meaningful details about it are available. Two inscriptions attest also the title

_ 213 gymnasiarchest one of them is a tombstone, the second, a mutilated fragment of a catalogue of philoteimoi .21*

There is, therefore, no positive evidence concerning the character of the gymnasiarchia in Istros. The very nature of our epigraphical witnesses makes it impossible to judge whether the gymnasiarchia in Istros was a magistracy or just a AEiTOupyia in the narrower sense (every unpaid magistracy

These are the only places attested, but it is conceivable that stelae conveying the decrees could be set up in other places too.

212 ISM 1.44 and 59. About the gymnasion in Istros: Pippidi, "Note de lectura," (1983): 103-106, 113; idem, ISM 1 , p. 162.

213 ISM 1.268 (first century B.C.- first century A.D.).

214ISM 1 .268 (third century A.D.). 180

215 was a liturgy in the broader sense).

The only gymnasiarchos, whose name is preserved is:

Hieronymos son of Meniskos, first century B.C.- first century A.D. (ISM 1.268).

One partially preserved catalogue of victors (ISM

1.207, 1. 2) confirms the presence of the office of agonothetes in the first half of the second century A.D.

Possibly it existed already in the second century B.C., but this assumption depends on the unsafe restoration of a decree of the people and council.216

Orphanistai One third-century B.C. inscription (ISM 1.184) contains the upper part of a catalogue of the orphanistai.

Not much can be said about the nature of this board, except that they were certainly preoccupied with supporting orphans. 217 Outside Istros the orphanistai are attested only in Selymbria, as a body of magistrates named in an

215 Cf. Busolt, Griechische Staatskunde, 495f; J. Oehler, RE 7:1595ff, s.v. 'Tunvoat ap^oc . "

216ISM 1.49, lines 5-6: [- - -] Si'ayevo/[06a(a:? - -], without any context extant.

217They shared this duty with orphanophylakes known in Athens (Xen. Vect. 2.7), Naupactus and Gorgippia; E. Ziebarth, RE 18:1197, s.v. " ’Op<|)aviaTai ;" cf. Popescu, "Inschriften," 286; Danoff, "Pontos Euxeinos," 1083; Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 321f. 181 inscription alongside the agoranomoi and strategoi.—~ 218 In

Ephesus private persons acting as orphans' guardians were called synorphanistai .219 The example of Ephesus does not furnish any viable analogy and in Istros the orphanistai were clearly members of a body of magistrates with a yearly term of office, because ISlftf 1.184 begins: ’ Opaviaxai oi £ t u i£p€G) (1. 1). The reference is clearly to an eponymous magistrate. The number of the orphanistai is not known, there was at least two of them, since fragments of two names are preserved. They are:

[Euphr]aion son of Philinos

220 Apollodot[os].

218G. Seure, "Antiquit§s thraces de la Propontide, Collection Stamoulis," BCH 36 (1912): 549ff, no. 9.

219 Ziebarth, loc.cit.

220 ISM 1.184, the names reconstructed by Pippidi. 182

2. Tomis.

Archons As elsewhere 221 the words apxo>, apxfj were not always used in reference to the board of archontes. They are of course common Greek words and may designate power or office in general. This seems to be the case with a dedication to Apollo Agyeus dated (apart from the consular

222 date): v>Tt'apx[f\ ] q II/ $1 0Go[5]6pou Sionov/ x a p x o u .

Flavius Theodoros' arctie most likely meant his dignity as a pontarcties (for the second time) and not the power of an archon in Tomis.223

In Tomis a rtpwrri apxii is attested too. 224 Stoian suggested that this title referred to city magistrates. 225

If accepted, this hypothesis would have an important bearing upon our knowledge of the government of Tomis. The first arctie is also attested three times in honorific inscriptions commissioned by the people and council for prominent

221 Cf. chapter IV B, 1. Istros, p. 157.

211 ISM 2.116 II, lines 5-7. Consular date: A.D. 170.

223Cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 144.

2U ISM 2.70, lines 6-7; 96, lines 6-7; 97, lines 8-9. Other places in the Western Pontus, where the prote arche is attested, are Odessos and Dionysopolis.

225ISM 2, p. 98. 183

226 citizens of Roman Istros.

One of these, a pontarch Aurelios Preiskios Annianos is praised for having held the supreme magistracy of the koinon and its metropolis (i.e. Tomis) and for having been an archiereus: 227 ap^avra xoi> koi voO rov ' EAAfjvwv kcu tt)<; pilTpo/ndAEoK tTjv a' btpxf)v dtyvtic Kai ap^i €paa&/(j.€vov (ISM

2.97, lines 8-10). It appears that the word arctie was used in this dedication with the meaning of power, magistracy in general. This is almost certain in respect to the koinon, whose supreme magistrate was known as pontarcties and archiereus. 228 Thus the phrase i) a' is not an official title but rather a description of the office as the highest.

In this inscription moreover the prote arctie ("supreme power", "highest office") of the koinon is explicitly linked with the supreme priesthood of the imperial cult; thus it seems most likely that all these titles designate the same office - that of the president of the koinon. Its metropolis may have been mentioned because the people and council of

Tomis did not want the name of their city to be omitted from the inscription.

226ISM 2.70 (second century A .D.), 96 and 97 (both dated in the epoch of the Severi, cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 123).

227An archiereus was, in all likelihood, the high priest of the imperial cult in the Pontic koinon, cf. chapter V I .

228 Cf. chapter VI; similar titles are attested for better known koina of the Roman epoch (e.g. asiarches in the province of Asia). 184

Another possibility is that Aurelios Preiskios Annianos

indeed held the supreme magistracy in Tomis. It is not

certain, however, that this was called ^ a' apx*i • Since the

expression prote arctie is used as a generic term in respect

to the koinon, nothing compels us to believe that it meant

anything different when employed for the city of Tomis. This

conclusion leaves unresolved also the other cases where the

— — 229 prote arche is mentioned. One cannot, of course, exclude

also the possibility that the body of archontes was presided

over by the first archon.

The archonship (apxwv, apxovx€c) in Tomis is attested

continuously from the late second century B.C. (ISM 2.36; 5)

until the third century A.D. 230 We do not know how much

earlier before the late second century B.C. this magistracy was initiated in Tomis.

The body of archontes is known to have proposed draft

231 ?32 decrees to the people and to the people and council."

229 ISM 2.97 (the same Aurelios Preiskios Annianos) and 70.

230The first century B.C.: ISM 2.2; the second century A.D. : 58; 61; 150; the third century A.D. : 273. Indeed, the last evidence of the presence of this magistracy in Tomis belongs to the fifth century A.D. (ISM 2.390), but this clearly falls beyond the scope of this study.

231 ISM 2.5; cf. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 195.

232 ISM 2.2. This inscription contains two separate decrees of the council and people. In the second one (lines 27-64) the motion is indicated as follows: &pxovx€c €luav (1. 27). Since both decrees are almost contemporaneous and 185

In fact these three decrees are only ones extant with

preambles. It appears significant than both were carried on

the archons' motion. However the evidence is so small 233

that it prevents us from advancing any further conclusions

concerning legislative practices in Tomis.

The archons mentioned in ISM 2.2 were supposed to

provide the hegemones with provisions at below market prices: itapaitpa0Tivai 8£ aiiToi ? tircd tuv dp^dvxev/ [£]v xo(i)

AipGvi.234 These lines prompted Blavatskaya to assign to

the archons an important role in the administration of

Tomis. According to her a part of the body of the archontes governed the city and the second part - the harbor. 235 This

is certainly possible, but caution would be well advised.

The inscription discussed here is the only source where the archons [£]v x£>(i) XipGvi are mentioned. Moreover the exact meaning of the passage just quoted is open to

interpretation. 236 We cannot be sure then in the first they refer to the activities of the same group of people (hegemones and the guardsmen), the restoration of the preamble (lines 1-2): [apxovx€c/ €in]av proposed by Gr. Tocilescu (AEM 14 [1891]: p. 22, no. 50) seems viable.

233ISM 2.5 and 2.

ISM 2.2, lines 24-25; cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 32.

235 Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennyye ustroystva," 41; eadem, Zapadnopontiyske, 195.

236 Cf. Stoian (ISM 2, p. 32) who ponders whether perhaps the word archontes was employed in this inscription in general sense, meaning magistrates (the agoranomoi in this case) . 186 place whether this inscription refers to the archons at all.

If it does, we also cannot know from it alone whether the archons administered the city harbor or just acted there.

Furthermore this inscription contains a decree proclaiming emergency measures; it therefore remains unclear to what extent the administrative solutions prescribed by it were applicable in normal times.

Archons are well attested in Roman Tomis too. Since all sources available are dedications, we know nothing about their official activity. Most certainly the archonship was a magistracy of great importance, since one of the few attested officeholders was a Roman eques. 237

The following names of archons are attested:

[....]is son of Alexandros, second century A.D. (ISM 2.58,

1. 4)

P. Ailios Antoneinos, after A.D. 138 (ISM 2.61, lines 4-5)

Rufus father of Marcus, second century A.D. (ISM 2.150, lines 4-6)

Aurelios Eutychianos son of Diogenes, beginning of the third century A.D. (ISM 2.273, lines 1-2).

Military officials The military organization of Tomis is poorly known to us. One inscription (ISM 2.2), containing

237A certain Aurelios Eutychianos son of Diogenes, iinuKdc (ISM 2.27 3, lines 1-2). About the word inniKdc in the meaning of eques: LSJ, s.v. 3; cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 267. 187 two decrees of the council and people, testifies to the existence of the office of hegemones in the first century

B.C. In the first of these decrees the boule and demos decided to elect two hegemones and to entrust them with the power to draft forty men to serve as sentries guarding the city walls and patrolling the streets. They were also allowed to punish the guardsmen dodging their duties. 238

The hegemones and the guardsmen served the city with distinction and were honored by the council and people (ISM

2.2, lines 27-45).

It is difficult to establish what the nature of the office of hegemon was. It may have been an extraordinary magistracy, 239 since, as we learn from ISM 2.2, the council and people of Tomis elected the hegemones in the situation of a crisis caused by a pestilence and possibly also by barbarian incursions.240

_ 238 ISM 2.2, lines 11-13 (the decision to elect the hegemones), 13-14 (their powers to draft forty men), 14-16 (duties of the sentry), 19-22 (provisions concerning punishing the guardsmen). Cf. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 196.

239 Pippidi, Greci, 83; Popescu, "Inschriften," 285.

240 ISM 2.2, lines 2-4 (crisis), 6-8 (pestilence). I. Stoian ("In legatura cu decretele tomitane privitoare la paza ora§ului," SCIV 5 [1954]: 557-568 and ISM 2, p. 31) suggests that the expression [ioi ]hikt)v nGpiaraaiv (ISM 2.2, 1. 7) should be understood as a reference to the social struggle (or the class struggle, as Stoian prefers); cf. Danoff, "Pontos Euxeinos," 1081f; contra J.& L. Robert, Btp 1956, 181 (cf. Rostovtzeff, SEHHW, 765). Struggles around the city walls and the inadequacy of 188

The attested names of the hegemones are:

Apollous son of Nikeratos, first half of the first century

B.C.241

Poseidonios son of Geron, the same year. 242

Financial magistrates Our knowledge of the system of financial administration of Tomis is inadequate. In one honorific decree of the council and people a former tamias is mentioned. 243 Nothing is known about his duties.

The only other place, where a financial magistrate is referred to, is a first century B.C. inscription (ISM 2.6) containing an honorary decree. In Stoian's radical restoration the oikonomos was entrusted with apportioning funds for cutting the inscription: t6 8£ &v&Aa>n[a x6

» 244 yGvdnGvov/ Sotivai r6v o i k o v 6ji( ? ) ]ov . This restoration, however attractive, is utterly conjectural. 245 There is no analogy among the inscriptions from Tomis which provides a the defence system is indicated as the motives advanced by the council and people too: lines 4-5, 7-9.

UXISM 2.2, lines 26, 29-30, 46.

U2ISM 2.2, lines 26, 30, 47.

UZISM 2.70, 1. 10. This inscription is not dated by the editor (Stoian); since the name of a pontarch is also mentioned, the inscription cannot be earlier than the second century A.D. (cf. chapter VI).

244JSAf 2.6, lines 19-20; restored: Stoian, Tomitana, 179f.

Z45Cf. Pippidi, Greci, 83. 189 secure basis for restoring the title oikonomos in this instance.

The only name of a financial magistrate attested in

Tomis is tamias: [e.g. Attal]os son of Eumenes, second-third

. n 216 century A.D.

Other economic magistracies In the Roman epoch the agoranomoi are attested by fairly numerous inscriptions on stone2A7 and stamps on weights.2*8 Almost certainly this magistracy was introduced in Tomis earlier, most probably in

246Cf. n. 243.

2A7Second century A.D.: ISM 2.58; second-third century A.D.: ISM 2.70, 71; third century A.D.: ISM 2.273, 366. Another agoranomos might be attested by ISM 2.104, 1. 3 (restored by Th. Gomperz, AEM 6 [1882]: p. 26, no. 52) [- - o &vopav6]uoc. A meaningful context is lacking and this restoration is unsure; cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 129. Stoian restores a second-third century A.D. inscription: oi utto/[y€ypa|i|i€voi oaxu( ? ) ]v6poi ( Tomitana, 167; ISM 2.21, lines 2-3, cf. p. 56). Since the astynomoi are not attested by any source in Tomis, it might be safer to retain the restoration proposed by the first editor (Tocilescu, AEM 6 [1882]: p. 25): [&yopa]vdpoi.

oarA stamp on a semis weight published by Ruzicka ("Inedita," p. 79, no. 16) reads: [6tyopavo]po(>vTo<: Sixotia. This verb (or the title agoranomos) is not attested on any other stamp, nevertheless the names on stamps are almost certainly those of the agoranomoi. The following stamps with the names of the agoranomoi belong to the Roman epoch: Ruzicka, "Inedita," 77, no. 8, 78, no. 13; C. Moisil, "Ponduri inedite sau pu^in conoscute din Histria, Callatis ?i Tomis," SCN 1 (1957): 281, no 46 (re-published by R. Och^eanu, "Un poids de Tomi, de l'6poque de l'empereur Septime S6v6re," RBN 121 [1975]: 83), 284, no. 47. 190 249 the Hellenistic epoch.

The inscriptions on stone (honorary decrees, tombstones) provide us with many names, but with no other meaningful details concerning the agoranomoi in Tomis. One may suppose that their official duties did not differ substantially from those attested in other cities. Och§eanu suggested that the agoranomoi supervised the city mint. 250

Thus far no convincing proof of this responsibility has been adduced. In Tomis only their control over the weights is confirmed by their stamps.

The names of the following agoranomoi are attested: 251

*HP0, Hellenistic epoch252

249 Names of the magistrates stamped on Hellenistic weights should be considered the names of the agoranomoi. They are attested by the following inscriptions: Ruzicka, "Inedita," 77, no. 8; Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 279, no. 36, 280, nos. 37, 39, 281, no. 45. Perhaps the title of agoranomos is attested also by a second century B.C. inscription containing a decree of the demos (ISM 2.4); lines 6-7 read: [al pG/061 q 86 Kal ayopav6]|io<; (restoration exempli gratia by L. Robert, "Inscriptions grecques inSdites au Musses du Louvre," RA 6 ser., 2 [1933]: 141f accepted by Stoian, ISM 2). A pre-Roman origin for the agoranomia in Tomis is generally accepted: Robert, ibid., 144; Stoian, Tomitana, 94ff; Pippidi, Greci, 83.

250 Och§eanu, "Poids de Tomi," 87; he does not support his hypothesis with arguments.

251 An asterisk (*) marks the names of the magistrates known only from stamps on weights and therefore most likely holding the office of agoranomoi, even if their title is not confirmed.

252 Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 279, no. 36. 191

253 * M £ v i c f k o <;, Hellenistic epoch

256 *KYP, Hellenistic epoch

255 *HPA, Hellenistic epoch

[....] is son of Alexandros, mid-second century A.D. (ISM

2.58, 1. 4)

[e.g. Attal]os son of Eumenes, second-third century A.D. 256

[e.g. Aphrika]nos Kyetos (Africanus Quietus), second-third century A.D.257

*AI0E, epoch of the Severi 258

Aurelios Eutychianos son of Diogenes, beginning of the third century A.D. (ISM 2.273, lines 1-4)

Hermogenes, third century A.D. (ISM 2.366, lines 1, 5-6).

Three second and third century A.D. inscriptions give evidence for the existence of the office of

253 Ruzicka, "Inedita," 77, no. 8; Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 280, no. 37.

254Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 280, no. 39.

2 5*5 Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 281, no. 45.

256 ISM 2.70, lines 4, 7-8; Stoian's restoration exempli gratia.

257 ISM 2.71, lines 4-5, 7-8; the name restored by G. Perrot, Memoires d'archSologie, d'Spigraphie et d'histoire, 185.

258Ruzicka, "Inedita," 78, no. 13; Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 281, no. 46 (re-published by Och§eanu, "Poids de Tomi," 83), 284, no. 47. Date: Och§eanu, "Poids de Tomi," 87. 192

— 259 euposiarches. Nothing specific can be said about the

nature of this magistracy in Tomis: meaningful context is

lacking in two of these inscriptions (ISM 2.79 and 82), the

third one (ISM 2.298), a tombstone, gives euposiarches as

the official title of the deceased. The euposiarches was most probably a magistrate dealing with buying food for the

The following euposiarchai are attested in Tomis:

L. Oualerianos, second century A.D. (ISM 2.79, lines 3-5)

Attios Onesimos, second-third century A.D. (ISM 2.298, 1.

!)•

Ekdikos In various cities the title ekdikos was applied to denote different institutions. In Tomis in most cases this

259 ISM 2.79, lines 4-5 (second century A.D.); 82B, lines 15-16 (ca. A.D. 200-202); 298, 1. 1 (second-third century A.D.). Cf. I. Stoian, " L'6pigraphie Tomitaine - ses probl^mes et ses r^sultats," in Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge 1967 (Oxford 1971), 285; Doru^iu-BoilS, "Contribution," 157; Popescu, "Inschriften," 285.

250L. Robert, "IStudes 6pigraphiques, " BCH 52 (1928): 415f; Robert compares the euposiarches with the eutheniarches (attested among other places also in Istros). Cf. I. I. Russu, "Le d6cret de Callatis en l'honneur d'Isagoras," Dacia 1 (1957): 186; Stoian, ISM 2, pp. 103f (however Stoian's opinion that the creation of the office of euposiarches was a prophylactic measure designed to diffuse social conflicts is unsubstantiated). A goddess of fertility and abundance named Euposia (Eubosia) was worshipped in Roman Asia Minor (Waser, RE 6:858ff, s.v. "Eubosia,"). 193

261 title designated an official of an association. However

a single dedication of the council and people (ISM 2.61)

praised a certain P. Ailios Gaios for having acted as an

ekdikos apparently on behalf of the city (1. 6). Brandis

perceived the nature of his office as identical with that of

a defensor civitatis.262

This interpretation must remain conjectural. The word

ekdikos is not modified by trie irdlGoc as would be expected

in the case of the Greek translation of the title: defensor

civitatis. 263 Moreover, P. Ailios Gaios is simply commended

for having been an ekdikos and an ambassador to Rome, to the

emperor Antoninus Pius: SxSiicijaavTa/ itiaxo^, Ttp6a0euaav/T<3t

Gi c 'P6pt|v (lines 6-8). Quite possibly he acted both as a

legatus and an ecdicus, i.e. the attorney representing the

city in Rome (to use Ciceronian terminology - Cic. ad fam.

261 Four times the ekdikos is named alongside other officers of associations and their philoteimoi (q.v. LSJ, s.v., 3):ISM 2.17, 1. 18; 18, 1. 2; 125, lines 14-15; 468, lines 4, 9, 11-17, 19. In these cases the ekdikoi are just executives of those associations and not city magistrates; cf. Brandis, RE 5:2161, s.v. "'EkSikoc; " Poland, Griechische Vereinswesen, 404f. Similarly the nomophylakes attested in second-third century inscriptions (JSW2.17, 1. 16; 19b, 1. 2; 125, 1. 13) among the philoteimoi were the officers of private associations and not city magistrates; cf. E. Ziebarth, RE 17:833, s.v. "Nopofilaic£<;;" A. P. Christophilopoulos, "Nomophylakes kai thesmophylakes," Platon, 20 (1968): 139 (Tomis); Stoian, ISM 2, pp. 52, 156.

262 Brandis, ""EkSikoc," 2161; also Stoian, ISM2, p. 92.

263 Cf. Brandis, loc.cit. 194

13. 56 ).264 He is the only attested ekdikos.

Gvmnasiarchos > aaonothetes Even if no physical evidence of

a gyxnnasion is available, gymnasiarchoi are attested in

Roman Tomis by four inscriptions. 265 The question of the

nature of the gymnasiarchia (whether it was a magistracy of

the city or of an association or perhaps a liturgy) should be addressed here.

ISM 2.17 contains a catalogue of the philoteimoi and officials of a certain association. Among them two

gymnasiarchoi are listed (lines 14-15). Another catalogue most probably names two gymnasiarchs as active at one 266 time. Since it is unlikely, given the small size of

Tomis, that there were two state owned gymnasia our evidence very likely pertains to the gymnasiarchia-liturgy. Another possibility is that gymnasiarch was an office of the associations which commissioned these inscriptions. 26 7 This

impression is strengthened by a broken second-century A.D.

inscription (ISM 2.95) which reads: [x]o0 Yup.vaaiap/[xou xou

264Cf. examples quoted by Brandis, op.cit. 2160f.

265ISM 2.12, 1. 6; 17, lines 14-15; 26, 1. 2; 95, lines 2-3.

266 Lines 3-6 of poorly preserved ISM 2.12.

267 Poland, Griechische Vereinswesen, 401ff (the gymnasiarchoi as officers of various associations), esp. p. 402 (Tomis specifically); cf. Stoian, ISM 2, pp. 48, 52. 195

8f\]|iOu Tiic xG <|>o/[Afic] (lines 2-4). This time a gymnasiarch

- city official is mentioned. His full title recorded on stone seems to suggest that gymnasiarchs other than those of the city were active in Tomis too.

Thus, as it seems, the title gymnasiarchos was applied in Tomis both to designate a magistrate (gymnasiarch of the people) and a person burdened with the liturgy of supporting the gymnasion or an officer of an association.

V. P3rvan suggested that in A.D. 15/16 Ovid had been elected an agonothetes of the games in honor of the newly- deified Augustus. 268 This hypothesis is based on the interpretation of the following passage of the Epistulae ex

Pontoi

Pontica me tellus, quantis hac possumus ara,

natalem ludis scit celebrare dei. (Ex P. 4.9, ll5f )

But Ovid himself here asserts only his participation in celebrating the dies natalis of Augustus; nothing in these lines refers to his agonothesia.269

The office of agonothetes is first certainly attested in the second century A.D. We know about a first aglonothetes

268V. Parvan, "I primordi della civilta romana alle foci del Danubio," Ausonia 10 (1921): 191; idem, "A propos du "basileus" Cotys," 364. His opinion was shared by Vulpe ("Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja," 111; idem, "Ovidio nella citta dell'esilio," 59), Stoian (Tomitana, 175f) and Green ("Ovid in Tomis," 121).

269 Cf. S. Lozovan, "Ovide, agonothSte de Tomis," r e l 39 (1961): lilt. 196

270 of the games in honor of Antinoos. Some thirty years

_ _ 271 later a second agonothetes is attested.

The names of the following agonothetai are known in

Tomis:

T. Flavius Posidonios, A.D. 131-138 (ISM 2.52, lines 5-7)

T. Kominios Klaudianos Hermaphilos, A.D. 161-169 (ISM 2.69, lines 3-6).

110ISM 2.52, dated to A.D. 131-138.

2UISM 2.69, dated to A.D. 161-169, cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 97 197

3. DIONYSOPOLIS.

Archons One cannot establish when the archonship was first introduced at Dionysopolis; it is attested only in the first half of the third century A.D. 272 And, not surprisingly, we learn from one inscription (IGB l2.14a) that there was a body of archontes with a president: Grti

&PX6v/tov tuv nGpl Aup 0G6pvr|cn:ov IIu0okA.6ou<; (lines 5-6).

The phrase "prote arctie" is twice attested in

Dionysopolis: &p£avxa xt)v rcp[6]/xr|v apxrjv.273 As in

274 , — — ■ _ Tomis the meaning of the expression prote arche is open to interpretation. It is not very probable that it refers to the first archonship, in the sense of the presidency of the board of archontes, since the president of archons is referred to by the phrase oi nGpl x6v SGiva. 275 More likely then the phrase prote arctie denotes the supreme magistracy in the city without indicating its precise title. 276 The evidence available does not confirm Tafrali's hypothesis

979 9 IGB 1 .14 (shortly after A.D. 212) and 16 (after A.D. 217) .

272 IGB l2.16, lines 6-7 and probably 19, lines 1-2 (restored).

274 Supra: chapter IV B, 2. Tomis, pp. 182ff.

275 IGB 1 2 .14a, lines 5-6 (the passage in question is quoted above).

276 "La magistrature suprime" as L. Robert ("Inscriptions grecques," 205) referred to this title. 198 that r| npuTT) <5tpx^ refers to the supreme magistrate who was in charge of the administration of the city and probably presided over the boule.277

The following names of the archons of Dionysopolis are recorded: president of the archons: Aurelios Theomnestos son of

Pythokles, shortly after A.D. 212 (IGB l2.14a, lines 5-6)

Markos Aurelios Demetrios son of Diogenes, after A.D. 217

(IGB lz. 16, lines 3, 9-10).

Agoranomoi In one broken late-second or third-century A.D. honorary decree the agoranomoi are named among the recipients of some largess. 278 This seems to testify that there was more than one active agoranomos at a time. We do not obviously know anything about the composition of the board of agoranomoi nor any details pertaining to their official responsibilities. One may suppose only that this magistracy was instituted in Dionysopolis much earlier than our single bit of evidence for it.

277Tafrali, CitS Dionysopolis, 23.

278 IGB 1 2 .15ter= IGB 1.30. This inscription is not dated by the editor, but if the restoration of lines 6-7: IievT[a/n6X€

Gvmnasiarches. ephebarchos, antephebarchos The office of

gymnasiarches is attested by two honorific inscriptions. 279

No information about the official activity of the gymnasiarchai are available. The names of the following office-holders are recorded;

Markos Au[relios - -]koros son of Antiochos, after A.D.

151280

Markos A[urelios] Demetrios son of Diogenes, after A.D. 217

(IGB l2.16, lines 2, 9-10). 281 One early-third-century A.D. ephebic inscription testifies to the existence of an ephebarchos in

Dionysopolis. He is named in the inscription after the high officials of the city and the koinon and the priests of

Dionysos, but before the avTGfj(3apxoc. 282 The last named magistrate was almost certainly a deputy to the ephebarchos._ 283 Most probably both of these magistracies

279IGB l2.15bis, 1. 5; 16, 1. 2.

280 IGB 1 2 .15bis, lines 5, 9-10. The inscription is not dated by the editor, but the imperial gentilicium of the gymnasiarches seems to suggest that he received his Roman citizenship from Marcus Aurelius.

281 2 9 IGB 1 .14a, lines 6-7; dated by Mihailov (IGB 1 , p. 58) in the years immediately following A.D. 212.

282Antephebarchos; IGB l2.14a, 1. 7.

283 ’ AvxGcJjfjPapxoc {cf. LSJ Suppl., s.v.) was a rare magistracy (cf. Robert, Bltp 1958, 332), attested, to the best of my_knowledge only in Mesambria. The office of the deputy ephebarchos was known also in Cyzicus (under the name 200 were elected, perhaps for yearly terms of office; at any rate the antephebarchos named in the inscription discussed here was holding his office for the second time. 284

The following office-holders are attested: ephebarchost Aurelios Theagenes son of Kantios, shortly after A.D. 212 (IGB lz. 14a, lines 6-7) antephebarchos for the second time: Aurelios Proklos, shortly after A.D. 212 (IGB l2.14a, lines 7-8).

i>n64>iiPapxo< - CIG 3665), cf. J. Oehler, RE 5:2736, s.v. " * Eii0apxoc ,") .

2St>IGB l2.14a, lines 7-8: avte€0apxouvTOc ... 0' . 201

4. ODESSOS.

Archons, svnarchia Archons are attested in Odessos by nine inscriptions. 285 The earliest of those which can be dated was commissioned in A.D. 159-160 (SEG 28.613). Nevertheless one may safely assume that this office in Odessos predates that year and perhaps it came into existence earlier than the Roman epoch. 286 The evidence available does not provide us with any substantial information about the responsibilities of the archons.

SEG 28.613 testifies that there was a board of archontes in Odessos. 287 Mihailov suggests that this board was called synarchia and that the first archon presided over it. 288 Despite the lack of evidence, Danov considered the first archon the eponymous magistrate of the city in the

265IGB l2.47, 1. 6; 47bis, 1. 6; 48, 1. 5; 63bis, 1. 7; 64, 1. 3; 162, 1. 2; 230bis, lines 3-4; 263, lines 4-5; G. Mihailov, INMV 13 (1977): 142f, no. 1, 1. 7 (= SEG 28.613). No archons are actually mentioned in IGB l2.263 , only: [&P ]/xoVTl Kfi But the adjective apxovuiic6<; applies exclusively to the archons and rulers {cf. LSJ, s.v.) and almost certainly no ruler is referred to in this inscription. Therefore this phrase should be perceived as another piece of evidence for the existence of archons in Odessos.

286Mihailov, "Documents 6pigraphiques," 269. Danov ("Philippopolis," 289) seems to subscribe to a theory that the archons already existed in Odessos in pre-Hellenistic times. There is no proof of it in our sources.

2B7SEG 28.613, 1. 7: [ro0]<; fitp^ovxac.

288 Mihailov, "Documents 6pigraphiques," 269. 202

289 classical and Hellenistic epoch.

In contrast to Tomis and Dionysopolis, where only the phrase prote arctie is attested, the actual title protos arction existed in Odessos, since the preambles to two ephebic catalogues read: £ni auvapxictc "cou SGiva a' apxovxoc. 290 However the exact meaning of the title protos arction and the composition of the board of archons remain somewhat uncertain.

The "second archon" (3' &p%o)v) is attested in a context very similar to that of the first archon. 291 Even if the expression the "second archon" might have been understood as an indication of the second term of office, the analogy with the "first archon" seems to preclude this possibility. 292

Both titles in question may have been applied to indicate the relative positions of their bearers. The first archon very likely was the president of the board of the archontes.

Consequently the subordinate position of the second archon appears quite obvious, but trying to say anything more would

289 Danov, "Philippopolis," 289.

290IGB l2.47bis, 1. 6 and 48, lines 4-5.

291 2 In the preamble to a catalogue of ephebes: IGB 1 .47, lines 5-6.

292 No archon could know in advance that he would hold his office for the second (third etc.) time and add a' (meaning_"for the_first time") to his title. Therefore the title protos archon cannot be understood as the "archon for the first time." The same rule must apply to the 0' apxuv. 203 be pointless speculation.

The word synarchia appears to suggest a collective magistracy. 293 Indeed synarchia in the meaning of a body of

294 • magistrates is attested in some cities. This seems not to be the case in Odessos, where the word synarchia applies always to only one person at one time. 295

293 LSJ,. „ t s. v.

294 E.g. Priene (Inschr. Priene 10, 14; cf. L. Robert, "Hellenica," Rev. Phil. 17 [1944]: 9f), Epidauros (IG 42.1.86, cf. SEG 25.305), Antiochia ad Maeandrum (K. Regling, RE 4A: 1327, s.v. "Synarchia,"), Cos (SEG 33.675, 1. 12), Larissa (SEG 34.558, lines 30, 48-49).

295IGB l2.47, lines 5-6; 47bis, 1. 6; 48, lines 4-5. The synarchia is attested also in other Greek cities in neighboring territories: Anchialos (IGB l2.369, 369bis), Nicopolis ad Istrum (IGB 2.642, 680), Augusta Traiana (IGB 3.2.1553, 1554, 1556-1558), Serdica (IGB 4.1907, 1992), Marcianopolis (G. Mihailov, INMV 13 [1977]: 155, no. 15 = SEG 28.598). In all these places the formula: Giti auvapxioK; roi> SGivoc is employed, thus indicating that the synarchia was held by one person at a time. Only in Pautalia a synarchia of three persons is once (IGB 4.2074, lines 14-20) attested alongside that of one person (IGB 4.2072). One may wonder what prompted Mihailov to call synarchia: collegium supremum (IGB 3.2, p. 27 commenting on an inscription from Augusta Traiana, but he apparently thinks that this remark has an universal application - cf. IGB l2, p. 108) and to suggest that the members of this alleged board of magistrates were called politarchai and that it was presided by the first archon (ib. ). The word politarchai is not attested in Augusta Traiana, Odessos, or indeed any of the cities mentioned above in this note. It can be read in one inscription from a city near Sandanski (IGB 4.2263, lines 17-18), whose ancient name is unknown, but synarchia is not attested there. Mihailov's analogy with Macedonia does not work very well too. The president of the board of the politarchai in Macedonia may have been described as ap£ac TtpwTT]v ctpxiiv (C. Schuler, "The Macedonian Politarchs," Cl. Q. 55 [I960]: 91), but any link with synarchia remains unclear (Schuler, referred to by Mihailov, does not use this 204

The synarchia was always (as far as we can tell on the basis of three inscriptions extant) held by archons, either the first or the second. The evidence is too tenuous to determine whether this is simply a coincidence, or whether in fact an institutional connection between the synarchia and archonship indeed existed. 296 Furthermore the evidence of the synarchia is limited to preambles to the catalogues of ephebes. This might suggest that in Odessos the synarchia was not a magistracy, 297 but perhaps an honorary dignity granted to some high officials.

The following archons are attested in Odessos: first archon: M. Aurelios Antiphilos son of Asklepiades,

A.D. 221 (IGB l2.47bis, 1. 6) second archon: M. Aurelios Parmis, A.D. 215 (IGB l2.47, lines 5-6)

name).

296Note however that in Nicopolis ad Istrum the synarchia is attested twice: once it was held by a first archon (IGB 3.1.642, 1. 8) and the second time by a person, who apparently was not an archon at all (IGB 3.1.680). If synarchia was an office in Odessos, it could be held simultaneously by the first and second archon, since both are attested as synarchontes, and the prefix ctdv- in the name synarchia suggests more than one officeholder at a time.

297Despite the formulae used (Erti ouvapxiac) the synarchia was not the eponymous magistracy, since this was held by priests, possibly of Apollo. Simultaneously with the synarchia the eponymous magistracy is attested in: IGB 1 .47, 1. 4; 47bis, 1. 5 and 48, lines 2-3. 205 archons: Klaudios Akylas (Claudius Aquila), after A.D. 41 298

M. Aurelios Skontis, after A.D. 161 299

Prosodos son of Pharnakes, after A.D. 186 . 300

Financial magistrates The office of tamias is attested twice in Odessos. 301 The second inscription (IGB 1 2 .293) is damaged so that any meaningful context is wanting. IGB l2.63bis contains the honorific decree in which Klaudios

Akylas is praised for having been a city tamias: xai rauiav

T7]q itdlGwc yEv6\iE/vo\ (lines 9-10). This may suggest that at least in Roman times there was some other tamias in Odessos, perhaps a temple treasurer unknown to us.

The only attested tamias is: Klaudios Akylas (Claudius •in? Aquila), after A.D. 41.

298 IGB 1 2.63bis, lines 2-3, 7. This inscription is not dated by the editor. The nomen gentile of the archon Klaudios Akylas (Claudius Aquila) seems to suggest that he was granted with the Roman citizenship by the Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54); hence the inscription can hardly be earlier than A.D. 41.

299 IGB 1 2 .162, lines 1-2. This inscription is not dated by the editor; the imperial nomina suggest the date after A.D. 161.

300 IGB 1 2 .64. This inscription is not dated by the editor. The Pentapolis mentioned in lines 6, 8-9 suggests that its date could not be earlier than A.D. 186 (cf. chapter VI).

301IGB l2.63bis, lines 9-10 and 293, 1. 3. Neither of these inscriptions is dated by the editor; IGB i2 63bis is not earlier than A.D. 41 (cf. n. 297). ™? ? IGB 1 .63bis, lines 1-2, 9-10. Date: cf. n. 298. 206

In the third-second century B.C. the olkonomol were among the city magistrates. This office is attested only once, in the closing formulae of an honorary decree of the council and people (IGB l2.37bis, 1. 18). This was a collective magistracy, held by two persons at one time. The oikonomoi administered the city treasury (or a part of it) and on the council and people's order provided funds for inscribing the decree on stone.303

The following oikonomoi are attested in Odessos:

Dionysios, second-third century B.C.

Sokrates, second-third century B.C. 304

Other economic magistracies In Roman times the agoranomoi are attested in Odessos. 305 The sources extant do not

303IGB l2.37bis, lines 15-19: x6 56 avA/Xu^a / Souvai roue oiKOv6(iouc / 6$ wv x^lP^Co«aiv. The last words may imply that the oikonomoi administered only a part of the city treasury. In two other third-second century B.C. inscriptions containing honorific decrees of the council and people (IGB 1 .41 and 42) the question of footing the bill for inscribing them is not addressed. Most probably the honorees paid for them and therefore the oikonomoi did not have to be involved in the process.

30*Both: IGB l2.37, 1. 18.

305 2 IGB 1 .162, lines 3-4; 230bis, lines 2-3 and perhaps 231, 1. 3 restored by Robert (B&p 1948, 157): [dtY°Pavo^( ?) Ji^aac. This restoration is quite unsafe and Mihailov rejects it (IGB l2, p. 215). None of the inscriptions mentioned here is dated by the editor, but the imperial nomina (Marcus Aurelius) in IGB 1 .162 suggest that it cannot be earlier than A.D. 161. Elsewhere ("Documents 6pigraphiques," 269) Mihailov writes that the agoranomoi are attested only in the Roman epoch. 207 convey any information about their official responsibilities. Their number remains unknown too.

The only safely attested agoranomos is:

Markos Aurelios Skontis, after A.D. 161 A.D. (IGB l2.162,

lines 1, 3-4).

The euposiarchia is one of the best attested magistracies in Odessos. 306 It certainly existed in the

Roman epoch, perhaps even earlier. 307 No official

306Mihailov in his commentary on IGB l2.167 (pp. 177f) suggests that Guiroaidpxtic and 6i>0oai&pxtK were two different offices, the first responsible for organizing public banquets, the second - for the cura annonae. Robert {Bltp 1959, 259) has showed, that euposiarches and eubosiarches are variant readings and that the so named magistrate was in charge both of corn supply and organizing public banquets. At any rate only the title euposiarches is attested in Odessos.

307The inscriptions (IGB l2.51, 111/ 131, 167, 186ter, 204, 254) attesting this magistracy are all undated by the editor (Mihailov). One of them (IGB 1 .51) can be securely placed in Roman times, since the name of a certain M&pico<; can be read (col. c, 1. 10). If the title archiereus (1. 2) refers to the priest of the imperial cult in the territory of the koinon (cf. chapter VI), the inscription cannot be earlier than the beginning of the second century A.D. It is hardly much later than this date too, because Markos is the only Roman name out of twenty seven names of ephebes and their fathers listed in this inscription. In A.D. 212 the Roman citizenship was granted to all subjects of the Empire. A large number of Aurelii is typical of post-A.D. 212 catalogues. No Aurelius is attested in IGB l2.51. Almost certainly the date of this inscription precedes the year 212 A.D. (Robert, "Inscriptions grecques," 212); most probably it was inscribed in the second century A.D_. In another inscription (IGB 1 .204, 1. 1) the euposiarches Zoilos son of Artemidoros is mentioned. If indeed he was a relative (a son?) of the archiereus Artemidoros son of Zoilos (IGB l2.144bis), as Mihailov (IGB l2, pp. 168, 196) suggests, the inscription in question would be dated in the second-third century A.D. IGB 1 .131 was probably commissioned in Roman 208 responsibilities of the euposiarchs are referred to in our

sources.

The attested office-holders are:

son of [- - 11 v ]wp, second century A.D. 308

Zoilos son of Artemidoros, second-third century A.D.(?) 309

Euphanes son of Zopyrion, the Roman epoch(?) 310

Xenon son of Hestiaios, undated (IGB l2.Ill)

Artemidoros son of Apollodoros, undated (IGB l2.167, 1. 1)

Moschos son of Artemidoros, undated (IGB l2.254, lines 1-2).

Svndikos One of the magistracies held by Klaudios Akylas

2 was that of a syndikos (IGB 1 .63bis, 1. 8). Most probably this is a judicial office of the city and not of an association 311 because IGB 1 2 .63bis was commissioned by the council and people, and the word indicating the office of

syndikos is sandwiched between the words which undoubtedly refer to city magistracies held by the honoree: ap£avxa/ . . .

Kai auvSiKijaavra .../ Kai rapiav trie ndlGoc (lines 7-9).

times too (cf. n. 319).

308IGB l2.51, lines 2-3; date: cf. n. 307.

309 IGB l2.204, lines 1-2; date: cf. n. 307.

310IGB l2.131, lines 1-5; date: cf. n. 319.

3UFor the various meanings of the word o u v Sikoc in epigraphical sources cf. Kahrstedt, RE 4A:1331f, s.v. "Eu v Si k o c ," 2; Poland, Griechische Vereinswesen, 404f. 209

The only attested office-holder is: Klaudios Akylas

(Claudius Aquila), after A.D. 41 (IGB lz.63bis, lines 1-2,

8 ).

Hieropoioi, citv archives In most decrees of the council and people, whose closing formulae are extant, a hieropoios is entrusted with inscribing the document on a stele and placing it at an appropriate location. 312 These are the only attested responsibilities of the hieropoios (always in the singular in our sources). 313 The existence of this magistracy is confirmed beginning in the third century

B.C.314 and continuing until 45/4-42 B.C.315 It may have existed in Roman times too, but no decrees of the council and people dated to that epoch are extant.

The stelae with the decrees of the council and people were stored in various places: the Samothrakion (IGB l2.42,

lines 10-11), the precinct of the temple of Apollo (IGB

3l2IGB l2.41, lines 22-25; 42, lines 9-11; 43, lines 34- 37; most probably also the heavily restored 42bis, lines 11- 13. The only exception is IGB 1 .37bis; in this case no official is named as responsible for inscribing the decree.

313 Similar duties in Kios, Thasos, Delos; cf. J. Oehler, RE 8:1585, s.v. 'iGpoixoioi.

31AThe earliest evidence seems to be the IGB l2.41; cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 90. IGB l2.42 is dated in the third- second century B.C., 42bis - in the second-first century B.C.

315IGB l2.43, cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, pp. 96f. 210

l2.43, lines 36-37), €i< r6 i6p6v (IGB l2.41, lines 24-25).

No single place in Odessos can be called the city archives.

Gvmnasiarches. paneavriarches. acronothetes. ephebarchos The existence of the gymnasiarchs in Odessos is confirmed in the

Hellenistic and Roman epoch. 316 According to a first-

century B.C. inscription the neoi decided to honor a certain

Xenandros by crowning him every year with a wreath. The gymnasiarchs are made responsible for arranging for the public proclamations of this act: xrjv 6' p.e/A.Tiav not fjaaaSai xfjc AvatYOpGfiaGox;/ xou axG&voi> xo0<; xaB'Eicaaxov

Gvi/auxdv y^1 vojaGv [o]uc Yu [^valai<^PXou[< ] (IGB l2.44, lines

8- 11).

Not surprisingly this decree confirms the yearly

tenure of the gymnasiarchs. The plural employed in it

testifies either to the fact that the gymnasiarchia was a

collective magistracy in Odessos, or that the gymnasiarchoi mentioned in it were not magistrates, but citizens liable to

316 The earliest evidence is IGB 1 2 .44 dated by Mihailov in the first century B.C. Other inscriptions (IGB l2.150, 188, 224) are not dated by the editor. IGB l2.224 belongs to the Imperial times, since it reads: auv€0ouaa E€(3octx[u] (1. 10). L. Robert ("Inscriptions grecques," 208) suggests that also IGB l2.45 might have some connections with the gymnasion, because someone (supposedly a gymnasiarch unknown to us) is praised for having organized games in honor of Hermes and Heracles - the tutelary deities of the Greek gymnasia. For undisclosed reasons Danov (Zapadniyat, 109) thinks that the social position and prestige of the gymnasiarchoi in Odessos was as high as that of the priests of the Great God Derzelas. 211 a liturgy. Since the remaining inscriptions shed no light on the nature of the gymnasiarchia, this problem cannot be solved.

The following gymnasiarchs are attested in Odessos: son of [Ap]atourios, first-third century A.D. 317

Asklepiades son of Apellas, undated (IGB l2.150, lines 1-2)

Noumenios son of Agathenor, undated (IGB l2.188, 1. 1).

The pariegyriarcties in Odessos was most probably (as elsewhere) a city magistrate presiding over public festivals, often of a religious character and sometimes held in the city gymnasion. 318 The only attested office-holder is: Euphanes son of Zopyrion of the Roman epoch (?). 319

In Roman times the office of the ag'onothetes is well attested in Odessos. 320 Most probably there was an

317 7 IGB 1 .224, 1. 3. This inscription is not dated by the editor. Since the inscription reads: 06

318 In Odessos: IGB 1 2 .131, lines 6-7. The nature of the office: E. Ziebarth, RE 18:559, s.v. "IIavT|Yopi

319 IGB 1 2 .131, lines 1-3, 6-7. This inscription is not dated by the editor in the IGB, but Mihailov states elsewhere ("Documents §pigraphigues," 269) that the panegyriarchia was attested in Odessos only in Roman times.

320 IGB 1 2 .63bis, 295 and possibly 67, in which inscription 1. 2 could be restored [nov ]t & pxt|v Kai a[yovo0€xi)v] (similar reading as in IGB l2.295, lines 2-3). But this restoration would be very unsafe and variant readings are perfectly possible (cf. Mihailov's commentary, 212

agonothetes specially appointed to preside over each

festival, as one inscription reads: &YO)vo/0GT'nv xov uriy&Atov

321 Tt6vca/Gxr|piK6v dywvwv.

The attested agonothetai are:

Klaudios Akylas (Claudius Aquila), after A.D. 41 A.D. 322

[ — ]r|c son of Theotides, second-third century A.D. 323

In four ephebic lists commissioned during the Roman 324 epoch the office of ephebarchos is attested. In earlier

times there was apparently only one office-holder at a

time. 325 By the beginning of the third century A.D. the

pp. 128f).

321 IGB l2.63bis, lines 5-7. Mihailov (IGB l2, p. 125) suggests that the agon in question may have been held in honor of the Great God Derzelas (Darzaleia) . The cult of Derzelas is well attested in Odessos (IGB l2.47, 47bis, 48, 67, 150, 186ter, 230bis), but no evidence for the festival in_honor of this god is available. Nor is the pentaeterikos agon attested by any other source.

322IGB l2.63bis, lines 1-2, 5-7.

323 IGB 1 2 .295. This inscription is not dated by the editor; since the son of Theotides was both gymnasiarch and pontarch, this inscription cannot be earlier than the beginning of the second century A.D. (about pontarchs: see chapter VI).

32AIGB l2.47 (A.D. 215), 47bis (A.D. 221), 48 (A.D. 238), 50. The last mentioned inscription is not dated by the editor. If Mihailov's restoration of the name of one of the ephebes: [Oua]Adpioc (1. 18) is viable, this inscription should be dated in Roman times. It must be, however, quite early, since this is the only Roman name out of 34 preserved. At any rate, this inscription is certainly earlier than A.D. 212.

325 IGB 1 2 .50, 1. 27 is dated according to the ephebarchy of just one person. 213 number of the ephebarchs active at one time increased. Our evidence suggests that this number grew to two at one time. 326 There was some official hierarchy among them, 327 since the first ephebarch is attested in A.D. 238. The following names of the office-holders are known to us: the first ephebarch:

K[- -] son of Gaios Flabios Bassos, A.D. 238 (IGB l2.48, lines 6-7) ephebarchs:

Hestiaios son of Dionysios, Roman times, before A.D. 212

(IGB l2. 50, 1. 27)

Aurelios Dionysodoros son of Ioulianos, A.D. 215

Aurelios Agathenor, son of Ioulianos, A.D. 215 328

Markos A u r e l i o s Attes son of Dionysios, A.D. 221 (IGB l2.47bis, lines 7-8).

326IGB l2.47, lines 6-7 (A.D. 215).

327iGB l2.48, 1. 6: Ttpoxoc 6 €rj|3apxo<;.

328Both (brothers): IGB l2.47, lines 6-7. 214

5. Callatis.

Archons As in Mesambria the archonship most probably was not introduced in Callatis during the period of colonization, because at this time this magistracy did not belong to the official structure of Megara and Heraclea

Pontica. 329 In Callatis the archonship is attested only in the second and third centuries A.D. 330 Very probably it was initiated there in the Roman epoch under the constitutional influence of the neighboring Ionian cities (Tomis,

Istros).331 The later of the two inscriptions referred to above testifies that there was a board of archons with a president.332

Thamm, De re publica, 28-31; Hanell, Megarische Studien, 145. The highest magistrates in Megara were the demiourgoi (or damiourgoi in Doric dialect usedin Megara, Hanell, ib., 138). Some scholars (Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennyye ustroystva," 42; eadem, Zapadnopontiyske, 197; Pippidi, Greci, 82; Preda, Callatis, 16) think that the demiourgoi were originally a part of the official structure of Callatis too, but this office is not attested there (cf. §tefan, "Callatis ci l'&poque," 169).

330Toeilescu, AEM (1882) :4, no. 4, dated in the second century A.D. by §tefan, "Callatis & l'6poque," 169; Bordenache, "Antichitci greche," 506-509 (cf. Robert, B&p 1962, 226) dated in the first half of the third century A.D. by Pippidi, "Nuovo pontarco," 511. 331 Pippidi, "Nuovo pontarco," 513; Preda, Callatis, 17; Stefan, "Callatis cl l'6poque," 169

332Bordenache, "Antichitci greche," 506-509: &pxovx€<;oi n€pi $A,(crthov) $&pov (1. 2). 215

The only attested archon is this president of the board

Phl(auios) Pharon of the first half of the third century

A.D.

Military officials The office of the stretegos (stratagos

in Doric dialect) is well attested in Megara 333 and its

introduction into Callatis may have taken place in the

period of colonization. Its actual presence in Callatis,

however, is attested only in the Hellenistic and Roman

epoch.33* The strategoi were basically a board of military

officials. Their attested responsibilities were, however,

not military but diplomatic and legislative. Once the

council and people entrusted the strategoi with the mission

of bringing to Apollonia an honorary decree for a citizen of

that city. 335 In Roman times the strategoi — co-sponsored a

decree of the council and people concerned with the distribution of land. 336 Yet the analogy to other Greek

cities where the responsibilities of the strategoi are

333 Hanell, Megarische Studien, 138ff, 145.

33AJirefiek, AEM 10 (1886): 197-201 (= SGDI 3089), dated by Szanto (AEM 10 [1886]: 201) in the second-first century B.C., before 72 B.C.; Tofiilescu, AEM 11 (1887): 32, no. 32 (= IGR 1.656), the Roman epoch.

335SGDI 3089.

336 IGR 1.656: the word KSvxoptac is mentioned. Cagnat (IGR 1, p. 217) interprets it as an indication of the involvement of the strategoi in the distribution of land. 2 1 6 better attested makes us agree with the scholars who attribute to this board in Callatis primary responsibility

for military matters. 337

The only attested office-holder is [M]onianos of the

Roman epoch (IGR 1.656).

Financial magistracies J. and L. Robert restore a partly damaged honorific inscription which reads: [t 6 6£ avalo^a

338 i)]rroT€[A.Gaai t 6 v xaniav]. If this restoration is viable,

the inscription in question would provide us with

information about the tamias as the magistrate responsible

for providing funds for inscribing decrees of the council and people. Nevertheless, the uncertainty about the

restoration cannot be removed. Still the existence of this magistracy in Callatis should not be doubted, because the title tamias is preserved in a first-second century A.D.

inscription.. . . 339

Another board of financial officials which may have

existed in Callatis is that of the meristai. This board was probably responsible for sending gifts to honorees:

337 Pippidi, Greci, 82; Preda, Callatis, 17.

338 BEp ^ 1964, 287; editio princeps of the inscription: Aricescu, "Nota asupra decret," 315-318.

339A. Radulescu, "Inscriptii inedite din Dobrogea," SCIV 14 (1963): 83f, no. 6 (= SEG 24.1035); no meaningful context is extant. 217 anocruGt Aon 8£ auroi Kai £6vta t o O c ji[Gpiax

Other economic magistracies In the Hellenistic and Roman epochs the office of the agoranomoi is well attested in

Callatis.341 The agoranomoi in Callatis, as elsewhere, supervised weights and measures used in commerce; hence their names occur in stamps on weights.342

The following names of the office-holders are recorded:

3 4 3 Apollodoros, Hellenistic epoch

AIIOAAO, Hellenistic epoch344

3 4 5 AIEXI, beginning of the Roman epoch.

Two other economic magistracies attested in Callatis are the euposiarches and seitones. The first of them was in

340Robert, Btp 1964, 287.

341Aricescu, "Nota asupra decret," (dated by the editor in the third-second century B.C.).

342Cf. notes 343-345.

343R. Netzhammer, "Marunti?uri Arheologice," Revista CatolicS 1 (1914): 4 = Ruzicka, "Inedita," 75, no. 3; G. Severeanu, "Ponduri Pontice inedite," Revista Muzeului Municipului Bucure$ti (1935, no. 1): 12; Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 260, no. 2, 263, no. 3. Severeanu prints: AIIOAAO/Aopoy (p. 12) and he wonders whether the name of the agoranomos was Apollodotos or Apollonios (pp. 12f). The photograph of the weight (p. 12, fig. 2) clearly shows that the name should be read: ’ AitoAlo/Sepou, the genitive of Apollodoros.

3 4 4 Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 270, no. 17. This can be the abbreviation of the name of Apollodoros (or Apollodotos).

3 4 5 Moisil, "Ponduri inedite," 270, no. 20. This is probably the abbreviation of the name Aischines. 218 all likelihood responsible for securing grain supplies for the city, because the only euposiarch known to us is praised by the people for his action during famine.31,6 The tenure of the euposiarch was probably one year and a person could hold this magistracy more than once. 347

The only attested office-holder is Isagoras son of

Iatrokles, first century A.D. (SEG 16.428).

The seitonia in Callatis too is known from only one honorific inscription of the second century A.D. 348 Usually the sitonai were official cornbuyers 349 and their responsibilities seem to have overlapped those of the euposiarch. 350______Since the office of the euposiarches_ is attested in Callatis in the first century A.D. and that of the seitonai - in the second century A.D., one cannot be sure that these magistracies were contemporaneous.

3*6The inscription published by Russu ( "Decret de Callatis," 179-190 = SEG 16.428); cf. Robert, Btip 1959, 259; $tefan, "Callatis A l'£poque," 190.

31,7 SE G 16.428, 1. 7: Si aCunocu r Robert, B & p 1959, 259.

3A8ToCilescu, AEM 6 (1882): 4, no. 4, 1. 5.

349J. H. M. Straubbe, "The Sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate," Epigraphica Anatolica 10 (1987): 45ff.

350§tefan, "Callatis A l'§pnque," 190. 219

Eisacroaeis Two Hellenistic inscriptions record the board of the eisagogeis. 351 Most probably they were judicial officials of a yearly tenure. 352 In one of these

353 inscriptions the word Si Kaaxfjpi ov is still extant.

Unfortunately extensive damage makes it impossible to learn anything more about the responsibilities of the eisagogeis in this context.

One name of the president of the eisagogeis is attested: Herakleon son of Andosthenes of the Hellenistic epoch., 354

Gvmnasiarches. aaonothetes Most probably a gymnasion existed in Callatis in the Hellenistic epoch or maybe even earlier. In the first century A.D. it was redecorated and reorganized by a certain Apollonios, who instituted new

351Sauciuc-Saveanu, "Eioayoyeic," 91-96 (cf. Robert, B£p 1939, 232); idem, "Callatis," (1927-1932), 423f (cf. Roussel, Flac§liere, Bfip 1936, p. 373).

352The tenure of the eisagogeis is equal to the term of office of the city eponymous magistrate, the basileus: 6iaayoy€ic roue (3aai/kEo$ (B$p 1939, 232, lines 5-6). Thus the tenure of the board of the eisagogeis was not one year and one month, as Blavatskaya ("Vnutrennye ustroystva, " 43) suggested.

353B&p 1936, p. 373, 1. 11. About the judiciary nature of the board of the eisagogeis in Callatis: Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennye ustroystva," 43; Robert, "Divinit6s 6ponymes," 52f; Pippidi, Greci, 82; Preda, Callatis, 17.

354Bip 1939, 232, lines 3-4. 220

355 rules governing its usage by the: £rjPoi, vGoi , y6poi .

The office of the gymnasiarcties is attested also in the third century A.D. 356

Only one name of the office-holder is recorded:

Apollonios, first half of the first century A.D. 357

The same Apollonios was also an agonothetes, the only

358 such magistrate attested in Callatis.

355V. PSrvan, Gerusia din Callatis, vol. 39 of the ser. 2 of AAR (Bucuresti 1920), llff (publication of the inscription = SEG 1.327), 36ff (commentary). Pippidi ("Sur les g^rousies d'Istros et de Callatis," in XapiCTT^piov Sic A. K. ’ OpXavSov, vol. 4 [Athens 1967], 81 = SEG 24.1029 ) publishes a new fragment of this inscription and dates it in the first half of the first century A.D. (p. 80).

356Tofiilescu, AEM 19 (1896): 106, no. 60, 1. 4.

357SEG 1.327, 1. 5.

358 SEG 1.327, lines 15-16. He was also a gerousiarches, but the gerousia does not seem to have been a state board (as e.g. in Sparta), but rather an association, first established by Apollonios (Pippidi, "Sur les g^rousies," 8Of). Therefore it falls beyond the scope of this work. 221

6. Mesambria.

Archons The archonship is not an original Megarian magistracy. In all likelihood it was introduced into Megara at the time when it belonged to the Boeotian League (223-192

B.C.), i.e. about four hundred years after its Western

Pontic colonies had been planted. 359 With regard to

Byzantium, the second city which participated in the foundation of Mesambria, our sources (Diod. 14.2) use the word archontes in the sense of the magistracies in general. 360 Almost certainly the archonship never existed in Calchedon - the third co-founder of Mesambria. 361 Most probably, therefore, the archonship was not initiated in

Mesambria during the period of colonization. Possibly the citizens of Mesambria introduced this magistracy later under the constitutional influence of neighboring Ionian cities.

The archonship in Mesambria is attested by two first- century B.C. inscriptions. 362 There was a board of archontes with a president; one inscription reads: xouc

359Thamm, De re publica, 28-31; Hanell, Megarische Studien, 145.

360Merle, Geschichte Byzantion, 72.

361Archons are never mentioned in the inscriptions of Calchedon (cf. Inschr. Kalchedon).

362IGB l2.344 and 315. 222

363 [apxov ]ra? x:oi><; it€/pi. In the other inscription (IGB lz. 344, 1. 9) the members of this board may have been referred to as synarchontes.

The only attested official responsibility of the archons was to provide funds to cover the expenses of commissioning and placing in a temple a statue honoring a physician, Glaukias son of Athanaios (IGB lz.315, lines 13-

15) .

The following names of archons are recorded: the president of the archontes: Diodoros son of

Dioskouridas, end(?) of the first century B.C. (IGB l2.315, lines 14-15) archon: Ariston, first century B.C. (IGB l2.344, lines 3,

9 )-

Military officials Six inscriptions provide ample evidence for the strategoi in Mesambria in the late second and first

363 IGB 1 2 .315, lines 15-16. I have printed the beginning of the word archontas in the square brackets following Mihailov's edition. But the editor (IGB l2, p. 277) asserts that in fact on stone there are still visible traces of the letters which he put in the square brackets, especially ARXO. Therefore this partial restoration should be perceived as very safe. Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 202) suggested that the title of the president of the board of archontes was the first archon and that this title was inscribed on Mesambrian coins in the f^rm of a monogram: = Ti(poroc) oc(px<>>v). Mihailov (IGB 1 , p. 277) correctly pointed out that this monogram was an abbreviation of a proper name, apparently of a monetary official. 223

century B.C.364 The board of the strategoi consisted of six

members. The same number of generals is attested in

Megara. 365 Even if the strategeia — is not confirmed in

Mesambria before the late second century B.C., we may

suppose that it was a magistracy of Megarian origin.

36ASecond half of the second century-first century B.C. : Venedikov, "Trois reliefs," 95, no. 4 (= SEG 30.702; cf. G. Mihailov, Philologia 8-9 [1981]: 101-105); no. 5 (= SEG 30.703); no. 6 (= SEG 30.704); first century B.C.: IGB l2.324; 326; ca. 55-48 B.C.: IGB l2.323. M. A. Vianu ("L'iconographie des reliefs aux stratSges de Mesambria," St. Cl. 24 [1986]: 102-103) tries to date tentatively the inscriptions edited by Venedikov in ca. 100 B.C. This is based on identification of a certain Apollas (SEG 30.702, no. 7), called "un strat&ge" by Vianu with the monetary official (his actual title is unknown) of the same name, attested on coins minted ca. 100 B.C. (coins: L. Muller, Numismatique d'Alexandre le Grand [Copenhague 1855], 178, no. 446; I. Karayotov, Arkheologiya [Sofia] 4 [1976]: 58). This identification is but conjectural; in any case we may be sure that this Apollas was not a strategos. The reliefs in question represent a scene of sacrifices performed by the strategoi. There were six generals in Mesambria (plus the secretary) and there are seven names with patronymics inscribed under the six large figures and the altar on the relief no. 3 published by Venedikov (cf. his description, p. 91). The name of Apollas appears between the figures no. 6 and 7, under one of the small figures and it is not accompanied by the patronymic. As Vianu most correctly pointed out (p. 103) the small figures represented persons of lesser importance, perhaps very young sacrificial assistants. Thus Apollas was one of them. Even if this Apollas known from relief no. 3 is identical with that attested by the coins (this needs to be proven), those artifacts can not be closely contemporaneous, for Apollas had to be a man of a certain age in order to become a magistrate, whose name was inscribed on coins. The relief is probably earlier than the coins.

365 IG 7.1, nos.: 1-9; cf. Hanell, Megarische Studien, 138ff. 224

One of the strategoi presided over the board.

Apparently he was not distinguished by any special title and the presidency of the board was marked ass Expaxayoi xol nGpi AGivopGvri xdv ‘HpoxGipou. 366 In four inscriptions the names of the strategoi are accompanied by that of a gramma teus.367

The strategoi were magistrates who primarily exercised military functions. They commanded the Mesambrian troops in the war with Burebista (IGB l2.323, lines 4-5) and certainly

368 on other occasions too. The guardsmen ([u]laicGc apGpivot vuKxGpivot TtGpCoSoi ) 369 mentioned in inscriptions alongside the strategoi undoubtedly were their subordinates. Seure 370 hypothesized that the responsibilities of the strategoi included policing the

366 SEG 30.703 A, 1. 1; similarly in: SEG 30.702 A, 1. 1.

367 2 IGB 1 .323, 1. 6 (cf. Hanell, Megarische Studien, 159); 324, 1. 5; SEG 30.703 B, no. 8; 704, no. 8. The name of the secretary may have been recorded in SEG 30.702 too, but this inscription is damaged, so that the lower part of it has perished.

368The dedications to Heros Sosipolis (SEG 30.703 A) and to Dionysos Eleuthereus (IGB 1 .324, cf. Mihailov's commentary, p. 285) commissioned by the strategoi and the guardsmen, and the other one to Athena Soteira (IGB l2.326 ) commissioned by the strategoi may have commemorated propitious outcomes of military encounters. Cf. Venedikov, "Trois reliefs," 89.

369IGB l2.324, 1. 7; similarly: SEG 30.703 A, 1. 2. Cf. Mihailov, "Documents gpigraphiques," 269.

370 Seure, "Arch6ologie Thrace," 426f. 225 city; but this is not confirmed by our sources.

The following names of the strategoi and their secretaries are recorded: president of the board:

Deinomenes son of Heroteimos, late second - early first century B.C. (SEG 30.703 A, 1. 1) strategoi: late second - early first century B.C.:

Apollonios son of Diony[si]os, grandson of Oinias (SEG

30.704, no. 6)371

Chairephanes son of Artemidoros (SEG 30.704, no. 3)

Chairon son of Choreios (SEG 30.703 B, no. 2)

Dionysios son of Apollonio[s] (SEG 30.704, no. 4)

Eumachos son of Memnon (SEG 30.703 B, no. 1)

Ision son of [Da]matrios (SEG 30.704, no. 1)

Kraton son of Aristoneikos (SEG 30.703 B, no. 6)

Oinias (SEG 30.702 B)

Polyxenos son of Melseon (SEG 30.703 B, no. 7)

Prodikos son of Mi[n]ikeon (SEG 30.704, no. 2)

171 Mihailov (Philologia 8-9 [1981]: 101-105) thinks that the strategoi Apollonios and Dionysios were father and son and that Oinias, the grandfather of Apollonios is identical with the general known from SEG 30.702 and the monetary officer of the same name known from Mesambrian coins (Muller, Numismatique, 178, no. 477) minted about the third quarter of the second century B.C. This conclusion (assumption?) is based on the comparative rarity of the name Oinias. Cf. Venedikov, "Trois reliefs," 81-85. [Prodi]kos [...(.)]pi a (SEG 30.704, no. 5)

Pythangelos son of Epikrates (SEG 30.703, no. 5) first century B.C.:

Antiandros son of Pythodoro[s] (IGB l2.324, 1. 2)

Antiphilos son Kalligeiton (IGB l2.324, 1. 3)

Athanaios son of Mathodoros (IGB l2.326, 1. 5)

Bosporichos son of Ant[iph]ilos (IGB l2.324, 1. 4)

Deinomenes son of Noumenios (IGB l2.326, 1. 2)

Hekataios son of Moiragenes (IGB l2.326, 1. 3)

Heraion son of Alphios (IGB l2.326, 1. 6)

Konon son of Athanaios (IGB l2.324, 1. 2)

Nikon son of Philemon (IGB l2.326, 1. 1)

Pythion son of Polynikos (IGB l2.326, 1. 4)

Theotimos son of Herakleidas (IGB l2.324, 1. 4)

Zopyros son of Hellan (IGB l2.324, 1. 3) ca . 55-48 B.C.:

Dameas son of Dionysio[s] (IGB l2.323, 1. 3)

Moschos son of Philemon (IGB l2.323, 1. 1)

Xenokles son of Lachetas (IGB l2.323, 1. 2) secretaries:

Apollodoros son of Pausanias, late second-early first century B.C. (SEG 30.703 B, no. 8)

Echestrato[s] son of Antiphilos, late second-early first century B.C. (SEG 30.704, no. 8) 227

Athanion son of Bosporichos, first century B.C. (IGB l2.324,

1. 5).

In the first century B.C. another military board is attested in Mesambria - the taxiarches, known from one broken inscription (IGB l2.325) containing their dedication to Aphrodite. Scholars generally agree (based on this one text) that there were six taxiarchs 372 and some have even tried to estimate the numerical strength of the Mesambrian army supposedly consisting of six taxeis. 373 The number six is, however, not certain, since IGB l2.325 is fragmentary and some more names (up to six) may have been originally inscribed on it.37A

The following names of the office-holders are extant on

IGB l2.325:

Artemidoros son of Artem[- -] (1. 4)

372 Cf. Mihailov, IGB 1 2 , p. 286 for reference.

373 Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 199) thinks that one taxis was composed of 128 hoplites, hence the total strength of the Mesambrian army would amount to 700-800 hoplites. Elsewhere ("Vnutrennyye ustroystva," 43f) she estimates that the Mesambrian army consisted of about 2400 soldiers. Due to scarcity of evidence none of these numbers can be verified, the second one is obviously exaggerated.

3 7 4 The names of the taxiarchoi are inscribed in a column. The original size of the stone is unknown, so one cannot reject a possibility that another six names were inscribed in another column to the right. On the photograph published by Mihailov (IGB 1 , tab. 162) part of the letter T is visible in 1. 1, after the patronymic of the first taxiarch. It might be the first letter of the name of a seventh taxiarch. 228

Diodoros son of E[- -] (1. 6)

Hermodoros son of Ch[ ] (1. 5)

[H]erotimos son of Herakleidas (1. 1)

Matrobios (1. 3)

Promathion son of A[- -] (1. 2).

Financial magistracies, citv archives, kervx The tamiai are attested in the fourth and third-second centuries

B.C. 375 According to the evidence of our sources there was only one office-holder at a time. In most cases the tamias

is named in the closing formulae of the decrees of the

council and people, as a magistrate in charge of inscribing the decree and placing the stele at the appropriate

location. 3 76 The tamias performed the same duty with respect to international treaties too. 377

The responsibilities of this magistracy were, however, broader than that. A certain Dionysios son of Agesidamos was

375 Fourth century B.C.: IGB 1 2 .316; third century B.C.: IGB l2.307, 307bis, 308bis, 308ter, 308undecies; third- second century B.C.: IGB l2.312.

376IGB l2.307bis, lines 24-28; 308bis, lines 15-18; 308ter, lines 9-13; 308undecies, lines 2-6; 312, lines 11- 14.

377 IGB 1 2 .307, lines 11-16 (a treaty between Mesambria and the Odrysian king Sadalas - ca. 281-277 B.C.). These responsibilities of the tamiai in Mesambria paralleled those of the secretary of the people in Megara (Thamm, De re publics, 33f). 229

praised by the council and people for having splendidly

managed some city possession (or money - the word is missing

on the stone) in his capacity as a tamiasi [aip£0€ic vel.

sim.] rapiac kolX&q Kai SiKatec 6i

12.316, 1. 7). Therefore the tamias may have been an

official responsible for managing city finances.

The attested office-holders are;

Dionysios son of Agesidamos, fourth century B.C. (IGB

12.316, lines 1-2, 6-7)

Antaios son of Thessalos, third century B.C. (IGB l2.308ter,

lines 7-9).

The closing formulae of the decrees of the council and people record the decision to place the stele at an

appropriate location. In the third and second century B.C.

it was usually the precinct of the temple of Apollo, 378 only once that of the temple of Dionysos (IGB l2.308ter,

lines 11-13). Apparently the precinct of the temple of

Apollo functioned as the city archives. The evidence pertaining to later periods is very scarce. One inscription

(IGB l2.315, 1. 20) of the late first century B.C., an honorary decree for a physician, Glaukias son of Athanaios was to be placed at the Asklepieon. 379 The precinct of the

378IG0 l2.307, lines 13-14; 307bis, lines 26-28; 308bis, lines 17-18; 308undecies, lines 5-6; 312, lines 13-14.

379IGB i2 315, 1. 20. 230 temple of Asklepios may have been preferred over that of

Apollo because of the profession of the honorand.

In the Hellenistic epoch the decision of the people to honor someone with a wreath was (at least sometimes) publicly proclaimed by a herald (K&pv£) during a ceremony held in the theatre.380

Other economic magistracies The agoranomoi in Mesambria are attested by only one early third century A.D. inscription (IGB l2.317). It bears a decree issued by two agoranomoi, who ordered all merchants to register with them in accordance with the city laws rc&vxac xoi>c

KarGp/yaCopGvotx; x^v Tt6A.iv £px€a0ai Kai/ 6tnoYp<5w|)Go0(a)i .381

Images of weights and measures in relief accompany the text of the decree. 382 They symbolize the control of the agoranomoi over weights and measures used in commerce.

380 2 IGB 1 .308bis, lines 9-10 and perhaps 313, lines 3-4.

381 IGB 21 .317, lines 5-7. There had been a controversy surrounding the meaning of the word KaxGpya£o|i£voo<; (cf. Robert, "Inscriptions grecques," 169, n. 5 and Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 279). Ad. Wilhelm (Glotta 14 [ 1925]: 73f) proved that this word was used in the sense of the merchants in the inscription in question (this was first postulated by Kleinsorge, De civitatum Graecarum, 43). Robert ("Inscriptions grecques," 169, n. 5) and Mihailov (IGB l2, p. 279) approve of this interpretation.

382 2 Description of the relief in IGB 1 , pp. 278f. 231

The agoranomia was apparently a collective magistracy in Mesambria, at least in the Roman epoch. 383 The two known agoranomoi were also bouleutal (IGB l2.317, lines 4-5). One piece of evidence is clearly insufficient to ascertain whether they held places on the city council by virtue of their office 384 or for some other reason.

The names of the two agoranomoi are:

Aurelios Asklepiades son of Asklepiades, first half of the third century A.D.

Aurelios Demosthenes son of Tatas, the same year.

One late Hellenistic dedication to Sarapis and Isis was commissioned by a certain Eixj>a[ji]i Sac ’ Erta[n€i ]/vovoc apXixGK[xev] (IGB l2.328, lines 1-2). He was a supervisor of some architectural works in Mesambria. 385 The exact meaning

383 Blavatskaya (Zapadnopontiyske, 199) believes that the office of the agoranomoi existed already in the Hellenistic epoch. This is a very plausible suggestion.

384 Danov, Zapadniyat, 121.

385 His name is attested in a brick stamp published by L. Ognenova-Marinova ("Tuiles et terres cuites architecturales," in Ness&bre, vol. 2, 111, no. 6 = SEG 30.705), who argues strongly for the identification of Euphajnidas known from the stamp with that attested in the IGB 1 .328 (p. 152). The abbreviation of the name Euphamidas (EY$A) appears also on Mesambrian coins (Gerasimov, "Neizdadeni avtonomni moneti," 30f; cf. Ognenova-Marinova, "Tuiles," 154). JSven if this Euphamidas was the same person as the architekton, his name was clearly placed on the coins because he supervised the city mint or was an eponymous magistrate and not because he was an architekton. 232 of his title is not completely clear to u s . 386 The architekton may have been a private contractor hired by the city, but he could also be a commissioner of works. The evidence does not enable us to conclude without reservation that the architekton was a city magistrate. 387

Gvmnasiarches. aaonothetes The office of the gymnasiarches is attested twice: in the third century B.C. (IGB lz.322bis) and in A.D. 41-54 (IGB l2.322). These inscriptions do not convey any meaningful details pertaining to this magistracy in Mesambria, except for names of the office-holders:

Laios son of Boiotos, third century B.C. (IGB l2.322bis, lines 2-3)

Gnaios son of Gnaios, A.D. 41-54 (IGB l2.322, lines 2-3).

386Cf. LSJ, s.v. &p%i tGktuv .

387Ognenova-Marinova ("Tuiles,") publishes a few more brick stamps with names of other architektonesi Antheteios (111, no. 5), Moschos (114, no. 12), Rhebadas (143, no. 72). All are reprinted in SEG 30.705. The latter two names are also attested in stamps published by J. Vinogradov (in Actes de IXs Congr&s d'Gpigraphie grecque et latine, 55-58). Another stamps published by Vinogradov attest architektones Moschon (again) and Anthesterios (all reprinted in SEG 37.615). For Vinogradov an architekton was a magistrate and an owner of a workshop at the same time. The architekton in Athens was a magistrate responsible for assigning of proedria in the theatre (A. S. Henry, Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees [Hildesheim 1983], 293f), but it would be rather adventurous to look for analogy in the case of Mesambria. 233

According to the evidence of the same inscription the

last named magistrate was also an agonothetes. He is the

only attested holder of this office in Mesambria.

Enadeis, nomophylakes. eklooistai One fragmentary

Hellenistic inscription 388 contains an account of the

official activity of boards of enadeis. It consists of short

entries, each apparently describing their activity in one

year, since the name of their president changes. 389 The

enadeis in each case were submitting the names of wrongdoers

to the nomophylakes and eklogistai: ’EvaSGic •••/

390 Ttapaypd^ovTi Gul Gk Ao y i c t & c t o i >c nGpi t 6 v SGivov. The

context suggests that the nomophylakes and eklogistai were

388IGB l2.314b. Date: Mihailov (IGB l2, p. 274 ) states only that this inscription is earlier than IGB 1 .314a, dated securely in 71 B.C.

389The same president is named in the entries no. 1 (1. 1) and no. 3 (1. 11). Each of these entries, however, relates to a different activity of that group of enadeis: in the first they report to the nomophylakes, in the second to the eklogistai. The entries begin: ’ EvaSGi c oi rtGpi rlauKiav rdv ’Ap^iovoc (lines 1, 11). Dechev ("Prinos kSm istoriata," 66) thinks that Glaukias was an eponymous magistrate of the city. But when the board of the eklogistai active in the same year is referred to, a different name (Herakleidas son of Herodoros) is mentioned in the analogous position as that of Glaukias. Therefore most probably Glaukias and Herakleidas were both presidents of their respective boards and not the eponymous magistrates of the city.

390IGB l2.314b, lines 11-12; similarly, lines 1-2 and 7- 8. Cf. Ad. Wilhelm, "Inschriften des Bundes der Magneten," Hermes 44 (1909): 51ff concerning the meaning of the word i x a p a Y p<5k|)

391 controlling or auditing boards. Therefore one may think that the enadeis were responsible for conducting preliminary

investigation, perhaps followed up by the nomophylakes and

eklogistai.

The following names of the presidents of above mentioned boards are recorded in IGB lz.314bs

enadeis: Glaukias son of Amphion (lines 1, 11)

Bianor son of Dionysios (1. 7)

eklogistai: Herakleidas son of Herodoros (1. 13).

391Cf. Robert, Bfip 1952, 87. The powers of the nomophylakes differed in various Hellenistic cities (cf. Ziebarth, "Nopo<|>6A,aK€c," 832f). They are attested in Calchedon, as a law enforcement (Thamm, De re publica, 33f) or auditing (Merle, Geschichte Byzantion, 74) magistracy. 235

TABLE 1: Municipal Offices in the Western Pontus.1

Eponymous Is To Di Od Ca Me offices: basileus x x? epimenioi x X pontarch x priest x X priest of Apollo x

Other offices: agonothetes x x X x x agoranomos x x x x x x antephebarchos x architekton x archon x x x x x x deka x eisagogeis X ekdikos x eklogistai X enadeis X ephebarchos X X euposiarches X X X eutheniarches X

!The table shows which offices are attested in the cities of our interest: Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis, Odessos, Callatis and Mesambria. 236

Table 1 (continued)

Is To Di Od Ca He gymnasiarches XX X X X x hegemones XX hieropoios X karyx x

logistes X meristai X X? nauarchos X nomophylakes X oikonomos X X orphanistai X panegyriarches X

seitones X

strategos X x X

syndikos X tamias XX X x taxiarchos X x teichopoios X toxarches X CHAPTER Vt THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE WESTERN

PONTIC CITIES.

1. Colonies of Miletus flstros. Tomis. Dionvsopolis,

Odessos).

Aristotle {Pol. 1305b.2-13) names Istros as an example of constitutional transformation leading from oligarchy to democracy: "Sometimes when the honours of office are shared by very few, dissolution originates from the wealthy themselves, but not those that are in office, as for example has occurred at Marseilles, at Istrus, at Heraclea, and in other states; for those who did not share in the magistracies raised disturbances until at first stage the older brothers were admitted, and later the younger ones again (for in some places a father and a son may not hold office together, and in others an elder and a younger brother may not). At Marseilles the oligarchy became more constitutional, while at Istrus it ended in becoming democracy, and in Heraclea the government passed from a 238 smaller number to six hundred."1

Istros is mentioned in the context of Massalia and

Heraclea, both governed by rather narrow oligarchies. In

Istros probably the number of citizens participating in the government was very limited too. Possibly the oligarchs in

Istros belonged to the families descending from the original settlers.2

Aristotle does not say when the democratic constitution was introduced into Istros. Some scholars speculate that this happened during the Pontic expedition of Pericles with some help from the Athenian navy.3 At that time the government of Istros was allegedly modelled according to the

Athenian pattern; it is argued that a new decimal division of the citizen body was introduced.4 This alleged constitutional influence of Athens, however, is not confirmed by the present study of the government of Istros.5

translated by H. Rackham (Loeb, p. 403). The most important is 1. 11: £v 'Iaxptp 6' Gi c Stjpov aTtET6A.€uT6a£v) .

this happened sometimes in colonies, e.g. Thera or Apollonia on the Ionian Gulf (Aristotle, Pol. 1920b); cf. Pippidi, Greci, 59.

Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 50 (cf.: eadem, "Vnutrennyye ustroystva," 37); Pippidi, Greci, 61ff; idem, "A propos des tribus," 465. Danov (Zapadniyat, 51) prefers to date this event at the turn of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.

4Pippidi, Greci, 82; "A propos des tribus," 465.

5Chapter I, p. 33; chapter III, pp. 114f. 239

To postulate a democratic coup in the 440's B.C. seems unlikely, because local sources indicate that in the late fifth-early fourth century B.C. the oligarchy was still entrenched in Istros. A group of five inscriptions6 provides us with information about a family whose two members

(Hippolochos I and Hegesagoras) were eponymous priests. Two others (Xenokles and Theoxenos II) dedicated a temple of

Apollo, the tutelary god of the city.7 At the moment when the inscription ISM 1.144 was commissioned, Xenokles and

Theoxenos II were quite young since this was the year when their grandfather held the eponymous priesthood. Therefore it seems very probable that the costly enterprise of erecting or restoring the temple which in turn led to commissioning the inscription, ISM 1.144, was undertaken by

6ISM 1.144, 169, 170, 236, 237. The date of the earliest of them (ISM 1.169, 170), according to P3rvan (Hlstria 4: 533) and Jeffery (Local Scripts, 368), is the end of the fifth century B.C. Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 303; Greci, 59ff) disputes it and proposes the first two decades of the fourth century B.C. He points to the fact that archaic forms of the genitive singular in -o (instead of -ou) , as ’ IniToXdxo (ISM 1.169, 1. 1), appear in fourth-century B.C. inscriptions. Indeed this way of spelling is attested, besides ISM 1.169 and 170, only in inscriptions from the first half of the fourth century B.C.: ISM 1.231, 232, 235. In the mid-fourth century B.C., at the latest, it was replaced by the genitive in -ou (the earliest attested examples: ISM 1.238, 242). In ISM 1.144 the genitive in -ou is attested. Since ISM 1.169 and 170 precede ISM 1.144 by one generation (or less) the date of these earlier inscriptions is probably not much earlier than the beginning of the fourth century B.C. There is not enough evidence to set these dates more precisely.

1 ISM 1.144 is inscribed on the temple's architrave. 240 the entire family of Theodotos. Pippidi8 restores the family stemma as follows (numbers in parentheses refer to relevant inscriptions published in ISM 1):

Theodotos (144, 169, 170)

Hippolochos I (169, 170) Hegesagoras (144)

Theoxenos I (169) Hippolochos II (144, 236, 237)

Xenokles (144) Theoxenos II (144)

The influence and power concentrated in the hands of the descendants of Theodotos is hardly compatible with a full-fledged democratic constitution. On the other hand the active role played by younger members of the family alongside the older ones (Xenokles and Theoxenos II active in the year of their grandfather's eponymous priesthood) may indicate that the period of recorded activity of the family of Theodotos postdates the narrow oligarchy described by

Aristotle. In any case, no more than one member of the family of Theodotos is known to have held a public office at a given time. Thus the inscriptions ISM 1.144, 169, 170,

236, 237 convey an impression of constitutional arrangements more relaxed than those typical of a narrow oligarchy.

Perhaps these inscriptions belong to a transitional period between the original narrow oligarchy and the democracy already in place at the time of composition of Aristotle's

6ISM 1, p. 283. 241

Politics. This would indicate that the democratic government was introduced into Istros in the fourth century B.C., perhaps not much earlier than mid-century. This assertion is, of course, hypothetical. The inscriptions ISM 1.144,

169, 170, 236, 237 testify only to the comparative importance of the family of Theodotos in Istros; they do not prove that the constitution of this city was still oligarchic at the time when they were commissioned.

Practically nothing is known about the character of the constitution of Tomis, Odessos and Dionysopolis in pre-

Hellenistic times. Odessos, founded in the seventh century

B.C. and Tomis, planted in the sixth century B.C. may (like

Istros) have enjoyed an oligarchic government in their early history, but no evidence confirms this assumption.

Innumerable Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions mention the council and people as the ruling bodies of Istros,

Tomis, Dionysopolis and Odessos. In all likelihood Istros remained a democratic city for some time at least. Yet the term Sfipoc in formulae of decrees does not necessarily imply a democratic form of government. In the Roman epoch in bilingual inscriptions ’Iaxpiotvwv o Sfjpog is translated

9Stoian ("Citti Tomis," 265; Tomitana, 184f) thinks that Tomis was originally ruled by an oligarchy, yet even he admits that this assumption is based only on the analogy with Istros. 242

Histrianorum ciuitas10 and 0ouA,t) Sfipoc ’ Icrxpiavov is rendered ciuitas Histrianorum.11 In the case of Tomis the name |3ouA,fj 8t)poc TonGixwv is translated respublica

Tomitanorum.12 Neither the word ciuitas nor respublica implies a democratic cast for the constitutions of Istros,

Tomis or Odessos.13 It may therefore be safely assumed that in the Greek parts of these inscriptions the phrases 0oulr)

Sfipoc ’iCTxptavev (Top.Gix

10ISM 1.150 (A.D. 157-159) and most probably ISM i 149 (A.D. 157-159): ’ Iaxpiot[vuv o Sflpoc] vs. [Hist]ria[norum ci]uitas.

n ISM 1.151 (A.D. 154-155); the phrase ciuitas Histrianorum is attested also in ISM 1.152, 155.

12Bilingual inscriptions: ISM 2.48 (A.D. 117-118), 84 (A.D. 201); a Latin inscription ISM 2.43 (A.D. 116-117). Once the [senat(us) populusqjue Tomi[t]anorum (ISM 2.50, dated by Stoian in A.D. 129) is attested as the Latin version of the official name of Tomis.

13Similarly Roman authors use the word respublica with reference to imperial Rome, e.g.: "ille (sc. Imperator) est ... uinculum, per quod res publica cohaeret" (Suet., Cl. 1.4.1). In a bilingual inscription (IGB l2.59, A.D. 157) commissioned by Odessos the official name of the state is ciuitas Odessitanorum which is rendered by the neutral n<5[Aic ’ OS tictcti ]x u v . 243 the period of the Dominate14 when even the semblance of democracy in municipal constitutions was long forgotten.15

The legislative activity of Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis and Odessos deserves a closer look from the point of view of the character of the government. Fifty-seven decrees of the boule and demos of Istros have been uncovered, fifty-four of them inscribed in the Hellenistic epoch.16 Of this number only one (ISM 1.5) is certainly not honorific. In Tomis only one (ISM 2.2 I) of ten decrees (ISM 2.1-9) is not honorific.

14In Tomis: a dedication for Diocletian, ISM 2.111. On the basis of formulae j3ouAfj S^noc (or: ordo populusgue Tomitanorum - CIL 3.765) Vulpe ("Histoire ancienne," 205) concluded that the council and popular assembly remained active in Western Pontic cities in the Roman epoch. E. Popescu ("Zur Geschichte der Stadt in Kleinskythien in der Spatantike. Ein epigraphischer Beitrag," Dacia 19 [1975]: 176)_thinks that ISM 2.111 testifies to the activity of the boule and demos of Tomis (as does B&p 1967, 385 with reference to Callatis) in the fourth century A.D. With respect to the popular assemblies their conclusions seem to miss the point.

15The shrinking of the position of popular assemblies was a common trend in the imperial times (Abbott, Johnson, Municipal Administration, 75ff; Jones, Greek City, 171-178; Stahl, Imperiale Herrschaft, 39f, 54). The last evidence of an active popular assembly dates to the end of the third century A.D. (Oxyrynchus - Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1.45), yet by that time popular assemblies had lost the power to elect officials and pass bills and became mostly decorative elements of government. Already in the Hellenistic epoch the financial barrier (particularly created by unpaid offices) deprived the majority of the population from effective influence on state affairs. Even in nominally democratic polexs, the political power was slipping from the hands of popular assemblies to the advantage of councils and magistrates (cf. L. Robert, Opuscula Minora Selecta, vol. 2 [Amsterdam 1969], 841).

16ISM 1, nos. 1-54; nos. 55-57 are later. All extant decrees of the people and council of both

Dionysopolis and Odessos are honorific.17 These numbers probably do not reflect the actual legislative activity in the cities in question, because more honorific decrees were inscribed on stone and thus stood a better chance of surviving to our times than other official acts. We may suppose that in most cases the honoree paid for inscribing the decree and the city only indicated where the inscription and statue was to be placed. E.g. an inscription from

Dionysopolis (IGB l2.13) reads: 66[66]a0ai 66 aux$ xai €i c dvdtarotoiv &v8pi&vxoc x6/nov x6v 6m

(lines 48-49); Tomis honored a certain Africanus Quietus with a decree and his wife erected the statue (ISM 2.71, lines 11-13). Often, however, it was the city who provided the funds (e.g. in Istros: ISM 1.6, 11, 19, 21, 28, 34). In all cases the very fact of commissioning an inscription and a statue was, as the formulae of all inscriptions preserved well enough so that they can be read testify, an indispensable part of showing the city's gratitude to a benefactor. The other legislative acts retained the same legal power regardless of the manner of recording. Therefore probably most of them was never recorded on stone, but only on some perishable material (papyrus?) and hence we know

17Dionysopolis: IGB l2.13, 13bis, 13ter, 15bis, 16, 19; Odessos: IGB l2.35 - 43bis. 245 nothing about them.18 Nevertheless the proportion between the (inscribed) legislative acts and honorific decrees (2:

84) is striking. It betrays a growing dependence of all these cities on their citizens19 in providing free services and cash handouts. Rich citizens covered expenses of performing the rites of religious cults, 20 provided money for emergency purchase of grain21 and for other purposes,22 erected public buildings,23 distributed money among their fellow citizens.24

Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions testify to the difficulties the cities had to face in finding suitable candidates for offices. Citizens who agreed to hold magistracies or serve as ambassadors were praised for it by

18Inscribing was expensive and cities had only these legislative acts inscribed, which had some long-lasting quality (honorary decrees, treaties, important long-term arrangements). The image of the legislative practice, as reflected in inscriptions, is necessarily one-sided.

19There are also honorific decrees for (rich) foreigners, Istros: ISM 1.9, 10, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 47, 48; Tomis: ISM 2.5; Dionysopolis: IGB l2.13bis, 13ter; Odessos: IGB l2.37, 37bis, 38bis, 39, 41, 42, 42bis, 43. With the exception of Odessos, the local citizens were the recipients of more commendations than the foreigners.

Z0Istros: ISM 1.1, 3, 54, 57; Tomis, ISM 2.1, 72; Dionysopolis: IGB l2.13.

21Istros: ISM 1.1, 2, 18, 19, 22.

22Istros: ISM 1.1, 17, probably also 52 (damaged); Odessos: IGB l2.35.

23 Istros - agoranomion - ISM 1.54.

24Istros: ISM 1.57. 246 their cities, especially if they covered expenses of their diplomatic activity.25

Two first-century B.C. inscriptions show that more than just civic virtue was at stake. Aristagoras son of

Apatourios is praised by the council and people of Istros for having volunteered to hold the eponymous priesthood of

Apollo Ietros (ISM 1.54, lines 21-37). Aristagoras apparently saved his city from a major constitutional crisis by undertaking the highest office four times, when the barbarians were devastating Istros' rural territory, and no one else could afford the honor of the eponymous priesthood.

Dionysopolis likewise was unable to fill the post of priest of Dionysos, the highest god of the city, for years until

Akornion son of Dionysios volunteered to do the job (IGB l2.13, lines 13-15). Undoubtedly in both cases great expenditures were expected of the men who filled these positions. Moreover, the eponymous priesthood of Istros had to be held by someone so that the city could function normally. Istros and Dionysopolis were clearly dependent on the good will of their rich citizens.

25A certain Dioskourides son of Stroutchion earned the title euergetes in Istros having served as an ambassador and a magistrate (ISM 1.12). Another Istrian ambassador is known to having work without compensation (ISM 1.18, lines 10-11) . P. Aelius Gaius did the same for Tomis (ISM 2.61). Other ambassadors were praised by Istros: ISM 1.12, 37, 53, 54; Dionysopolis: IGB 1 .13. 247

In the Hellenistic epoch especially in Istros (but also to some extent in Odessos) small dynasties of euergetai sprang up. The decrees praising the euergetai frequently remind a reader that their ancestors were benefactors too.26 Rarely is anything specific known about the nature of the services rendered by the fathers of the euergetai, they are usually mentioned in a formulaic manner, e.g:

TToapbc <&v £u€py/[G]xou (ISM 1.15, lines 3-4). The most prominent exception is the case of a benefactor from istros

Diogenes who lent money to the city interest-free (isM 1 * 1 * lines 5, 8-10) . His father, Diogenes son Glaukias built a temple of the Muses and established a trust fund to cover the expenses of sacrificing to the goddesses.27

26 E.g.: ISM 1.31: rcpoydvwv €u€py€Twv y6/[YGvrm^v°C ] (lines 3-4); benefactors - ancestors of benefactors a l s c in: ISM 1 .15, 54, 56 (partly restored), 57 (all in Istros)? lz.43bis (Odessos). These phrases are not just fossiirzed rhetorical formulae, since not all euergetai are descendants of other benefactors, e.g. comparatively well preserved inscriptions from Istros, ISM 1.1 or 12, praise the euergetai without even mentioning their ancestors.

27ISflfl.l, lines 15-17; 3, lines 8-9 (all: third century B.C.). Cf. P. Gauthier, Les cit£s grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (Paris 1985), 33. Also the ancestors of a prominent second-century A.D. benefactress, Aba daugh t e r of Hekataios, are praised for having undertaken liturgies / choregies, priesthoods and magistracies (ISM 1.57, lines 5- 11). One could be called euergetes because of the services rendered by his ancestors, as a third century Istrian decree

{ISM 1.8) proclaims: 6tvayp&i|iai auxofcc xai ^xydvou? €u€py€/xac xou 6i)pou (lines 14-15). Or the oldest in each generation of the descendants of another benefactor, Dionysisos son of Strouthion, was guaranteed the priesthood of the Gods of Samothrace, because of the largess of

Dionysios (ISM 1.19, lines 20-23). 248

Euergetism seems to have been a very important factor

in Hellenistic Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis, Odessos; in fact they became dependent on their rich citizens in vital areas of civic life. The real power in these cities seems to be concentrated in the hands of the local elite of city notables 28 even if the constitutions of these cities remained nominally democratic (which is not certain).

According to P. Veyne this evolution was typical of most

Hellenistic cities. 29 This trend continued in Roman times.

There are indeed no traces of any official acts of the boule and demos of Roman Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis, Odessos beyond commending emperors and benefactors.

The position of the council seems to have become more important in the Roman epoch. Former members of the city councils deemed it worthy to have their dignity proclaimed on tombstones. 30 Two honorific inscriptions (ISM 2.96, 97) from Tomis refer to membership in the boule alongside other offices performed by the honorees. The bouleutai are also mentioned on other occasions, e.g. as beneficiaries of

28 Stoian, "Citt& Tomis," 265f.

29Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 71-142.

30 Istros: ISM 1.291 (tombstone of Apphia, a wife of a bouleutes), 339; V. PSrvan, AA 30 (1915): 238, no. 1; Tomis: ISM 2.180 (= CIL 3.770), 204, 245, 249 (= CIL 3.7543), CIL 3.753; Dionysopolis: IGB 1 .24bis. 249

public largess.31 All this probably means that the position

of the boule increased as compared with other city

institutions, since its membership became important enough

to be stressed in public documents. The city councils thus

became the real centers of power.32 Even if not in form,

certainly in substance Roman Istros, Tomis, Dionysopolis,

Odessos were oligarchic states.

31Istros; ISM 1.57; Dionysopolis: IGB l2.15bis and perhaps 15ter (partly restored); Odessos: IGB l2.63bis.

22 Cf. Stahl, Imperiale Herrschaft, 39f. 250

2. Colonies of Meqara (Mesambria. CallatisK

The character of the government of Mesambria and

Callatis still remains unclear. Most often scholars simply underline the conservatism apparent in their constitutions.33 Only Tafrali and Preda, as far as I know, have sought to trace the evolution of Callatis from an archaic city governed by an aristocratic gerousia to a democratic polis under Roman rule.3* Unfortunately neither could produce any firm evidence to support the hypothesis.

Mesambria

At the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth centuries B.C. Megara and her two colonies Byzantium and

Calchedon participated in the foundation of Mesambria. Very probably an oikistes from Megara was asked to provide the new city with a religious and political constitution. After the expulsion of the first tyrant Theagenes in the second half of the seventh century B.C. and a short period of

Vulpe, "Histoire," 205f; D. M. Pippidi, "Les inscriptions grecques de Scythie Mineure de Boeckh a nos joures," in Akte des IV. Kongress fur griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (Vienna 1964), 328; §tefan, "Callatis ci 1' 6poque," 169.

3*Tafrali, "Cit6 Callatis," 257, 269; (cf. PArvan, Gerusia din Callatis). Preda (Callatis, 16) thinks that the transition from oligarchy towards democracy took place even earlier — in the fourth century B.C. 251 "unbridled democracy" Megara was ruled by an aristocratic

government.35 Since Greek colonies customarily imitated

institutions of their metropoleis, it seems quite likely

that the aristocratic or oligarchic government was

36 introduced into Mesambria.

The question is whether this government lasted long or whether it was replaced by a democratic one. In dealing with

such problems it is useful to examine the two principal political bodies in the city: the boule and the popular assembly, most often called 8ap.o<; in the inscriptions.

Twelve Hellenistic inscriptions pertaining to these bodies are extant; all of them preserve honorific decrees. Five perhaps were passed by the people alone,37 although one of them confirms also the existence of the boule (IGB

l2.308novies, 1. 12). Seven remaining decrees were adopted

35Thamm, De re publics, 10; Legon, Megara, 134f.

36 E.g. an aristocratic government was established in a Sicilian colony of Megara: Megara Hyblaea — Finley, History of Sicily, 31, 38.

37Third century B.C.: IGB l2.308bis, 308ter, 308duodecies; second/first century B.C.: IGB l2.308novies; first century B.C.: IGB l2.315. However Mihailov's restoration of IGB l2.308novies, 1. 5 ([S656x0ott rui S&noi]/) and 308duodecies, 1. 1 (['ESoi’G xwi ] S&iioh ) is conjectural. Both stones are broken and therefore the length of the lines is unknown. One cannot exclude the possibility that the boule was originally mentioned in these inscriptions too. 252

— — 38 by both the boule and demos.

This situation in Mesambria differs markedly from that in Chersonesus (another colony of Megara) where all but one honorific decree was passed by the demos as the sole decision-making body. This apparent concentration of power in the hands of the popular assembly prompted Latyschew to formulate a hypothesis of the democratic character of the constitution of Chersonesus.39 In the case of Mesambria, however, no clear conclusion concerning the character of the government during the Hellenistic epoch can be drawn on the basis of the legislation passed by its two main political bodies.

During the Roman period by contrast, the existence of AO the boule alone is attested. The number of sources, alas, is so few that one cannot draw any positive conclusion from the lack of evidence pertaining to the popular assembly.

A few inscriptions commemorating strategoi and taxiarchoi were commissioned between the second half of the

38 Fourth century B.C.: IGB 1 2 .316; third century B.C.: IGB lz.307bis, 308, 308quater; third-second century B.C.: IGB l2 .308quinquies, 312; 71 B.C.: IGB l2.314a.

39Latyschew, "Constitution de Cherson6sos," 278f.

A0We know of a bouleutes Aurelios Routelianos (IGB l2.356) and two others: Aurelios Asklepiades and Aurelios Demosthenes who were simultaneously agoranomoi (IGB l2. 317). 253 second century B.C. and the second half of the first century

B.C. Doubtlessly in this turbulent period (Mithridatic wars, the invasion of Burebista etc) the strategoi were among the most important offices in the city. Family links between the members of this board can be traced:

Oinias — strategos in the late second - early first century

B.C. and possibly a monetary magistrate (SEG

30.702)

Dionysios

Apollonios - strategos41

Dionysios — strategos (SEG 30 .704)

Dameas — strategos ca. 55-48 B.C. (IGB l2.323)

Herakleides (1GB 1Z.325)

Heroteimos - taxf^rchos (IGB l2.325)

Heroteimos (SEG 30.703) Deinomenes — president of the

strategoi (SEG 30.703)

Kalligeiton

Antiphilos - strategos (IGB l2.324)

Echestratos - secretary of the board of strategoi (SEG

30.704)

41 SEG 30.704, cf. chapter IV B, 6. Mesambria. n. 371. 254

Philemon42

Moschos — strategos Nikon - strategos

(IGB l2. 323) (IGB l2. 326)

Matrodoros

Athanaion — strategos (IGB l2.326)

Konon — strategos (IGB l2.324)

Artemidoros43

Artemidoros - taxlarchos (IGB l2.325)

Chairephanes — strategos (SEG 30.704)

Such kinship links among high officials are more typical of oligarchic than democratic governments. There is more to be said: other members of great families of Mesambria appeared on reliefs of the strategoi, for example Heroteimos father of the general Heroteimos and Deinomenes the president of the board. 44 Apart from the strategoi and their secretaries smaller figures (apparently of boys leading sacrificial

42Mihailov (IGB l2, p. 444) identifies Philemon father of Moschos with Philemon father of Nikon. This is the only Philemon attested in Mesambria.

43Artemidoros is a rare name in Mesambria, the only attested are: Artemidoros father of Chairephanes, Artemidoros father of Artemidoros and Artemidoros son of Artemidoros. Cf. Mihailov, Philologia, 8-9 (1981): 101-105.

44SEG 30.703 II; cf. Venedikov, "Trois reliefs," 88. 255 rams) are depicted on some reliefs. It seems plausible that these are the representations of boys belonging to important and influential families, who participated in state ceremonies alongside high officials. At least one of these boys, Apollas, later became a monetary official or an eponymous magistrate, since his name is inscribed on a coin/5 Apparently government was very much a family business for the elite of Mesambria.

During the Hellenistic epoch the boule and demos honored euergetai with numerous decrees. We should remember that normally the euergetai and the oligarchs belonged to the same social stratum/ 6 An honorific decree (IGB l2.316) for a certain Dionysios — euergetes, city official and the son of another benefactor, Agesidamos, is worth mentioning.

Agesidamos financed a purchase of grain for the city (1. 5) .

We do not know what exactly Dionysios did, he served as

tamias (1. 7) and provided money (1 . 8) for some purposes.

At any rate, it is clear that the city depended on two following members of the same, doubtlessly, rich and influential family.

The office of nomophylax is attested in Hellenistic

Mesambria (IGB l2.314b). This magistracy was, according to

1,5 SEG 30 . 704; cf. Mihailov, Philologia, 8-9 (1981): 101- 105.

46Veyne, Bread and Circuses, 105. 256

Aristotle (Pol., 1323A), a very old and aristocratic

institution/ 7 It is attested in some other Megarian

colonies: Chersonesus and Calchedon48 and probably this

office was introduced in Mesambria during the period of

colonization. Its existence in Mesambria in the beginning of

the first century B.C. gives the impression that at that

time the government of Mesambria preserved its aristocratic

nature.

The constitution of Mesambria as created in the period

of the foundation of the city was very likely oligarchic (or

even aristocratic). The archaic and aristocratic office of

nomophylax attested in the Hellenistic period suggests a

constitutional conservatism of Mesambria. During almost all

the Hellenistic epoch we hear about influential families whose members held important offices (first of all the

strategeia) and were celebrated as euergetai. Taken

individually these can be easily explained as accidental or not decisive. But as a group they do not allow us to doubt

seriously the aristocratic nature of the government of

Mesambria.

1,1 Cf. Busolt, Grlechische Staatskunde, 490f.

48Hanell, Megarische Studien, 150. 257

Callatis

Callatis was founded by Pontic Heraclea, herself a colony of

Megara, at the time when Amyntas I ruled Macedonia. 49 Most probably an oikist was dispatched from Megara. Hence the constitution of Callatis in the period following the foundation will have been in all probability an oligarchic one, similar to that of Mesambria. It is to be remembered that at this time not only Megara but also Heraclea enjoyed an oligarchic form of government.50 Unfortunately no direct evidence pertaining to the shape of the constitution of

Callatis during archaic and most of classical times is available. Nine, primarily honorific decrees, spanning the period from the fourth Century B.C. to the end of the second century A.D., refer to the boule and demos. The formulaic phrase employed is usually £60$6/ SG66x0ai trai (3oulai Kai tgh 6<5tn(i>i .51 Sometimes only the demos is mentioned.52 Yet

49 Cf. chapter I, pp. 24ff.

50Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 19f; Legon, Megara, 140f.

511. Micu, Analele Dobrogei 18 (1937): 41, no. 217, dated by S. Lambrino ("Decreto cnroi xt|S6v di Callatis," Epigraphica 1 [1945]: 25; cf. Robert, B&p 1948, 165) in the second half of the fourth century B.C.; PArvan, AA 30 (1915): 249ff (third century B.C., cf. Robert, Btp 1955, 161); SEG 24.1021 (third century B.C.); SGDI 3089 dated by Szanto (AEM 10 [1886]: 200f) in 133-72 B.C.; SEG 24.1028 (first century A.D.); IGR 1.656 (Roman epoch); Tocilescu, AEM 11 (1894): 99, no. 41 (undated).

52SEG 16.428 (first century A.D.) and possibly SEG 1.327 (first century A.D.). The preamble of this second inscription is lost yet it is quite probable that the 258 the omission of one of them cannot lead to any firm

conclusion regarding relations between them, since in the

preambles to the decrees contemporary with those referred to

above both the boule and demos appear as equal decision making bodies.53

Two inscriptions54 attest the existence of the probouloi in Callatis. According to Aristotle the probouloi were a board characteristic of oligarchic governments.55

Even in Athens, where this office first appeared in 411

B.C., its creation is believed to have been one of the

assembly alone was mentioned in it, since the inscription reads in 1. 15: 6 Sano<; ar€avoi .

53SEG 24.1028, perhaps also IGR 1.656. Much the same applies also to dedications. Some of them were apparently commissioned by the boule and demosi SEG 27.383 (second- first century B.C.); A. RSdulescu, "Note epigrafice I," Pontica 1 (1968): 331f, no. 5 (A.D. 117-138); I G B 1 2.5 (A.D. 222-235); IGR 1.655 (Roman epoch); Sauciuc-SSveanu, "Callatis," (1937-1940), 245f, no. 5 (Roman epoch); Tofiilescu, AEM 6 (1882): 5, no. 5 (undated). Two other dedications were commissioned by the damos alone: IGR 1.654 dated in the beginning of the first century A.D. (Robert, Bfip 1961, 414) and SEG 27.383 (under Augustus, cf. Robert, Blip 1978, 324 ) .

54SEG 24.1023, 1. 5 (third century B.C.) and SGDI 3089, 1. 35 (second/first century B.C.).

55Arist., Pol. 1288b, 1299b, 1322b, 1323a; cf. commentaries to the Politics by: W. J. M. Starkie (London 1909), p.159; J. Aubonnet, ed. Les Belles Lettres, vol. 2 (Paris 1971), p. 324. 259 preliminary steps leading towards the oligarchy.56 The situation in Megara is more to the point here. There the probouloi are regarded as one of the characteristic features of its oligarchic constitution.57

Probouloi can exist instead of the boule or alongside it and the popular assembly. In the latter case, according to Aristotle, they normally gained superiority over the boule.7 — 58

Be this as it may, the nature of the board of probouloi in Callatis is known only from the two

56F. Ru z 6, "La fonction de probouloi dans le monde grec antique," in Melanges Seston (Paris 1974), 454f.

57The probouloi in Megara are attested first of all by a passage in the Acharneis of Aristophanes, 1. 755 (cf. the commentary by W. Rennie in the edition from 1909). The validity of this passage as the evidence of the existence of the probouloi in Megara was contested by H. Schaefer (RE 23: 1223, s.v. Ttp60ouAoc) on the grounds of irrelevance. According to him the probouloi in the Acharneis reflect just the usage of this word in Athens and not the constitutional arrangements in Megara. Legon (Megara, 237) is of the same opinion (no credit given to Schaefer). Ruz6 correctly remarked that the existence of the probouloi in Megara is confirmed also by a passage in the Iff 7.1, 15 and therefore Schaefer's attempt to discredit the evidence of Aristophanes is unjustified. On the probouloi as an oligarchic element in the constitution of Megara cf. n. 55, Ruzd, "Fonction de probouloi," passim.

58Arist., Pol. 1299b. Ruz6 ("Fonction de probouloi," 458) has demonstrated that the evolution of the internal government and relationships among chief political bodies in classical and Hellenistic Greek cities justified this opinion. 260 inscriptions cited in note 54. In both cases they are involved in the practical tasks of honoring people. The probouloi are responsible for crowning the honoree with a golden wreath (SEG 24.1023, lines 5-6) or for assigning an appropriate place in which the honorific inscription was to be displayed (SGDI 3089, lines 35-37). SGDI 3089 suggests that they were a committee of the council changing monthly,59 similar to the Athenian prytaneis. Yet the board of aisymrietai is attested in Callatis too and they normally served as this permanent committee of the boule.60 It would be very unlikely that two boards (probouloi and aisymrietai) fulfilled the same functions in the city. The probouloi must have differed from the aisymrietai and they should be considered (as in Athens and Megara) an oligarchic feature of the constitution of Callatis.61

59Lines 35-36: xoOc S€ Ttpo0otiAcuc [xofoc itpo/fiou] A.€uovxa<; xdv liijva k t A.

60The aisymrietai in Callatis: Sauciuc—SSveanu, "Callatis," (1924), 126-129; SEG 24.1091; cf. Blavatskaya, "Vnutrennyye ustroystva," 42; Pippidi, Greci, 82f. Both in Megara and her colonies Chersonesus and Calchedon they usually operated as a committee of the council (Hanell, Megarische Studien, 146 ff; Latyschew, "Constitution de Cherson6sos," 181ff; Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism, 19).

61In Callatis both the probouloi and aisymrietai are boards of Megarian origin introduced most probably_at the moment of the foundation of the city. If the aisymnetai in Callatis (as in other cities of the colonization cycle of Megara) were originally a standing committee of the council, the probouloi may have been some oligarchic board. One cannot be sure whether they retained their (alleged) 2 61

All evidence for the probouloi in Callatis belongs to the Hellenistic period. But if their existence is a sign of the oligarchic tendency in the constitution of Callatis, it seems most unlikely that its character changed under Roman rule, since the Romans were normally pleased with oligarchies. They even tended to encourage a strong position for the probouloi in Greek cities.62

A few Hellenistic and Roman inscriptions from Callatis containing honorific decrees for various euergetai are extant. Study of these leads to the same conclusion as in the case of Mesambria. 63 Callatis had to rely on its rich

important original position up to the Hellenistic period, since SGDI 3089 and SEG 24.1023 attest only minor responsibilities of this board. Perhaps the probouloi ended up being a small executive committee implementing action on behalf of the boule, after a bill was passed (I owe this suggestion to Professor A. G. Woodhead).

62D. Magie, The Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ, vol. 1 (Princeton 1950), 64Off; Ruz6, "Fonction de probouloi," 456.

63One of the euergetai seems particularly interesting from the point of view of the character of the constitution of Callatis: Ariston son of Ariston active in the beginning of the first century A.D. and known from the following inscriptions: Sauciuc-SSveanu, "Callatis," (1924), 139f; idem, "Callatis," (1927— 32), 451, no. 6 (= Robert, BJ^p 1960, 265); SEG 24.1028; SEG 28.384. Not only he but also his father was a benefactor, but additionally Ariston the younger is called: xxiaxac xac rtdlioc (Sauciuc-SSveanu, "Callatis," [1924], 139f; cf. SEG 28.384), or £k otpiaxac iov (Sauciuc-SSveanu, "Callatis," [1927-1932], 451, no. 6). Another euergetes, Apollonios, established a gerousia in Callatis, re-organized the gymnasium and supported religious festivals with his money (SEG 1.327; cf. Pippidi, "Sur les g^rousies," 80f). 262 citizens in fulfilling normal functions of the city. The presence of hereditary euergetai in Callatis reinforces the impression of the oligarchic character of its constitution.

The evidence, however, is rather patchy and does not afford any decisive proof for the oligarchic constitution of

Callatis. But at any rate it allows us to formulate the hypothesis that during the Hellenistic and Roman period

Callatis retained the oligarchic government which was originally transferred with the colonists who came from

Heraclea and Megara. CHAPTER VI: THE PONTIC KOINON.

For an unknown number of years a league of cities (k o i v 6v ) existed in the Western Pontic area.1 Its most commonly attested name is II6v t o <:?2 but the full name may have been

^his koinon has been a subject of scholarly debate since 1878 when G. Perrot first discussed it in the M&moires d'arch€ologie, 188ff. Bibliography is discussed in: I. Stoian, "De nouveau sur la communaute des cites grecques du Pont gauche," Latomus 24 (1965): 71-89 and G. Mihailov, "The Western Pontic Koinon," Epigraphica 41 (1979): 7f. One more important article should be added to these bibliographies: J. Deininger, "Zu einer neuen Hypothese iiber die Pontarchie im westpontischen koiv6v," ZPE 51 (1983): 219-227. I dealt with the Western Pontic koinon in my M.A. thesis supervised by Professor T. Kotula and presented at the University of Wroclaw in 1983; selections of which were published as: "Zgromadzenia prowinc jonalne w rzymskich prowincjach naddunajskich," (The Provincial Assemblies in the Danubian Provinces) Antiguitas 13 (1987): 163-200 (chapter: "Koivov toO EI6vtov," pp. 188-198). Here I am revising and expanding this material.

A certain T. Flavius Poseidonios is called m d c toO II6vtou (ISM 2.52). The numismatically attested title of Tomis, the capital of this league, was: ptiTpdnoAi q H6vxou {BMC 13-19, 21-27, 29-33, 35-68). Stoian restores this title in ISM 2.10, lines 2-3. In fragmentary ISM 2.54, however, the full title of Tomis may have been: [EixovGpou] II6vtou UTiTpdTioAic (1. 3). D. M. Pippidi ("Encore quelques reflexions sur la pontarchie et les pontarques de M6sie," in Hommages £ Marcel Renard, vol. 2 [Bruxelles 1969], 628, n. 1) thinks that E6vxoc was the name of the Western Pontic league.

263 264

Euwvupoc H6vtoC/3 better fitting the geographical reality,

since all attested members of this koinon were cities

situated on the western or left (Guovupoc) coast of the

Black Sea (II6vtoc Eti££ivoc). The league called itself simply

KOivdv xwv ' EAArjvwv too (ISM 2.97).A Two more names testify

to the number of cities participating in the league:

' E^ctnoli c and nSvxartoAi c • The first of them is attested only

in second-century A.D. inscriptions.5 One inscription (ISM

3In inscriptions on stone the full title of Tomis as the capital of the Western Pontic league is: jitiTpdrcoXi <; Euwvupou II6vtou (ISM 2.92, 97 and partly restored ISM 2.82). The lack of space may be the reason why the adjective Euovtipou is absent in the coin inscriptions referred to in n. 2. One should bear in mind that in the province Bithynia et Pontus there was another league of cities called sometimes KOivdv Hdvrou (cf. J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n.Chr. [Munich and Berlin 1965], 64ff). The aforementioned adjective in the title of the Western Pontic league could distinguish the names of these two koina (cf. Stoian, "De nouveau," 78). The very nature of the provincial city leagues required frequent contacts with Rome. The names of these leagues must have been shaped this way so as to prevent confusion. Either of these names (II6vto<; and Euovupoc EE6vto<;) was reflected in the official title of the chief magistrate of this league: TtOVT&pXTK • 4 There is no reason why this, rather generic, name should be perceived as the official title of the Western Pontic league (this is the opinion of Stoian, "De nouveau," 77).

5ISM 2.52 (A.D. 130-138), 69 (ca. A.D. 161-169 according to Stoian, ISM 2, p. 97 or A.D. 176-180 according to Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 21. Both Stoian and Mihailov refer to the paleographical considerations without discussing them in detail.); Sauciuc-S3veanu, "Callatis," (1937-40), 251, cf. Pippidi, "Nuovo pontarco," 513 (second century A.D.). 265

1.143) confirming the name Pentapolis is dated by the editor to the first half of the third century A.D.6 Another one was probably commissioned at the same time.7 Two more inscriptions attesting the name Pentapolis belong to the end of the second - beginning of the third century A.D.8 It appears then that there was a sequence of names: the

Hexapolis first and the Pentapolis later.

The presidency of koina (concilia provinciarum in the

West) was a highly competitive magistracy to which only prominent citizens of the member states were eligible.9 One can be assured that a city participated in the Western

Pontic league if a president from it is attested. Five cities are known to have produced chief magistrates of this k oinom Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis and

Odessos.10 No direct evidence pertaining to the sixth

6Date: Pippidi, ISM 1, p. 279. ISM 1.143 contains a catalogue of people who sacrificed to Poseidon (lines 6-11). The abundant nomen gentile Aurelios among them suggests that this inscription was probably later than the date of the Constitutio Antoniniana (A.D. 212).

1IGB l2.15bis, dates Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 22.

8 2 IGB 1 .15ter and 64; date: Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 22f.

9Cf. Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 150-153; R. Mellor, 06d 'P(o\it]. The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Gottingen 1976), 182.

10Cf. the list of the presidents of the koinon (pontarchs) later in this chapter. Tomis' participation in this league is further confirmed by its title: utiTpdiroli C Eucavtipou II6vtou, cf. Regling, Antiken, 617f. Contrary to 266 member of the Hexapolis is available. Four cities have been

considered in the scholarship as possible candidates: Tyras,

Mesambria, Apollonia and Marcianopolis.11

In one fragmentary second century A.D. inscription (IGB

l2.65) from Odessos a certain Noumenios is honored by six cities:

'0 8rj|i[oc ’ OSriaai t o v ]

Nouuiivi [ov toO 6€iva] ay&AiiaTi [ GaxEtJxivuae ]

xai 6 STi|ji[oc T o u i t w v ]

Deininger's statement (Provinziallandtage, 120f), no pontarch from Mesambria is attested.

uTyras: Pick, Antiken, 69-73; cf. Zlatkovskaya, Meziya, 113. Marcianopolis: Mommsen, Romische Geschichte, 283. Apollonia: Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung, vol. 1.2, 304f. He was of the opinion that Istros, Tomis, Odessos, Mesambria and Apollonia were certainly members of this koinon and that the sixth participant was either Callatis or Dionysopolis. D. Kalopothakes {De Thracia Provincia Romana [Leipzig 1893], 66ff) thought that Apollonia (alongside Mesambria) was among the original members of this league and that she was later (after the destruction of Apollonia by the Romans in 7 2 B.C.) replaced by Callatis. Other scholars subscribed to the Apollonia hypothesis too: Chr. Danov, "Zur Geschichte des westpontischen k o i v6v ," Klio 31 (1938): 438f; Velkov, "Dobrudzha," 135. The Mesambria hypothesis has been so far the most popular among scholars: Kalopothakes, loc. cit., Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 121; Stoian, "De nouveau," 84; Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 153; Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 26ff; Mrozewicz, Rozwdj ustroju, 11. Oberhummer {RE 19:508, s.v. Pentapolis, 1) thinks that besides Tomis, Istros and Odessos two other cities participated in the Pentapolis (possibly on the rotating basis); according to him they were: Apollonia, Dionysopolis, Callatis, Marcianopolis, Mesambria. Vulic {RE 8:1386-1387, s.v. Hexapolis, 2) does not take sides and relates only the opinions of other scholars. 267

Kai KaXXfaxiavuv ]

Kai ' Iaxpi [avtiv ]

Kai Ai [ ovuaoTtoAi xuv ]

Kai M [ 6aaan(3 p i av & v ] .

The number of the cities in this inscription corresponds to the number of the member states of the Hexapolis. Three of these cities are Callatis, Istros and Dionysopolis (lines 5-

7) . Since this inscription was uncovered in Odessos, one may

safely assume that this city was among the dedicators too

(1. 1) and the first editor restores the name Tomis (the capital of the koinon) in 1. 4.12 Only the left hasta of the first letter of the name of the sixth (and the last) city is extant.13 It indicates that this letter could be either A or M. Consequently Danov restores the name of the city as Apollonia and Mihailov as Mesambria.14

Before dealing any further with the hypotheses pertaining to the sixth member of the league, one should address briefly the question of the nature of the Western

Pontic koinon. In the Roman epoch koina (concilia provinciarum in the West) were provincial assemblies devoted

12Danov, "Zur Geschichte," 437f. The restoration of the names of Odessos and Tomis are generally accepted, cf. Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 127.

n Cf. the photo in: Danov, "Zur Geschichte," 436 (it is better than that in IGB l2).

14Danov, "Zur Geschichte," 437; Mihailov, IGB l2.65, cf. his commentary, p. 127. 268 to the cult of the emperors and representing cities of the provinces before the Roman authorities.15 As a rule a koinon was composed of cities belonging to one province; only exceptionally do two assemblies exist simultaneously in

16 one province.

The case of Moesia Inferior appears to provide one of a few exceptions to the aforementioned rule. The cities from the western part of this province constituted a concilium provinciae Moesiae Inferioris,11 in which the Greek cities of Moesia inferior did not participate. Instead they formed the Western Pontic league. No direct link between this league and the province Moesia Inferior is attested, yet we know that all five confirmed member-states of the Hexapolis were Greek cities situated on the territory of Lower

Moesia.18 One may assume, therefore, that the sixth city

15Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 137-141.

16Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 137-141. There were a few exceptions to the aforementioned rule, e.g. the cities of the three Gallic provinces formed a concilium Galliarum trium or there were two koina in the province Bithynia et Pontus. Nevertheless the boundaries of provinces and areas participating in the leagues in question as a rule did not overlap each other.

17Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 119; Nawotka, Zgromadzenia, 185-188.

18The Western Pontic league played the role of a provincial assembly with respect to its member cities, cf. Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 219. 269 belonged to this province as well.19 This precludes

Marcianopolis' membership in the Western Pontic league: this city was a part of Thrace until the reign of Septimius

Severus. 20 An additional reason for excluding Marcianopolis from further consideration is that this city is situated ca.

27 km from the Black Sea shore (its ctidra bordered that of

Odessos to the west). Hence this city cannot be perceived as a Western Pontic one. Therefore its geographical position was incompatible with the membership in the koivov too

E u o v u j x o u II6v t o u which was composed of the coastal (Pontic) cities only.

There is no reason to believe that Tyras ever belonged to the province Moesia Inferior.21 And if indeed IGB l2.65 contains a list of members of the Western Pontic league,

Tyras could not be among them since the name of the sixth city begins with A or M.

On the sea coast the border between Moesia and the

Thracian kingdom (later the province Thrace) ran between

Mesambria and Anchialos, thus leaving Apollonia (and

19N. Vulic, RE 11:1054, s.v. Koinon; Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 120; Cf. Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 25.

20 Fluss, RE 14:1506-1507, s.v. Marcianopolis; B. Gerov, "Die Grenzen der romischen Provinz Thracia bis zur Griindung des Aurelianischen Dakien," in ANRW 2.7.1, 224; Danov, "Thraker auf Ostbalkan," 148; Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 27.

21I am dealing with this problem in an article "Tyras and Roman Rule," forthcoming in Etudes sur 1'histoire gr§co- romaine, Antiquit as 19. 270

Anchialos) inside Thrace.22 In the second century A.D.,

then, Mesambria was the southernmost city of Moesia

Inferior, the only one situated to the south of the Haemus mountains. Therefore it is much more probable that

Mesambria, not Apollonia, was the sixth member of the

Hexapolis.

Sometime between A.D. 187 and 197 a major territorial

exchange between Thrace and Lower Moesia took place. 23 The

northernmost Thracian cities Nicopolis ad Istrum and

Marcianopolis were transferred to Moesia Inferior. The

general presumption is that Mesambria was simultaneously

handed over to Thrace, so that from that time the border

between these two provinces followed the range of the

Haemus.24 At approximately the same time the name Hexapolis

was replaced by Pentapolis (vide supra), which signifies, of

22Gerov, "Grenzen der Thracia," 213, 216.

23Coins with the bust of the governor of Thrace Caecilius Maternus minted in Marcianopolis (Pick, Antiken, 67, no. 330) testify to the fact that in A.D. 187 this city was a part of the provincia Thracia (A. Stein, Die r&mischen Reichsbeamten der Provinz Thracia [Sarajewo 1920 ],• 36f; Fluss, "Marcianopolis," 1506f) . Under the governor of Moesia Inferior Pol.lenius Auspex (A.D. 193-197 or 194-196, cf. Gerov, "Grenzen der Thracia," 224, n. 82) both Marcianopolis and Nicopolis ad Istrum were already in Lower Moesia. For undisclosed reasons Mihailov ("Western Pontic," 27) believes that this transfer of territories took place in A.D. 202.

24J. Weiss, Qjh 14 (1911): 154; Lenk, "Mesambria," 1073f; M. Fluss, RE 15:2358, s.v. Moesia; Gerov, "Severnata granica," 26, 28; idem, "Grenzen der Thracia," 228, 230; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 19; Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 27; Mrozewicz, Rozwdj ustroju, 9. 271 course, that by the end of the second and the beginning of the third century A.D. the number of its member states had shrunk from six to five. They were: Istros, Tomis, Callatis,

Dionysopolis and Odessos. This transfer of Mesambria from

Moesia Inferior to Thrace between A.D. 187 and 197 (or 202) suits everything that we know: one member state ceased to belong to the province with which the Western Pontic league was linked, hence it could participate in this league no longer.25 Still it remains utterly conjectural (if logical 26 and plausible) for lack of sources.

The existence of the Western Pontic league is attested only in the second and the first half of the third centuries

A.D. There have been, however, many attempts to date the origin of this koinon in earlier epochs, e.g. Droysen and

Kazarov wanted to set the date in the late fourth century

B.C.,27 Kalopothakes - in the first half of the third

25Weiss, Qjh 14:154; Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 60; idem, "Western Pontic," 28; Velkov, "Mesambria - Mesembria," 19; Dorutiu-Boiia, "Contribution," 153; Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 188.

26Mesambria is known to have belonged to the province Haemimontus carved out of Thrace in the course of the reforms of Diocletian in A.D. 297 (Lenk, "Mesambria," 1074). It is certain, therefore, that it was separated from Moesia Inferior at some point, possibly during the late second century A.D. border realignment.

27J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, vol. 22 (Gotha 1878), 338, 349; G. Kazarov, "Die Entstehungsziet des linkpontischen Koivdv," Philologus 60 (1901): 315f; idem, "Zur Geschichte des linkpontischen Koivdv," Klio 9 (1909): 492; cf. Lenk, "Mesambria," 1073; Danov, Zapadniyat, 64. This hypothesis is based on a misinterpretation of Diodorus' 272

century B.C., 28 Marin - in the second century B.C., 29 Danov

- in the beginning of the first century B.C., 30 recently,

Cook - in pre-Roman times,31 Pick - under Augustus,32

Stoian - under Tiberius,33 Doru^iu-Boiia - in the beginning

of Roman rule as the Pentapolis.34 All these hypotheses are

account of the war which Lysimachus waged in Western Pontus in 313 B.C. Diodorus says of his opponents: ctuv606t o auw-iaxicxv <*>C koi vfi irolSnEi v SovAaxfl (19.73). This syimachia refers here to a military alliance of some Greek cities and Thracian and Scythian tribes. The alliance dissolved soon; no long lasting league of the Greek cities was created at that time. Cf. Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 105; Stoian, "De nouveau," 78.

28 Kalopothakes {De Thracia, ^ 65ff) saw the origin of the Western Pontic league in the military alliance of Istros and Callatis in the war with Byzantium (ca. 260 B.C.). Contra: Pick, Antiken, 62.

29Marin, "Foedus romano," 128f.

30 For Danov (Zapadniyat, 64) the origin of the koinon is associated with the efforts of Mithridates VI to ally Greek cities with him. Contrai Blavatskaya, Zapadnopontiyske, 105; Stoian, "De nouveau," 79f. Later Danov asserted that the koinon was organized in the end of the first century B.C. - beginning of the first century A.D. ("Philippopolis," 287).

31B. F. Cook, "Two Hands? A Greek Inscription from Tomis," in $IAIA EllE (Festschrift G. E. Mylonas), vol. 2 (Athens 1987), 406.

32Pick, Antiken, 62; also: Pippidi, Greci, 180; Doru^iu- Boiia, "Contribution," 155.

33According to Stoian ("De nouveau," 82f) the Western Pontic koinon was created approximately at the same time when the governor of Moesia was made responsible for the defense of the Black Sea coast. Cf. Mrozewicz, Rozw6j ustroju, 11.

34Doru£iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 152ff. According to her the original members were Istros, Tomis, Callatis, Dionysopolis and Odessos. Under Trajan or Hadrian Mesambria 273

united by a conspicuous lack of evidence pertaining to the

very existence of the Western Pontic league before the

second century A.D. 35

In one inscription (ISM 1.207) from Istros a certain M.

Ulpius Artemidoros bears the titles irpoTOi; tcovt&pxtk (1- 4).

Three interpretations of the crucial word npaxoc were

proposed: the first pontarch from Istros, the first in the

chronological sense (i.e. the earliest) pontarch of the

koinon notwithstanding the city of his origin, and the pontarch highest in rank. If the second hypothesis is accepted, the date (ca. 140 A.D.)36 of ISM 1.207 would not only mark the terminus ante quern of the origin of the

Western Pontic league but we would be able to presume that

was admitted and the league became an Hexapolis.

35This already puzzled Kazarow ("Entstehu’ngszeit," 316 ), but he took some comfort in the scarcity of the later evidence. As a matter of fact the second- and third-century A.D. evidence (inscriptions and coins) is quite plentiful.

36Pippidi (ISM 1, p. 355) dates this inscription in A.D. 140-160. ISM 1.207 contains a list of the prostatai of some association and of people who had sacrificed. Among them there are four Marci Ulpi (and three more whose nomina are partially restored, one of them the first pontarch M. 0[CA(iuo<;) ’ Apr€/pi ]8opo<; - lines 3-4), one publius Aelius, one Marcus Aelius and one Aelius without the praenomen specified. Their imperial nomina indicate that in all probability four to seven of them received the citizenship from Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus), two - from Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrianus) and at the very most only one from Antoninus Pius (Titus Aelius Caesar Antoninus). The large proportion of names acquired (with citizenship) in the period before A.D. 138 to just one (possible) citizenship later than this date indicates that the date of ISM 1.207 was very probably not much later than ca. A.D. 140. 274 this league was inaugurated not much earlier than one generation before the date of the inscription in question.

P. Veyne remarked that if M. Ulpius Artemidoros had been the first pontarch from Istros his title would have been: novx&pxtic Y^vdpGvoc rcpwxoc ' laxpiiivwv . 37 npwxoc alone generally refers to the first officials ever elected to any post. A close institutional analogy is provided by the flamen primus of Baetica and the apxiEpEOc Ttpexoc of

Narbonnese Gaul. In both cases the beginning of the provincial Imperial cult is marked by years of the tenure of the above mentioned officials. 38 Therefore M. Ulpius

Artemidoros, Veyne concludes, should also be perceived as the first pontarch ever elected to preside over the Western

Pontic league and this league was most probably inaugurated under Hadrian. 39

However Mihailov and Doru^iu-Boiia put in doubt the chronological interpretation of the adjective npwxoc in the

37P. Veyne, "Augustal de l'An 1. - Premier Pontarque," BCH 90 (1966): 149f (cf. reference to numerous examples of Tipwxoi quoted by Veyne, pp. 146, n. 4 and 150, nn. 1-2).

38Baetica: CIL 2.3271; R. Etienne, Le culte imperial dans la pSninsule ibSrique d'Auguste £ DioclStien (Paris 1958), 126f: Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 28. Narbonnese Gaul: IG 2 .4193 and M. McCrum, A. G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge 1961), 129; J. A. O. Larsen, Representative Government in Greek and Roman History (Berkeley 1955), 130ff; Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 30; Veyne, "Augustal," 150f.

39Veyne, "Augustal," 153ff. 275 title of M. Ulpius Artemidoros/ 0 According to them "there existed a college of pontarchs, consisting of representatives of the separate cities, headed by a supreme pontarch".41 The local pontarchs were apparently referred to in inscriptions as: novx&pxtic "CHC iSiac naxpi 6o<; (IGB

12.14) and perhaps also II€vxaTt616c /3ouA.Guxai (IGB l2.15bis).42 The titles of the "supreme pontarch" were accordingly: rtpwxoc novxApxhC, rcovx&pxrK T,nc

II6vxaTt6A.6(i)c/’ E5o6Tt6A.6o)c / &p£ac toii k o i v o u xtk II6vxan:6A€

The interpretation of the bouleutai of the Pentapolis as local pontarchs or members of a council of the Western

Pontic league is unparalleled and unproven. A more obvious explanation of this term is: members of city councils from the cities belonging to the Pentapolis.44

The hypothesis of the local pontarchy was dealt with by

Deininger who pointed to its internal difficulties, e.g. an

40Mihailov, IGB l2, p. 61; Dorutiu-Boiia, "Contribution," 155f; the most developed version of this theory is presented by Mihailov, "Western."

41Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 31.

42Doru^iu-Boil3, "Contribution," 155. Mihailov ("Western Pontic," 32f) disputes this second attribution. According to him the bouleutai of the Pentapolis constituted a wider body of the league than the board of the local pontarchs.

43Doru^iu-Boiia, "Contribution," 155; Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 30.

Robert, "Inscriptions grecques," 207; Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 224. 276

apparent parallel between the titles referring to the

supreme pontarch and tii 6$ Hdvcou on the one hand and a local

pontarch and v>i6c Tfjc tt6A£

Artemidoros was both a "supreme pontarch" and the "son of

the city (Istros)" (ISM 1.207, lines 4-5), even if this

second title was supposedly characteristic of local

pontarchs/6 Furthermore, Deininger (p. 223) remarks that

the phrase iSiac notrpiSoc accompanying the title of the

allegedly "local pontarch" does not clarify it and asks why

the name of the city (i.e. Dionysopolis - IGB l2.14) was not

substituted if this title was indeed referring to the municipal pontarchy/7 Finally, it is well known that ethnarchies (titles like: Asiarches, Bithyniarches,

Lykiarches) designated chief magistrates of provincial assemblies (respectively of Asia, Bithynia, Lycia)48 and

65The notion of this parallel was developed by Dorutiu- Boiia, "Contribution," 155.

46Deininger, "Zu einer Hypo these," 221ff.

47Some analogy is provided by numerous inscriptions from the province of Asia in which, quite exceptionally, more than one templum provinclae existed. But in the titles of asiarchs serving at them always the name of the city was indicated in form e.g. aai&pxTic vawv t w v 6 v ’E4>€cto)/ Epupvji (OGIS 525/ IG 12.2, 562); cf. Veyne, "Augustal," 153, n. 2; M. Rossner, "Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias," St. Cl. 16 (1974): 121-142 (catalogue of asiarchs with their exact titles). Possibly the phrase ttk iSlac naxpl Soc in an inscription displayed in Dionysopolis indicated only the origin of the pontarch M. Aurelius Antipatros Papa who was performing his duties in Tomis anyway. Pippidi, "Encore pontarchie," 626f; cf. Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 223 .

68Numerous examples in: Deininger, Provinziallandtage. 277 neither of the proponents of the hypothesis of the supreme and local pontarchy produced compelling reasons why this rule should not be applied with respect to Western

Pontus.49

To conclude this discussion one must assert that the interpretation of the title nporo<; TtovT&pxTjc as the first pontarch ever elected seems at present the most convincing.

According to Pippidi, however, Tomis and Odessos enjoyed a stronger economic position than Istros in the first and second centuries A.D. and this fact makes it unlikely that the first ever president of the Western Pontic league came from Istros.50 However he did not present compelling arguments supporting his hypothesis of a connection between the (unknown in detail anyway) comparative economic positions of Istros, Tomis and Odessos and the election of pontarchs. In addition Pippidi pointed out that the pontarchy is attested before A.D. 130 and sought to prove that M. Ulpius Artemidoros held his office after A.D. 138. If so he could be only the first pontarch from Istros and not the first pontarch ever elected.

Indeed in Tomis the tribe of Argadeis honored with a statue T. Flavius Poseidonios, pontarch and the first

49Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 223f; cf. Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 19Of.

S0D. M. Pippidi, "Reflexions sur la pontarchie et les pontarques de la Mesie," in idem, Scythica Minora, 255f; idem, "Encore pontarchie," 631f. 278

agonothetes of the divine Antinoos (ISM 2.52). In all

probability the date of his agonothesia is A.D. 131 and

possibly he acted as a pontarch even earlier.51 His father

Phaidros was a pontarch too (ISM 2.52, lines 8-9) and,

presumably, he preceded his son in this dignity. 52 At any

rate the pontarchy is undoubtedly attested before A.D. 138

A.D., very probably before 130.

In order to prove that M. Ulpius Artemidoros was

pontarch after A.D. 138 Pippidi identifies him with a

certain Artemidoros son of Herodoros, a synagogeus of the

gerousia known from an inscription from Istros dated exactly

in A.D. 138 .53 According to the evidence of this

inscription Artemidoros was not (yet) a pontarch in A.D.

138. (He acquired this dignity later as ISM 1.180 seems to

testify.) Hence the date of the term of office of M. Ulpius

Pippidi ("Encore pontarchie," 6 27 f) stresses the importance of the date A.D. 130 in this respect. Other scholars date the agonothesia of T. Flavius Poseidonios more conservatively in A.D. 130-138 (Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 21; Stoian, ISM 2, p. 82). Hadrian announced the Egyptian games in honor of Antinoos in autumn A.D. 130; they took place the next spring (R. Lambent, Beloved and God. The Story of Hadrian and Antinous [London 1984], 149). The games in Istros (and the appropriate agonothesia) were very probably instituted immediately after his deification. Moreover, we can be almost sure that T. Flavius Poseidonios was the agonothetes before A.D. 138, because the adjective irporoc accompanying his title suggests that more agonothetai followed.

52Cf. Stoian, ISM 2, p. 82.

53ISM 1.193 (= SEG 1.330), col. A, 1. 34, col. B, lines 3-4, 14, 20-21. Date: Pippidi, ISM 1, pp. 336f. 279

Artemidoros as the protos pontarches must be placed after

A.D. 138, and thus he was not the first pontarch ever

elected, but the first of Istrian origin.54

This whole theory, of course, hinges upon the

identification of M. Ulpius Artemidoros with Artemidoros son

of Herodoros and this seems to be based solely on the

similarity of names.55 This is, however, the most insecure

basis for such far reaching conclusions. One should take

into account the fact that Artemidoros is one of the most

commonly attested names in Istros and there was always more

than one Artemidoros active at any one time.56 Moreover,

the imperial praenomen and nomen gentile of Marcus Ulpius

Artemidoros indicate that he was granted Roman citizenship

by Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus), that is no later than

A.D. 117. One cannot see any reason why in A.D. 138 M.

Ulpius Artemidoros would allow his name to be inscribed in

an official document (ISM 1.193) of the gerousia presided

54Pippidi, "Encore pontarchie," 630.

55Pippidi, "Reflexion sur pontarchie," 254; "Encore pontarchie," 628f. Neither the name of the father of M. Ulpius Artemidoros nor that of his son is attested. Quite surprisingly Mihailov ("Western Pontic," 20) agrees with this identification of M. Ulpius Artemidoros with Artemidoros son of Herodoros.

560ut of 1256 entries in the index of the names of persons in ISM 1, 45 (3.58%) are Artemidoroi. At any given time there had to be at least a dozen Artemidoroi in Istros. And indeed ISM 1.207 attests Aelius Artemidoros alongside M. Ulpius Artemidoros or ISM 1.193 attests at least seven Artemidoroi (col. col. A, lines 40, 82, col. B, lines 36, 59, 60, 64, 65) besides Artemidoros son of Herodoros. 280 over by him in the form Artemidoros son of Herodoros.57 The most probable explanation of this seeming paradox is that M.

Ulpius Artemidoros did not have anything in common with

Artemidoros son of Herodoros.58

If Artemidoros son of Herodoros the synagogeus is identical with Artemidoros, father of Karpos and pontarch,59 it means that he held pontarchy after A.D. 138.

On the other hand, if the title Ttpexoc novx&pxTK is understood chronologically, nothing prevents us from concluding that the term of office of the pontarch M. Ulpius

Artemidoros preceded those of Phaidros and T. Flavius

Poseidonios and that he was the first pontarch ever elected.

The date, therefore, of M. Ulpius Artemidoros' term of office marks the beginning of pontarchy and of the Western

Pontic league as we know it, that is as a quasi-provincial assembly representing the Greek cities of the Black Sea coast of the province Moesia Inferior.

57Pippidi ("Encore pontarchie," 629) slides over this question, crucial to his hypothesis of the identity of two Artemidoroi: "Artemidoros (qui, soit dit en passant, porte encore son nom grec ’ Apx€p.l Swpoc ’ HpoSepou, et pas les tria nomina qu'il affiche ailleurs)...."

58Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 189.

59A certain Artemidoros father of Karpos from Istros was a pontarch (ISM 1.180). Pippidi ("Encore pontarchie," 629, n. 5; ISM 1, pp. 317f) studies the family of Karpos and concludes that Karpos was son of Artemidoros and grandson of Herodoros. 281

As I already indicated M. Ulpius Artemidoros' tenure as

a pontarch preceded those of T. Flavius Poseidonios and his

father Phaidros. Neither of these two pontarchs presided over the koinon later than A.D. 131.60 Therefore the first pontarch ever was elected at the latest in 120s A . D .61 The

terminus post quem cannot be set so precisely. It is

limited, however, by the length of the active political life of M. Ulpius Artemidoros who was a prostates ca. A.D.

140, 62 and who perhaps also participated in covering the expenses of building a Mithraeum in Istros in A.D. 159-160

(ISM 1.137), providing that M. Ulpius Artemidoros the first pontarch (ISM 1.207) is identical with a pontarch of the

same name (ISM 1.137) and that we accept Pippidi's date of

ISM 1.137.63

60They are known from ISM 2.52; its date: cf. n. 51.

61Veyne ("Augustal," 152) places the origin of the Western Pontic league under Hadrian.

62ISM 1.207; date: cf. n. 36.

63ISM 1.137, 1. 10: [M. ] OfiAn:(io<;) ’Apxgpl Sopo; txovt&pxtic . This inscription is dated according to the eponymous priesthood of Iulius Severus, the governor of Moesia Inferior. Two governors may be taken into consideration: Sex. Minucius Faustinus Cn. Iulius Severus (A.D. 129-131) preferred by Stein (Legaten von Moesia, 66f) and L. Iulius T. Statilius Severus from (A.D. 159-160) favored by Pippidi ("En marge d'un document mithriaque de Scythie Mineure," in Hommages £ Maarten J. Vermaseren, vol. 3 [Leiden 1978], 971f). For unspecified reasons Pippidi chooses the later date because M. Ulpius Artemidoros (whom Pippidi identifies with Artemidoros synagogeus of the gerousia of A.D. 138) is mentioned in ISM 1.137. Also Mihailov ("Western Pontic," 20, n. 5) accepts the date A.D. 282

There has been a general assumption that this pontarch

M. Ulpius Artemidoros and the first pontarch of the same name were in fact one person.64 However an unsettling question remains unanswered: why is his dignity as the first pontarch forgotten in ISM 1.137 if this inscription refers to his first presidency of the koinonl If it refers to the

(possible) second presidency one would expect the wording:

61 cthovt&pxiic (as in ISM 2.116, II, lines 6-7; cf. ISM 2.188,

1. 9: Sic SitovrApx^aa) or 0' Ttovx&pxtic (as in ISM 2.436).

Mihailov's answer: "he was given as a itovx&pxric in his capacity of former pontarch"65 is unsupported by evidence and not very enlightening. It is very probable that M.

Ulpius Artemidoros the first pontarch and M. Ulpius

Artemidoros pontarch were two different persons.66

For the reason of the time limits it seems to us that

M. Ulpius Artemidoros could not be elected to the office of the pontarch earlier than under Trajan. Possibly the origin

159-160 without providing any fresh arguments to support it.

64 Pippidi, "En marge," 971f; Mihailov, "Western Pontic, " 20; Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 192f.

65"Western Pontic," 20.

660ne should remember that not only Artemidoros but also M. Ulpius Artemidoros was quite a common name in Istros (cf. n. 56 for Artemidoros): Index to ISM 1 names at least two (possibly three, if this, known from ISM 1.208, is taken in consideration; without much discussion Pippidi identifies him with the pontarch) M. Ulpii Artemidoroi besides the pontarch(s). 283 of the Western Pontic league coincides with the reorganization of the Danubian provinces after the Dacian wars in the final years of Trajan's rule.67

The last datable evidence pertaining to the koinon are coins struck under Philippus (A.D. 244-247) on which Tomis

68 bears the title: liiycpdnoXi q Edvxou. The koinon could have lasted a bit longer but one may suppose that the end of its activity should be placed sometime in the late 240's-250's

A.D., in the period of the turmoil caused by the Gothic invasions when the normal civic life of at least some

Western Pontic cities was interrupted.

The next question which must be addressed here is that of the titles of the chief magistrates of the Western Pontic league. We have already rejected Mihailov's and Dorutiu-

Boila's attempts to differentiate pontarchs into supreme and local ones. All known pontarchs should be considered presidents of the Western Pontic league. The position in the koinon of the pontarch Aurelios Preiskios Annianos is further referred to as: ap£avxa roO k o i v o u xwv ’ EAA.fjvo)v xf|v

69 TTp(ixr|v otpxiv. Most probably this passage does not suggest

67Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 33f; Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 191.

68 BMC 67, 68; cf. Stoian, "De nouveau," 85. 69 ISM 2.97, lines 8-9; cf. ISM 2.96, lines 6-7: &p£avxa xf|v/ rrp6xtiv &p%fjv about another pontarch, Aurelios Preiskios Isidoros. 284 any additional title of arction of the koinon70 but refers

generically to the supreme power (ctpx'H) of the president of

the Western Pontic league. The same can be said of another president of the koinon, Prosodos son of Pharnakes referred to simply as: ap^avra/ row koivou TTj<;/ nevxaitdieax; (IGB

l2. 64, lines 4-6 ) .

The real problem arises with respect to the relationship between the titles of pontarchs and of archiereis (supreme priests of the imperial cult acting in the name of the koinon). Three positions have emerged: a pontarches was always archiereus,71 they were separate offices even if held from time to time (but not always and not necessarily) by the same person72 and a pontarch could never be an archiereus at the same time.73 The third theory is certainly wrong since there are examples of pontarchs holding the supreme priesthood of the koinon at the same ik time.

70As Pick (Antiken, 73) and Oberhummer ("Pentapolis, " 508) suggested; contra: Stoian, "De nouveau," 85, n. 4.

71Fr. Cumont, "Le Pontarque et 1' APXIEPEYE IIONTOY, " REG 14 (1901): 141; Veyne, "Augustal," 153f; Pippidi, "Encore pontarchie," 623f; Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 224-227; Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 191.

72Stoian ("De nouveau," 86) and, with some reservations, Mihailov ("Western," 34-38).

73Kazarow, "Zur Geschichte," 493.

74The most obvious example: T. Flavius Poseidonios pontarch and archiereus of the Hexapolis (ISM 2.52). 285

Theories of separation of offices of pontarch and

archiereus of the Western Pontic league are based on the

seemingly ambiguous wording of inscriptions, e.g.: xdv

otpxiGpCct ical t t o v x & pxtiv .75 In Mihailov's opinion, if a

pontarch was always simultaneously an archiereus, this

differentiating of titles in inscription would be

superfluous. Especially disquieting is an inscription from

Callatis which reads: apxovxEc oi rcGpi . $6tpov ttovx&pxtiv

kE (3aai AEa kE &p%iEpEa.76 If the titles pontarches and

archiereus are separated by the title basileus, Mihailov

says, they must obviously refer to separate offices which

happened to be held be Flavius Pharon alongside the

eponymous kingship.77

According to Deininger78 this separation of the titles pontarches and archiereus can be easily explained assuming

that the chief priesthood refers to some other cult, not to

the imperial cult of the koinon. This is possible but no unequivocal example of an archiereus of any other deity than

the Emperor can be found, not just in Callatis but also in

75ISM 1.178, 179 (Istros); cf. ISM 2.69, 96, 97 (Tomis); Bordenache, "AntichitA greche," 506f (Callatis); IGB l2.14 (Dionysopolis).

76Bordenache, "AntichitA greche," 506f.

77Mihailov, "Western Pontic," 37.

78Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 226. 286

other Western Pontic cities.79 Kazarow thought that the

title archiereus was used in the meaning of a chief priest

of the imperial cult in a city. 80 Such bombastic titles of municipal priests of Roma and Augustus are attested in some

cities in the eastern Roman provinces, but they are the

exception rather than the rule.81 In Western Pontus the municipal cult of Roma and Augustus is attested in Istros,

Tomis, Callatis and Odessos. The title of a priest in Istros

and Callatis is not preserved. 82 In Odessos it was hiereus

(IGB l2.48, 1. 5). An inscription (ISM 2.69) from Tomis

reads: rdv rcovx&px'nv/ xf)<; ' EjjandAGoc/ xai &pxi£p£a xat

i€p£a/ t o v {3' auroKpardpwv (lines 9-12). The existence of the municipal cult of Roma and Augustus in Tomis is attested numismatically 83 and we may suppose that one of the priestly titles in the inscription quoted above refers to

it. Most probably the second, lesser title applies to the

79Mihailov ("Western Pontic," 37) correctly rejects as hypercritical the possibility that the archiereus in the inscription in question could be a priest of some other (unspecified) deity.

on Kazarow, "Zur Geschichte," 493.

81Mellor, 0€a 'Pu |j.ti, 186.

82The temple in Istros: ISM 1.146; cf. Pippidi, "Ein Augustus-Tempel in der Dobrudscha," in idem, Epigraphische Beitrage, 101-105. In ISM Pippidi restores the title of the priest: [- - - - i€puGvou] (1. 8). A portico of the municipal temple of Augustus in Callatis is known from an inscription: RSdulescu, Munteanu, "Unveroffentlichte," 99- 106, no. 4 (cf. Robert, Bip 1978, 324).

83 Regling, Antiken, 2515; cf. Mellor, 96& ‘P6|iT|, 212. 287 hierarchically lower, municipal cult and the first - to the cult performed in the name of the koinon. It appears, therefore, that the title archiereus was used in the Western

Pontic cities exclusively in reference to the supreme priest of the koinon.

The wording of the inscription from Callatis remains puzzling of course, but in my understanding it does not constitute a decisive argument supporting the hypothesis of the separation of offices of pontarches and archiereus. One must remember that in the same year one person is never attested as pontarch and another as archiereus.

The problem of the relationship between pontarchs and archiereis should be considered in a broader prospective.

Modestinus (Dig. 27.1.6, 14) quotes examples of ethnarchies:

E0vou<; i€papxict, oiov ’Aoiapxia, Bi Suviapxia, KanTtaSoKapxia.

This passage defines ethnarchies (titles like asiarches) as pertaining to priestly offices. 85 As a rule the same chief official of a provincial assembly bore the titles such as lykiarches and archiereus of Lycia at the same time. The two

8ABordenache, "Antichitci greche," 506f.

85 Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 44ff; idem, "Zu einer Hypothese," 227; Rossner, "Asiarchen," 102. The minority opinion, recently expressed by R. A. Kearsley ("Asiarchs: Titulature and Function. A Reappraisal," St. Cl. 26 [ 1988]: 57-65), is that asiarch and archiereus of Asia were separate offices held by two different people at one time. So far not a single example of such a pair of magistrates (different asiarch and archiereus of Asia, or elsewhere, at one time) is known. 288 titles were used almost interchangeably and perhaps they were expressing two different aspects of the chief magistracy of a koinom religious (archiereus) - in provincial imperial cult and political - presiding over the administrative structure of the assembly. 86

Nothing makes us think that the Western Pontic league differed in this respect from other kolna and concilia provinciarum. Most probably the identity of ethnarchies and chief priesthood applied to the Western Pontic league which means that the titles pontarches and archiereus were just two titles for the same official. This impression is reinforced by the fact that the only recorded title for pontarchs' wives is archiereia , ai In the member states of the Western Pontic league this title is attested only with respect to the spouses of pontarchs. Their title may

86Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 191; cf. Rossner, "Asiarchen," 106f.

87Wives of attested pontarchs and archiereis'. Tomis: ISM 2.96, 97; wives of pontarchs (the title archiereus not attested): Tomis - ISM 2.369, Odessos - IGB l2.66. Cf. Deininger, "Zu einer Hypothese," 227. About the archiereiai in general: Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 154. The problem of archiereiai of the province Asia has been much discussed. The prevailing opinion is that they owed their titles to their husbands archiereis and asiarchs (Rossner, "Asiarchen," 102). Recently R. A. Kearsley ("Asiarchs, archiereis and the archiereiai of Asia," GRBS 27 [1986]: 183-192) sought to prove that the archiereiai of Asia were magistrates in their own rights notwithstanding the position of their husbands. Any possible analogy is not applicable in the case of the Western Pontic league since the Western Pontic archiereiai were always wives of pontarchs. 289

therefore reflect the double titles of their husbands:

t t o v t & p x t k Kai dpxi6p€6c-

The following chief magistrates of the Western Pontic

league are attested: 88

88Lists of Pontarchs were published in: Kalopothakes, De Thracia, 69; Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 192ff. 290

TABLE 1: Presidents of the Western Pontic League.

Name Date Title City Reference

M . Ulpius early 1 c. first Istros ISM 1.207 Artemidoros A.D., before pontarch 130

M . Ulpius before 160 pontarch Istros ISM 1.137 Artemidoros

Phaidros before 130 pontarch Tomis ISM 2.52

T. Flavius before 131 pontarch and Tomis ISM 2.5 2 Poseidonios archiereus of Hexapolis

T. Cominius ca. 140 pontarch Istros ISM 1.207 Euxenides

Artemidoros after 138 archiereus Istros ISM 1.180 s o n o f and Herodoros [pontarch]

P . Ae1i u s 117-161 archiereus Tomis ISM 2.59 Antonius (?) T. Cominius 161-180 pontarch of Tomis ISM 2.6 9 Claudianus Hexapolis Hermaphilos a n d archiereus the same after 161 pontarch Tomis ISM 2.70

P. Flavius ca. 170 dis- _ Tomis ISM 2.116 Theodoros pontarches

Noumenios 2nd c. A.D. pontarch (?) Odessos IGB l2. 6 5

T. Flavius A 2nd c. A.D. pontarch of Callatis Sauciuc- Hexapolis S3veanu, Dacia 7-8 (1937-40): 251, no. 18 291

Table 1 (continued)

Oualerios %nd c . A.D. pontarch Callatis IGR 1.651 (Valerius)

P. Aelius 2nd (? ) half pontarch Odessos IGB l2. Proklianos of the 2nd c . 64bis A.D.

Dionysios son 2nd (? ) half pontarch Odessos IGB l2. 66 of Agathenor of the 2“nd c. A.D.

Aurelius end of the pontarch Tomis ISM 2.9 6 Preiskios 2nd/early 3r Isidoros c. A.D.

Aurelius end of the p o n t a r c h , Tomis ISM 2.97 Preiskios 2nd/early 3rd archiereus, Annianos c . A.D. ap£a<; tou k o i v o u rwv ' EXA-i^voiv tt)v a' apxhv

Prosodos son end of the ap^otc t o u Odessos IGB l2. 64 of Pharnakes 2nd/early 3rd k o i v o u tfjc c. A.D. nevtaitdieuq

Dionysodoros end of the pontarch Tomi-s ISM 2.369 2nd/early 3rd c . A.D.

[-]THE son of end of the pontarch Odessos IGB I2.29 5 Theotides 2nd/early 3rd c. A.D.

M. Aurelius l" quarter archiereus Dionyso- IGB 12. 14 Antipatros oof the 4cd c. and pontarch polis Papa A.D.

Flavius 1“ half of pontarch and Callatis Bordenache Pharon tthe 3rd c . archiereus Dacia 4 A.D. (1960):506

Birrios 13C half of pontarch Istros ISM 1.143 (Virrius) tthe 3rd c . Leon A.D. 292

Table 1 (continued)

T. Aelius 13C half of pontarch of Istros ISM 1.143 Mi v [e.g. the 3rd c. Pentapolis OUKi c l v 6 <; ] A.D.

(-]N 2tld-3rd c. P' rtOVT&pxric Tomis ISM 2.436 A.D.

[-]4>iA.O(; 2nd-3rd c. Ttov [dpxTi<; ] Tomis ISM 2.25 A.D.

[ — ] kou 2nd-3rd C. n[ovTdp%T|<; ] Tomis ISM 2.25. A.D. 293

The term of office of a pontarch is not clearly stated in

any of our sources. Certainly this office could be held

repeatedly since three inscriptions attest pontarchs for the

second time. 89 Elsewhere the presidents of koina (concilia

provinciarum) were elected for a year long tenure. 90 Most

probably this was the case with pontarchs too.91

The names (at least partially preserved) of twenty six

presidents of the Western Pontic league are attested. Two of

them held the office twice. This number does not measure up

to ca. 187 attested asiarchs and archiereis of Asia 92 but

these numbers are not compatible, because the presidents of

the koinon of Asia held their office at five provincial

temples of the Emperor cult (Pergamon, Smyrna, Ephesus,

Cyzicus, Sardeis) at one time while in Western Pontus there was only one center of the Emperor cult (Tomis).

Twenty six attested presidents of the Western Pontic

league represent probably about 20% of the original number

of pontarchs.93 In other Danubian provinces markedly lower

89IS M 2.116, II, lines 6-7; 188, 1. 9; 436.

90Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 150, 153.

91Deininger, Provinziallandtage, 196.

92The catalogue of asiarchs and archiereis of Asia in Rossner's article ("Asiarchen," 112-141) names 187 office­ holders; some of them held the office two-four times.

93The Western Pontic league was established under Trajan and expired perhaps in the mid third century A.D. The time of its existence can be estimated as 130-140 years. Twenty six attested pontarchs, whose combined term of office was 294 number of presidents of the provincial assemblies is attested: none in Noricum, ten in Pannonia Superior, nine in

Pannonia Inferior, twelve in Daciae tres, none in Moesia

9 4 Superior, two in Moesia Inferior. The number of attested presidents, high in proportion to the size of the Western

Pontic league, seems to testify to the importance of this koinon for its member-states even if its activity remains largely unknown to us.

twenty eight years, represent ca. 20% of all pontarchs ever elected.

94Nawotka, "Zgromadzenia," 170f, 177f, 181f, 185. CONCLUSIONS

The present study of the history and the government of the

Western Pontic cities shows clearly the limitations caused by the nature of the primary sources. The honorific decrees, dedications, and gravestones attest the existence of certain offices and institutions but do not say much about their nature. Hence, although a catalogue of attested magistracies can be compiled comparatively easily, the responsibilities of these officials frequently elude us.

Table 1 shows how diversified the hierarchy of offices in the Western Pontic cities was. The number of attested offices ranges from eighteen in the best documented Istros to just six in the least documented Dionysopolis, leaving

Tomis with nine, Callatis with eleven, Odessos and Mesambria with thirteen magistracies each. Some of them were apparently created in the foundation period under the influence of the metropoleis. Many offices, however, seem to originate in the Hellenistic period. In one case at least a magistracy (that of the office of archon) in Dorian

Mesambria and Callatis was probably established because of the constitutional influence of their Ionian neighbors. Some

295 296 magistracies, undoubtedly regarded as essential elements of a city government everywhere, are attested in all, or almost all, cities of our interest. The agoranomos, archon, gymnasiarch, agonothetes, tamias belong to this category.

Sometimes similar functions seem to have been performed by different magistrates, e.g. by the euposiarches in Tomis,

Odessos and Callatis, and the eutheniarches in Istros. The example of hegemon should be, on the other hand, a warning against too rash a use of analogy to explain the nature of libtle known institutions. The hegemon was in one colony of

Miletus (Tomis) a military magistrate, in the other (Istros) a minor civilian functionary responsible for placing the decrees of the council and people on stone.

The more general questions pertaining to the nature of the constitutions of the Western Pontic cities and to their status in Roman times pose real difficulties because of the scarcity of sources. Only the evolution of Istros' government from the original narrow oligarchy to a democracy in the fourth century B.C. and later back to oligarchy can be traced with some degree of certainty. Indirect evidence justifies putting forward a hypothesis of the oligarchic character of the constitutions of the remaining Western

Pontic cities from their foundation into the Roman epoch.

The legal position of the Western Pontic cities in the

Roman empire varied. Callatis very probably achieved the highest rank, that of the civitas foederata. The other 297

cities of the Western Pontus were reduced to the status of

civitates stipendiariae, however Tomis may have gained

freedom briefly under Hadrian.

The division of the citizen-body in the Western Pontic

colonies of Miletus shows remarkable similarity to the

original tribal system of their mother-city. That of the

Megarian colonies is largely unknown to us. The tribes in

Istros and Mesambria were further divided into smaller,

numerical units. In the Roman epoch the Western Pontic

colonies of Miletus enlarged their tribal system by adding

a seventh phyle of the Romans, no doubt, in order to please

the lords of the world.

The considerations of political complaisance must have

lain behind creating the Western Pontic league (icoivdv t o u

Eu(i)v6(iou II6v to u ) in the first quarter of the second century

A.D. All six Western Pontic cities participated in it until

A.D. 187-197, when Mesambria dissociated itself from the

league after being transferred from Moesia Inferior to

Thrace. The koinon played the role of a provincial assembly

for the Western Pontic cities which in turn did not

participate in the second assembly of the territory of Lower

Moesia: concilium provinciae Moesiae Inferioris. The

existence of the koinon indeed underscores the identity of

the Western Pontus as a self-contained geographical and

political unit. 298

T ^ ^ m S r f ^'w aSEffii.

•>'...\* VI ■ bf1 '*«|HV' •*** iJ ^8?f ^'<; *■% *&&(&

n 1i S *S m> -y/; i

fslhbwa /f^'vT *$ i5 kcJRSiVM «. . -V ,i-^.,~»^i fylbduuauor ; -VA CAr[QjKyfA^Yf:8a0Utfr)ifjehtK

I f 1

? 2 S 5 S ? v s * 7 ? ^ e w f H ( t /

*» f JblAT

/

' •yevedrchilcjo}• t( ri '^Ss^NSfeiillfri v k V *h >•— vi«a® Mi ^ \ ....-^ t-j f/T| ;i! > ( ■ 1 t** *v i •-, i/ < / J s f W » w 4 1 \ i KOttuinan ’" '' .j.K(Uiy(Uc^ekm\\\ \\ \ \ \ \

ntsc ■^h^la»i^Wtjwbl(^-Bu)rarv J UllsrhkiSl ZALDAPA'* ^ ,v JnU-Utsthar M/P //// awarJalM IZ 0 N E isehih. $$$?T DOBRVDSCHA ^ B a t b w a < ^ V i / / / . " ANTIKE • NAMEN • VND-FVN ^ “A i t .. ' ' - — " / STATTEN SIND ROT HERVOR6 mwSv ^ V HO0EN —MEILENSTEINSTELLV ?//•'/ / ' f " GEN MIT S*VLEN MARKIER m V/ :■: Ii 1' t FIGURE 1: Map of Dobrudja. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Epiaraphic sources.

Cagnat, R., Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Paris 1906-1927.

Colitz H. and F. Bechtel. Sammlung der griechischen Dialektinschriften. 4 Vols. Gottingen 1884-1915.

Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. 2 Vols. Leipzig 1903-1905.

Dittenberger, W. Sylloge inscriptionum Graecarum. 3d ed. 4 Vols. Leipzig 1915-1924.

Dorutiu-BoilS, E. Capidava, Troesmis, Noviodunum. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae, ed. by D. M. Pippidi and I. I. Russu. 2d series: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. Vol. 5. Bucurestis 1980.

Fraser, P. M. Samothrace. The Inscriptions on Stone. London 1960.

Hiller von Gaertingen, F. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin 1906.

Latyschew, B. Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrional!s Ponti Euxini. 4 vols. Petropoli 1885-1916.

Levi, E. J. Inscriptiones Olbiae (1917-1965). Leningrad 1968.

McCrnm, M. and A. G. Woodhead. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors. Cambridge 1961.

Merkelbach, R., F. K. Dorner, and S. Sahin. Die Inschriften von Kalchedon. 1980.

299 300

Mihailov, G. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria Repertae. 5 vols. Sofia 1958-1970.

Pippidi, D. M. Inscriptiones Histriae et viciniae. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae, ed. by D. M. Pippidi and I. I. Russu. 2d series: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. Vol. 1. Bucurestis 1983.

Rehm, A. Das Delphinion in Milet. Berlin 1914.

Ritti, T. Fonti Letterarie ed Epigraphiche. Hierapolis: Scavi e richerche. Vol. 1. Rome 1985.

Sherk, V. Roman Documents from the Greek East. Senatus Consulta and Epistulae to the Age of Augustus. Baltimore 1969.

Sokolowski, F. Lois sacr6es de l'Asie Mineure. Paris 1955.

Stoian, I. Tomis et territorium. Inscriptiones Daciae et Scythiae Minoris antiquae, ed. by D. M. Pippidi and I. I. Russu. 2d series: Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae. Vol. 1. Bucurestis 1987.

Tod, M. N. Greek Historical Inscriptions: from the Sixth Century B.C. to the Death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. Chicago 1985. 301

2. Literature.

Abbott, F. F., and A. C. Johnson. Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire. Princeton, 1926.

Accame, S. II dominio Romano in Grecia dalla Guerra arcaica ad Augusto. Roma, 1946.

Alexandrescu, P. "Autour de la date de fondation d'Histria." St.Cl. 4 (1962): 49-69.

. "Le c^ramique de Gr6ce de l'Est dans les cit6s pontiques. " In Les c6ramiques de la Gr£ce de l'Est et leur diffusion en Occident. 52-61. Paris and Naples, 1978.

Alexandrescu, P., and A. Suceveanu. "Une nouvelle histoire de la Dobroudja." Dacia 32 (1988): 163-173.

Aricescu, A. The Army in Roman Dobrudja. BAR International Series, no. 86. Oxford, 1980.

, ed. Noi monumente epigrafice din Scythia minor. Constanta 1964.

. "Nota asupra unui decret Elenistic inedit din Muzeul Regional de Arheologie Dobrogea." In Noi monumenta epigrafice din Scythia minor, ed. by A. Aricescu, 35-40. Constanta, 1964.

Avram, A. and Gh. Poenaru Bordea. "Nouveaux timbres amphoriques thasien de Callatis." Dacia 32 (1988), 27-37.

Badian, E. Foreign Clientelae (264-70 B.C.). Oxford, 1958.

Barbieri, G. "Ancora sul 'praefectus orae maritimae'." Rivista di Filologia Classica, n.s. 24 (1946): 166-171.

Barnea, A. "Municipium Noviodunum. Nouvelles donn§es 6pigraphiques." Dacia 32 (1988): 53-60.

Barnett, R. D. "Urartu." In CAH. 2d ed. Vol. 3.1. 314-371. Cambridge 1982.

Barron, J. P. "Milesian Politics and Athenian Propaganda, c. 460-440 B.C." JHS 82 (1962): 1-6.

Bechtel, F. Die griechischen Dialekten. Berlin 1923. 302

Belin de Ballu, E. Olbia. Citd antique du littoral nord de la Mer Noire. Leiden 1972.

Beloch, K. J. Griechische Geschichte. 2d ed. Vol. 1. Strassbourg 1913.

Bengtson, H. "Bemerkungen zu einer Ehreninschrift der Stadt Apollonia am Pontos." Historia 12 (1963): 96-104.

. Griechische Geschichte. 5th ed. Munich 1977.

. "Neues zur Geschichte der Hellenismus in Thrakien und in der Dobrudscha." Historia 11 (1962): 18-28.

. Die Strategie in der hellenistischen Zeit. Vol. 2. Munich 1944.

Bernhardt, R. Imperium und Eleutheria. Die romische Politik gegeniiher den freien Stadten des griechischen Ostens. Hamburg 1971.

. Polis und rSmische Herrschaft in der spa ter Republik (149-31 v. Chr.). Berlin and New York 1985.

Besevliev, V. "Die Westkuste des Schwarzen Meers." Klio 63 (1981): 261-266.

Besevliev, V., and J. Irmscher, ed. Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien. Berlin 1960.

Bilabel, F. Die ionische Kolonisation. Philologus Suppl., vol. 14, no. 1. Leipzig 1920.

Billows, R. A. Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State. Berkeley ans Los Angeles 1990.

Blavatskaya, T. V. "Greki i Skify v zapadnom Prichernomore." VDI (1948, no. 1): 206-213.

. "0 finansovykh kollegiyakh Olvii i Istrii." KSIMK 22 (1948): 57-58.

. "Vnutrennyye ustroystva zapadnopontiyskikh gorodov v epokhu ikh avtonomii." VDI (1948, no. 3): 36-45.

. Zapadnopontiyske goroda v VII-I vekakh do nashey ery. Moscow 1952.

Bordenache, G. "AntichitSi greche e romane nel nuovo Museo di Mangalia." Dacia 4 (1960): 489-509. 303

Borozdina, T. V. "K istorii zapadnopontiyskikh gorodov v 80- 40 g. I v. do n. e." VDI (1946, no. 3): 197-203.

Brandis. "’E k 6 i k o <; . " In RE, vol. 5, 2160-2167.

Burstein, S. M. Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Heraclea on the Black Sea. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1976.

Busolt, G. Griechische Staatskunde. Vol. 1. Munich 1920.

Carcopino, J. La RSpublique Romaine de 133 A 44 av. J. C. Paris 1935.

Carlier, P. La RoyautS en Grece avant Alexandre. Strasbourg 1984.

Cassola, F. La Ionia nel mondo Miceneo. Naples 1957.

Christophilopoulos, A. P. "Nono6A,aKGc Kai 0€ano6A,aK6c. " Platon 20 (1968): 134-143.

Conovici, N., A. Avram, and Gh. Poenaru-Bordea. "Nouveaux timbres amphoriques sinop6en de Callatis." Dacia 33 (1989): 111-127.

Cook, B. F. "Two Hands? A Greek Inscription from Tomis." In $IAIA EllH (Festschrift G. E. Mylonas), vol. 2, 405-409. Athens 1987.

Cook, J. M. "The Eastern Greeks." In CAH. 2d ed. Vol. 3.3, 196-221. Cambridge 1982.

Cri?an, I. H. Burebista and his Times. Bucure?ti 1978.

Crossland, R. A. "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area." In CAH. 2d ed. Vol. 3.1, 834-849. Cambridge 1982.

Cumont, F. "Le pontarque et 1 'dpj^i 6p€i)<; II6vtou." REG 14 (1901): 138-141.

Daicoviciu, C. "Dakien und Rom in der Prinzipatszeit." In ANRW ser. 2, vol. 2.6, 889-918.

Dahlheim, W. Gewalt und Herrschaft. Das provinziele Herrschaftssystem der romischen Republik. Berlin and New York 1972.

Danov, Chr. Altthrakien. New York 1976. 304

. "Philippopolis, Serdica, Odessos." In ANRW, ser. 2, vol. 7.1, 241-300.

. "Pontos Euxeinos." RE Suppl., vol. 9, 866-1175.

. "Thracian Penetration into the Greek Cities on the West Coast of the Black Sea." Klio 38 (I960): 75-80.

-— . "Die Thraker auf dem Ostbalkan von der hellenistischen Zeit bis zur Griindung Konstantinopolis." In ANRW, ser. 2, vol. 7.1, 21-185.

. Zapadniyat briag na Cherno More v drevnosta. Sofia 1947.

. "Zur Geschichte des westpontischen k o i v 6 v ." Klio 31 (1938): 436-439.

Debord, P. "Chiliastys." REA 86 (1984): 201-211.

Dechev, D. "Prinos kSm istoriata na zapadnopontiyskite gradovite." IAI 17 (1950): 59-69.

. Die thrakische Sprachreste. Vienna 1957 .

Deininger, J. Die Provinziallandtage der romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Vestigia, vol. 6. Munich and Berlin 1965.

. "Zu einer neuen Hypothese tiber die Pontarchie im westpontischen xoivdv." ZPE 51 (1983): 219-227.

Delev, P. "Bevolkerung und Siedlungssystem an der bulgarischen Schwarzmeerkiiste." In Die bulgarische Schwarzmeerkiiste im Alter turn, ed. by W. Schuller, 9-27. Xenia, vol. 16. Konstanz 1985.

Diehl, E. "Odessos." In RE, vol. 17, 1883-1885.

Dimitriu, S. "Cartierul de locuin^e din zona de vest a getatii in epoca arhaica." Histria 2 (1966): 38-40.

. "la colonie milSsienne d"Istros l'^poque archique et sa premier contact avec les indigenes." In Actes du II® Congr&s International des fitudes Sud-Est Europ4en (Ath&nes, 2-13 mai 1970). Vol. 2. Athens 1972. 305

. "Fizionomia cartierului de locuin^e extra muros de la Histria in perioda arhaica." SCIV 21 (1970): 225-233.

Doru^iu-Boiia, E. "Contribution 6pigraphiques h l'histoire de Tomis a l'6poque du Principat." Dacia 19 (1975): 151 -160.

. "Triburile la Tomis in epoca romana." St.Cl. 12 (1970): 117-127.

. "Zur Frage der Zerstorung Histrias im 3. Jh." St.Cl. 6 (1964): 247-259.

Droysen, J. G. Geschichte des Hellenismus. 2d ed. Vol. 2. Gotha 1878.

Dunham, A. G. The History of Miletus. Down to the Anabasis of Alexander. London 1915.

Dunst, G. "Zu den altmilesischen Phylen." Forschungen und Fortschritte 35 (1961): 272-273.

Ehrhardt, N. Milet und seine Kolonien. Vergleichende Untersuchung der kultischen und politischen Einrichtungen. Frankfurt am Mein 1983.

. "Probleme der griechischen Kolonisation am Beispiel der milesischen Griindungen." Eos 7 3 (1985): 81-99.

Etienne, R. Le culte imperial dans la pSninsule ibSrique d'Auguste a DioclGtien. Biblioth^que d'liicole frangaise d'AthSnes et de Rome, vol. 191. Paris 1958.

Eusebius. Eusebius Werke, ed. by R. Helm. Vol. 7, Die Chronik des Hieronimus. GCS, vol. 47. Berlin 1956.

Finley, M. I. A History of Sicily to the Arab Conquest. London 1968.

Fluss, M. "Marcianopolis." In RE, vol. 14, 1505-1511.

. "Moesia." In RE, vol. 15, 2350-2411.

Forni, G. "Limes." In Dizionario epigrafico di antichitZ romana, ed. by E. de Ruggiero, vol. 4, fasc. 37-43.

Forrest, W. G. G. "Colonization and the Rise of Delphi." Historia 6 (1957): 160-175. 306

. "The Tribal Organization of Chios." BSA 55 (1960): 172-189.

Gaiabov, I. "Das antike und mittelalterliche Nesebar." In Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien, ed. by V. Besevliev and J. Irmscher, 306-328. Berlin 1960.

Gauthier, P. Les citSs grecques et leurs bienfaiterurs (IVe -Ier siAcles avant J.-C.). Contributions A 1'histoire des institution. Paris 1985.

Gehrke, H.-J. "Zur Geschichte Milets in der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr." Historia 29 (1980): 17-31.

Gerasimov, T. "Monety ot Kanit, Tanuza, Kharasp, Akroza i Saria." IVAD 9 (1953): 53-58.

. "Neizdadeni avtonomni moneti ot Mesembria." INMB 1 (1950): 23-32.

Gerov, B. "Die Grenzen der romischen Provinz Thracia bis zur Griindung des Aurelianischen Dakien." ANRW, ser. 2, vol. 7.1, 212-240.

. "Prouchvaniya varkhu pozemlenite otnosheniya v nashite zemi prez rimskoto vreme." GSU FF 1.2 (1955): 41-54.

. "Romanizmat mezhdu Dunava i Balkana." GSU FF 45 (1950), 47 (1951), 48 (1955).

. "Severnata granica na provinciya Trakiya." IAI 17 (1950): 11-33.

Glotz, G. "Histoire gr§cque." Vol. 3. Paris 1936.

Gofieva, Z. "Die Apollonkult in Odessos." In Studia in honorem Vesselini Besevliev. 288-298. Sofia 1978.

. "Pretres 6ponymes d'Odessos et de Dionysopolis." Klio 62 (1980): 49-53.

Graham, A. J. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece. 2d ed. Chicago 1983.

Green, P. M. "Ovid in Tomis." Grand Street 2 (1982): 116 -125.

Gruen, E. S. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984. 307

Hanell, K. Megarische Studien. Lund 1934.

Haussoulier, B. "D&mes et tribus, patries et phratries de Mi let." Rev.Phil. 21 (1897): 38-49.

Head, B. V. Historia Numorum. A Manual of Greek Coins. 2d ed. Oxford 1911.

Henry, A. S. Honours and Privileges in Athenian Decrees: The Principal formulae of Athenian Honorary Decrees. Hildesheim 1983.

Henze, E. W. De civitatibus liberis quae fuerunt in provinciis populi Romani. Berlin 1892.

Highbarger, E. L. The History and Civilization of Ancient Megara. Baltimore 1927.

Hiller von Gaertingen, F. "Miletos." In RE, vol. 15, 1586 -1655.

Hind, J. G. F. "Greek and Barbarian Peoples on the Shores of the Black Sea." Archaeological Reports 30 (1983-1984): 71-97.

Hoddinott, H. F. Bulgaria in Antiquity: An Archaeological Introduction. London 1975.

. The Thracians. New York 1981.

Horn, H. Foederati. Frankfurt am Main 1930.

Iliescu, V. "Die aussenpolitische Krise der hellenischen Poleis Klein-Skythiens im 4. Jahrhundert v. u. Z." In Hellenische Poleis. Krise-Wandlung-Wirkung, ed. byE.-Ch. Welskopf. Vol. 2, 664-681. Berlin 1974.

Isaac, B. The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest. Leiden 1986.

Jeffery, L. H. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Oxford 1961.

Jones, A. H. M. "Civitates liberae et immunes in the East.” In Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buckler. 103-117. Manchester 1933.

. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford 1966 . 308

Jones, N. F. Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 176. Philadelphia 1987.

Kahrstedt, U. "Kotys. 2." In RE, vol. 11, 1551-1555.

. " ' Poiht)t&A.ktic •" In RE, vol. 1A, 1003-1006.

. "E6v8ikoc." In RE, vol. 4A, 1331-1333.

Kaletsch, H. "Zur lydischen Chronologie." Historia 7 (1958): 1-47 .

Kalopothakes, D. De Thracia Provincia Romana. Leipzig 1893.

Kazarow, G. "Die Entstehungszeit des linkpontischen Koiv6v." Philologus 60 (1901): 315-316.

. "Zur Geschichte des linkpontischen Koiv6v." Klio 9 (1909): 492-493.

Rearsley, R. A. "Asiarchs, Archiereis, and the Archiereiai of Asia." GRBS 27 (1986): 183-192.

. "Asiarchs: Titulature and Function. A Reappraisal." St.Cl. 26 (1988): 57-65.

Riesling, E. "Phylarchen." In RE, vol. 20, 990.

Kleinsorge, J. De civitatium Graecarum in Ponti Euxini ora occidentali sitarum rebus. Halle 1888.

Knoepfler, D. "La royaut# grecque." REG 99 (1986): 332-341.

Konstantinides, M. 'H Mr|aTiu0pia t o u Eu ^Gi v o u . Athens 1945. de Laet, S. J. Portorium. iStude sur 1' organisation douaniere chez les romaines, surtout & I'Spoque du Haut-Empire. Antwerpen 1949.

Lambent, R. Beloved and God. The Story of Hadrian and Antinous. London 1984.

Lambrino, S. "Decreto axoixnS6v di Calatis." Epigraphica 1 (1945): 22-26.

. "La destruction d'Histria et sa reconstruction au III6 si6cle ap. J.-C." REL 11 (1933): 457-463. 309

. "Deux types mon6taires d'Histria." Arethuse 7 (1930): 101-108.

. "Fouilles d'Histria." Dacia 3-4 (1927-1932): 378-410.

. "Inscription latine de Callatis." CRAI (1933): 278-288.

. "Tomis, citd gr6co-g6te chaz Ovide." In Ovidiana: Recherches sur Ovide publiSes A 1' occasion du bimillSnaire de la naissance du po&te. 378-390. Paris 1958.

. "Les tribus ioniennes d'Histria." Istros 1.1:117-126.

Lammert, F. "Ta£i ap^cx;." In RE, vol. 5A, 75.

. In RE, vol. 5A, 85-87.

Larsen, J. A. O. Representative Government in Greek and Roman History. Berkeley 1955.

Lasserre. F. "Skymnos. 2." In Kleine Pauly, vol. 5, 240.

Latte, K. "Phyle." In RE, vol. 20, 994-1001.

Latyschew, B. "La Constitution de Cherson6sos en Tauride d'apr&s des documents 6pigraphiques." BCH 9 (1885): 265 -300.

. Issledovaniya ob istorii i gosudarstvennom stroye goroda Olvii. St. Petersburg 1887.

Launey, M. Recherches sur les armies hellSnistigues. Vol. 1. Paris 1949.

Legon, R. P. Megara: The Political History of a Greek City- State to 336 B.C. Ithaca and London 1981.

Lenk, Br. "Mesambria." In RE, vol. 15, 1072-1074.

Lozovan, S. "Ovide, agonoth£te de Tomis." REL 39 (1961): 172-181.

Magie, D. The Roman Rule in Asia Monor to the End of the Third Century A.D. 2 vols. Princeton 1950.

Malkin, I. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece. Leiden 1987. 310

Manganaro, G. "Epigrafia e istituzioni di Creta." In AntichitA Cretesi: studi in onore di Doro Levi. Vol. 2, 39-58. Catana 1978.

Marin, D. St. "II foedus romano con Callatis." Epigraphies 10 (1948): 104-130.

Marquardt, J. Romische Staatsverwaltung. 2d ed. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1881.

Mattingly, H. B. "Rome's Earliest Relations with Byzantium, Heraclea Pontica and Callatis." In Ancient Bulgaria: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, ed - by A. G. Poulter, part. 1. 239-252. Nottingham 1983.

Mellor, R. 6€& ' Pujiti : The Worship o f the Goddess Roma in the Greek World. Hypomnemata 42. Gdttingen 1976.

Merle, H. Die Geschichte der Stadte Byzantion und Kalchedon von ihrer Griindung bis zum Bingreifen der Romer in die Verhaltnisse des Ostsns. Kiel 1916.

Mihailov, G. "Documents 6pigraphiques de la cote bulgare de la Mer Noire." In Actes du VII0 Congr&s International d' Spigraphie grecque et latine, Constanza, 9-15 septemhre 1977. 263-271. Bucarest and Paris 1979 .

. "The Western Pontic Koinon." Epigraphies 41 (1979): 7-42.

Millar, F. The Emperor In the Roman World (31 BC - AD 337). Ithaca and New York 1977.

Miller, S. G. The Prytaneion. Berkeley 1978.

Mirdev, M. "Rimske termy v Varne. " In Actes du Premier Congr&s International des tStudes Balkaniques et Sud-Est EuropSenes. Vol. 2, 455-477, Sofia 1969 .

Moisil, C. "Ponduri inedite sau put in conoscute din Histria, Callatis §i Tomis." SCN 1 (1957): 247-295.

Molev, E. A. "Zapadnoponiyske goroda v antirimskikh voynakh Mitridata VI." In Terra Antiqua Balcanica: Studia in honorem Chr. M. Danov. GSU if 77 .2 (1985): 285-292.

Mommsen, Th. The Provinces of the Roman Empire. 2 vols. London 1909. 311

. Rdmische Staatsrecht. Leipzig 1887.

Moretti, L. "Su alcune iscrizioni greche di Histria." St.Cl. 24 (1986): 71-75.

Mrozewicz, L. Rozwdj ustroju municypalnego a post$py romanizacji w Mezji Dolnej. Poznan 1982.

Muller, L. Numismatique d'Alexandre le Grand. Copenhague 1855.

Nawotka, K. "Zgromadzenia prowincjonalne w rzymskich prowinc jach naddunajskich." Antiquitas 13 (1987): 163-200.

Ness&bre. Vol. 1, ed. by T. Ivanov. Sofia 1969. Vol. 2, ed. by V. Velkov. Sofia 1980.

Netzhammer, R. "MSrunfi^uri Arheologice." Revista CatolicS 1 (1914): 4.

Nevskaya, V. P. Vizantiy v klassicheskuyu i ellinisticheskuyu epokhi. Moscow 1953.

Norr, D. Imperium und Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit. Mvinchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschungen und antike Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 6. Munich 1969.

Oberhummer, E. "Pentapolis. 1." In RE, vol. 19, 508.

Och?eanu, R. "Un poids de Tomi, de l'6poque de l'empereur Septime S6v6re." RBN 121 (1975): 81-90.

Oehler, J. "Agoranomoi." In RE. vol. 1, 883-885.

. " ’ Attoi kict. " In RE, vol. 1, 2823-2836.

. " * EW a p X O C ." In RE, vol. 5, 2735-2737.

. ’Ti)|ivaai apxo?." In RE, vol. 7, 1969-2004.

Ognenova, L. "Les fouilles de Messemvria." BCH 84 (1960): 221-232.

Ognenova-Marinova, L. "Mesambria Pontic a." Wiadomosci Archeologiczne 44 (1979): 34-40.

. "Tuiles et terres cuites architecturales." In Nessebre, vol. 2, ed. by V. Velkov, 110-155. Sofia 1980. 312

Oliver, J. H. "Texts A and B of the Horothesia Dossier of Istros." GRBS 6 (1965): 143-156.

PSrvc.n, V. "A propos du 'basileus' Cotys de Callatis." Dacia 1 (1924): 363-367.

. "Archaologische Funde im Jahre 1914." AA 30 (1915): 249 -251.

. "Gerusia din Callatis." AAR, ser, 2, 39 (1920): 1-40.

. Getica: o protoistorie a Daciei. Bucure?ti 1926.

. "Une nouvelle inscription de Tomi." Dacia 1 ( 1924): 273 -279.

. "I primordi della civiltA romana alle foci del Danubio." Ausonia 10 (1921): 187-209.

Passerini, A. "II testo del foedus di Roma con Callatis." Athenaeum n .s . 13 (1935): 57-72.

G. Perrot, MSmoires d' archSologie, d' Spigraphie et d ’ histoire. Paris 1875.

Pick B. and K. Regling. Die antiken Miinzen von Dacien und Moesien. Vol. 1, part. 1. B. Pick. Berlin 1898. Vol. 1, part. 2. B. Pick and K. Regling. Berlin 1910.

Pi6rart, M. "AthAnes et Milet. 1. Tribus et dAmes milAsiens." MH 40 (1983): 1-18.

. "La constitution de Milet A la lumiAre de ses colonies." In Actes du VIIe Congr&s International d ’ Spigraphie grecque et latine, Constanza, 9-15 septembre 1977, 439-440. Bucarest and Paris 1979.

. "Les Ctuhiivioi de Milet." Ant.Cl. 38 (1969): 365-388.

. "Phratries et 'komai' d'Argos." BCH 107 (1983): 269 -273.

Pippidi, D. M. "A propos des tribus d'Istros A l'Apoque romaine." In Le monde greet Hommages A Claire Preaux, ed. by J. Bingen, 464-469. University libre de Bruxelles. Facultd de Philosophie et Lettres, vol. 62. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d ’6pigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 222-227. Paris and Bucarest 1984. ) 313

"A propos du culte de l'Apollon A Istros." In D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d'Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 263-267. Paris and Bucarest 1984. (First published in ErfjA.ii: T6(io<; Gi c pvfjpriv NiicoA,<5tou KavroA.Govro<;, 40-43. Athens 1978.)

— . "Ein Augustus-Tempel in der Dobrudscha." In D. M. Pippidi. Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit, 101-105. Berlin 1962. (First published in j Oa i 46 (1959): 230-238.)

— . "Autour de la date du 'foedus' Rome-Callatis. " In Polis and Imperium: Studies in honour of Edward Togo Salmon, ed. by J. A. S. Evans, 183-200. Toronto 1974.

— . "La date du 'foedus' Rome-Callatis." St.Cl. 15 (1973): 57-67. (Republished in D. M. Pippidi. Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain de la mer Noire, 172-181. Bucure?ti 1975.)

— . "D^crets honorifiques de Callatis." Dacia 6 (1962): 469 -474.

— . "En marge d'un document mithriaque de Scythie Mineure." In Hommages h M. J. Vermasseren, vol. 3, 967-97 3. Leiden 1978. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d'Gpigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 273-277. Paris and Bucarest 1984.)

— . "Encore quelques reflexion sur la pontarchie et les pontarques de M6sie." In Hommages A Marcel Renard. Vol. 2, 623-633. Bruxelles 1969.

— . Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit. Berlin 1962.

— . "Les fouilles d'Istros (1914-1957)." BCH 82 (1958): 335 -350.

— . "Gfetes et Grecs dans 1'histoire de la Scythie Mineure A l'Spoque de Byrebistas." Dacia 25 (1981): 255-262. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d'Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 177-188. Paris and Bucarest 1984.)

— . I Greci nel Basso Danubio dall'et£ arcaica alia conquista romana. Milan 1971.

— . "Grottes dionysiaque A Callatis." BCH 88 (1964): 151 -158. 314

— . "Histria aux I-III si&cles." Dacia 19 (1975): 141-150.

— . "Une hypothdse sur le temple de la Concorde & Callatis." St.Cl. 16 (1974): 89-99.

— . "Les inscriptions grecques de Scythie Mineure de Boeckh h nos joures." In Akte des IV. Kongress fiir griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, 318-330. Vienna 1964. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain de la mer Noire, 21-30. Bucure?ti 1975.)

— . "Istros et les G&tes au Ilie sidcle av. notre ere." St.Cl. 3 (1961): 55-66.

— . "Les Macddoniens sur le Bas-Danube de Philippe II a Lysimaque." In D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d'Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 151-163. Paris and Bucarest 1984.

— . "Mi?carea de colonizare greacS ?i intermeierea coloniilor pontice." In D. M. Pippidi and D. Berciu. Ge%i $i Greci la DunSrea de jos din cele mai veche timpuri pinS la cucevirea romanS. Din istoria Dobrogei. Vol. 1, 139-156. Bucure?ti 1965.

— . "Neue Nachrichten viber die Verfassung Histrias in vorromischer Zeit." In D. M. Pippidi. Epigraphische Beitrage zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und romischer Zeit, 35-50. Berlin 1962.

— . "Note de lectura." St.Cl. 11 (1969): 342-249; 21 (1983): 103-114.

— . "Note sur 1'organisation militaire d'Istros." Klio 41 (1962): 158-167.

— . "Note sur 1 'organisation militaire d'Istros a l'epoque pr§romaine." In D. M. Pippidi. Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain de la mer Noire, 56-64. Bucure?ti 1975.

— . "Nouvelle donn6es sur constitution d'Histria pr^romaine." NEH 1 (1954): 94-97.

— . "Un nuovo pontarco callatino del III secolo e. n." Dacia 4 (1960): 511-514.

— . Parerga. ttcrits de philologie, d'Epigraphie et d ’histoire ancienne. Paris and Bucarest 1984. 315

— . "Les premiers rapports de Rome et des citds grecques de l'Euxin." Rivista Storica dell'Antichith 2 (1972); 17-38.

— . "RectificSri la unele inscrip^ii histriene publicate de V. Parvan." SCIV 6 (1955); 888-895.

— . "Reflexion sur la pontarchie et les pontarques de la Mesie." In D. M. Pippidi. Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain de la mer Noire, 250-256. Bucure?ti 1975.

— . "Les relations politiques des cit6s de la cote occidentale de l'Euxin h. l'dpoque hell6nistique." NEH 2 (1960); 45-54. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d' dpigraphie et d' histoire ancienne, 164-176. Paris and Bucarest 1984.)

<— . "Les rois gates et les colonies grecques de Scythie Mineure." In Melanges Carcopino, 7 63-770. Paris 1966.

— . "Le role de centres urbains dans le processus de romanisation de la Dacie et la Scythie Mineure." In D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d' Spigraphie et d' histoire ancienne, 245-253. Paris and Bucarest 1984.

— . Scythica Minora. Recherches sur les colonies grecques du littoral roumain de la mer Noire. Bucure?ti 1975.

— . "'La seconde fondation' d'Istros a la lumiere d'un document in£dit." BCH 92 (1968); 226-240.

— . "§tiri noi despre legSturile Histriei cu Ge^ii in epoca ellenistica." SCIV 11 (1960); 39-54.

— . "§tiri noi despre organizarea interna a cetatii Histria in perioada autonomiei." SCIV 5 (1954); 431-447.

— . "Sur les g6rousies d'Istros et de Callatis." In Xapiox^piov Ei <; ’A. K. ’OpAavSov, vol. 4, 75-85. Athens 1967.

— . "Sur un d£cret des thiasistes de Callatis." St.Cl. 8 (1966); 87-96.

— . "Sur un fragment de d6cret in^dit de Callatis." In D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. tcrit de philologie, d ’ Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 195-207. Paris and Bucarest 1984. 316

— "Tomis cit6 g6to-grecque & l'6poque d'Ovide?" Athenaeum 55 (1977): 250-256. (Reprinted in D. M. Pippidi. Parerga. Merits de philologie, d' Spigraphie et d'histoire ancienne, 188-194. Paris and Bucarest 1984.)

— . "Les villes grecques de Scythie Mineure & l'6poque hell^nistique• " Balkan Studies 6 (1965): 99-118.

— . " Zum Datum der zerstorung Histrias durch die Goten im 3. Jh." SCIV 4 (1953): 796-801.

Pippidi, D. M. and D. Berciu. Gefi $i Greci la DunArea de jos din cele mai veche timpuri pinS la cucevirea romanS. Din istoria Dobrogei. Vol. 1. Bucure?ti 1965.

Pippidi D. M. and E. Popescu. "Les relations d'Istros et d'Apollonie du Pont h l'6poque hell§nistique." Dacia 3 (1959): 235-258.

Poland, F. Geschichte des Griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig 1909.

Polsbrew, H. L. "De rebus Chersonesitarum et Callatianorum. " In Program des Real-Gymnasium. Berlin 1838.

Popescu, E. "Die Inschriften aus Kleinskythien." In Actes du VII0 Congr&s International d' Spigraphie grecque et latine, Constanza, 9-15 septembre 1977. 273-292. Bucarest and Paris 1979.

— . "Zeus Soter & Callatis." SCIV 15 (1964):345-349.

— . "Zur Geschichte der Stadt in Kleinskythien in der Spatantike. Ein epigraphischer Beitrag." Dacia 19 (1975): 173-182.

Preaux, C. "institutions 6conomique et social des villes hell^nistique principalement en Orient." Recueil de la Society Jean Bodin 7 (1956): 81-135.

Preda, C. Callatis. Bucure?ti 1968.

— . "Pond histrian descoperit in satul Istria, jud. Constanta." SCN 1 (1980): 117-119.

Premerstein, A. von. "Die AnfMnge der Provinz Moesien." JOAI 1 (1898): 170-195.

Price, M. J. "Mithridates VI Eupator, Dionysios, and the Coinage of the Black Sea." NC 7th ser. 8 (1968): 1-12. 317

RSdulescu, A. "Inscrip^ii inedite din Dobrogea." SCIV 14 (1969): 79-105.

. "Note epigrafice I." Pontica 2 (1969): 319-339.

. "Recente gergetarii arheologice la Tomis." Pontica 6 (1973): 347.

RSdulescu, A. and M. Munteanu. "Unverdffentlichte Inschriften aus Tomis und Callatis." In Epigraphica: Travaux dSdi4s au VIIe Congr&s d' 4pigraphie grecques et latine, Constanza 9-15 septembre 1977. 99-111. Bucarest 1977.

Regling, K. "Charaspes." In Corolla Numismatica Head: Numismatic essays in honour of Barclay V. Head, 259-265. Oxford 1906.

. "Synarchia." In RE, vol. 4A, 1327.

Reid, J. S. The Municipalities of the Roman Empire. Cambridge 1913.

Robert, L. La Carie. Histoire et gGographie historique avec le recueil des inscriptions antiques. Paris 1954.

. "Divinit§s 6ponymes." Hellenics 2 (1946): 51-64.

. "Etudes 6pigraphiques." BCH 52 (1928): 407-425.

. "Hellenica." Rev.Phil. 17 (1944): 5-10.

. "Les inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie." Rev.Phil. 33 (1959): 165-236.

. "Inscriptions grecques in6dites au Musses du Louvre." RA 6th ser. 2 (1933): 121-147.

. "Notes d'^pigraphie hell6nistique." BCH 52 (1928): 158 -178, 426-443.

-. Opuscula Minora Selecta. Vol. 2. Amsterdam 1969.

Robertson, N. "Government and Society at Miletus, 525-442 B.C." Phoenix 41 (1987): 356-398.

Roebuck, C. Ionian Trade and Colonization. New York 1959.

. "The Organization of Naukratis." CPh 46 (1951): 212 -220. 318

. "Tribal Organization of Ionia." TAPhA 17 (1961): 495 -507 .

Rossner, M. "Asiarchen und Archiereis Asias." St. Cl. 16 (1974): 101-142.

Roussel, D. Tribu et citS: Studes sur les groupes sociaux dans les cit6s grecques aux 6poques archaique et classique. Paris 1976.

Russu, I. I. "Le decret de Callatis en l'honeur d'Isagoras." Dacia 1 (1957): 179-190.

Ruz6, F. "La fonction de probouloi dans le monde grec antique." In Melanges Seston, 444-462. Paris 1974.

Ruzicka, L. "Inedita aus Moesia Inferior." NZft 50, n.s. 10 (1917): 82-173.

Sauciuc-SSveanu, Th. "Callatis. Rapport pr61iminaire." Dacia 1 (1924): 108-165; 2 (1925): 104-137; 3-4 (1927-1932): 411 -482; 5-6 (1935-1936): 247-319; 7-8 (1937-1940): 223-281; 9-10 (1941-1944): 243-347.

. "Eiaaywyei <; la Kallatis." In Volum omagial inchinat lui Ion I. Nistor. 91-96. CernSuti 1937.

Schaefer, H. "IIp6£ouA,oc •" In RE, vol. 23, 1221-1231.

. "IIpoaT&TTic • " In RE Suppl. , vol. 9, 1297.

Schramm, G. Eroberer und Eingesessene. Geographische Lehunamen als Zeugen der Geschichte Siidosteuropas im ersten Jahrtausend n. Chr. Stuttgart 1981.

Schuler, C. "The Macedonian Politarchs." Cl.Q. 55 (1960): 90 -100.

Schuller, W., ed. Die bulgarische Schwarzmeerkiiste im Altertum. Xenia, vol. 16. Konstanz 1985.

Schwahn, W. "Tamiai." In RE, vol. 4A, 2099-2136.

Seure, G. "AntiquitSs thraces de la Propontife, Collection Stamoulis." BCH 36 (1912): 534-640.

. "Arch6ologie Thrace. Documents in6dits ou peu connus." RA (1911): 423-449. 319

Severeanu, G. "Ponduri Pontice Inedite. Bucure?ti." Revista Muzeului Municipului Bucure$ti (1935): 12-16.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London 1984.

Sherwin-White, S. M. Ancient Cos. An Historical Study from the Dorian Settlement to the Imperial Epoch. Hypomnemata, vol. 51. Gottingen 1978.

Soutzo, M. C. "Coup d'ffiil sur les monuments antiques de la Dobroudja." RA, n.s. 42 (1881): 204-215.

Stahl, M. Imperiale Herrschaft und provinziale Stadt. Strukturprobleme der romischen Reichsorganisation im 1.-3. Jh. der Kaiserzeit. Hypomnemata, vol. 52. Gottingen 1978.

Stefan, A. "Callatis h. l'6poque du Haut-Empire & la lumiere des documents <§pigraphiques." Dacia 19 (1975): 161-172.

. "Le d#but de la domination romaine sur les cit6s de la cote ouest du Pont-Euxin: date et circonstances." Eirene 12:621-631.

. "Die Getreidekrisen in den StSdtchen an den westlichen und nordlichen Kiisten des Pontos Euxeinos in der Hellenistischen Zeit." In Hellenische Poleis. Krise - Wandlung - Wirkung, ed. by E. Ch. Welskopf, vol. 2, 64 8 -663. Berlin 1973.

. "Grafitte callatien du IVe siecle av. n. e."

. "Relations 6trang6rs des cit6s du Pont Gauche a l'£poque hellenistique. " In Actes du VIIe Congrds de la FSdSration Internationale des Associations d'itudes Classique. Vol. 1, 329-338. Budapest 1984.

Stein, A. Die Legaten von Moesien. Budapest 1940.

. Die romischen Reichsbeamten der Provinz Thracia. Sarajewo 1920.

Stevenson, G. H. Roman Provincial Administration till the Age of the Antonines. Oxford 1949.

Stoian, I. "La cittct pontica di Tomis: Capitolo introduttivo alio studio Tomitane." Dacia 5 (1961): 233-274.

. "Contribution h l'§tude des tribus de Tomis." St. Cl. 3 (1961 ) : 175-202. 320

. "Le culte des Dioscures et les tribus tomitaines h. la lumi&re d'un monument recemment public." Dacia 10 (1966): 347-356.

. "De nouveau sur la communautd des citds grecques du Pont gauche." Latomus 24 (1965): 70-79.

. "Les donn6es nouvelles concernant les tribus histriennes dans un fragment de d§cret." In I. Stoian. Etudes Histriennes, 71-78. Bruxelles 1972. (First published in SCIV 18 [1967]: 235-242.)

. "L'6pigraphie Tomitaine - ses problfemes et ses rdsultats." In Acta of the Fifth Internatinal Congres of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge 1967, 363-369. Oxford 1971.

. Etudes Histriennes. Collection Latomus, vol. 123. Bruxelles 1972.

. "In legSturS cu decretele tomitane privitoare la para ora?ului." SCIV 5 (1954): 557-568.

. "In legSturS cu epominatul la Tomis." SCIV 11 (1960): 303-321.

. "Une nouvelle inscription agonistique d'Histria." In I. Stoian. Etudes Histriennes, 109-119. Bruxelles 1972. (First published in Dacia 14 [1970]: 397-404.)

. Tomitana. Contribupii epigrafice la istoria cetApii Tomis. Bucure^ti 1962.

Straube, J. H. M. "The Sitonia in the Cities of Asia Minor under the Principate." EA 10 (1987): 45-82.

Suceveanu, A. "La defense du littoral de la Dobroudja h l'6poque romaine (Ier-IIIe si§cles de n. £.)." RRH 13 (1974): 217-238.

. "Depozitul de statuete Romane de teracota de la Histria." SCIV 18 (1967): 243-268.

. "In legaturS cu statutul juridic al ora§ului Tomis in epocS romana." Pontica 8 (1975): 115-124.

. Viata economica in Dobrogea Romana secolele I-III n. e. Bucure^ti 1977. 321

Syme, R. "Lentulus and the Origin of Moesia." In R. Syme Danubian Papers, 40-72. Buchurest 1971.

Szanto, E. "' Etu ji'nvi oi ." In RE, vol. 6, 178-179.

. Die griechische Phylen. Vienna 1901.

Cornelius Tacitus. Annales. Erlautert und mit einem Einleitung versehen von E. Koesterman. Heidelberg 1962.

Tafrali, 0. "La cit6 pontique de Callatis." RA 21 (1925): 238-292.

. La citS pontique de Dionysopolis, Kli-Acra, Cavarna, TSkS et EcrSnS. Paris 1927.

Taubler, E. Imperium Romanum. Vol. 1. Leipzig 1913.

Thamm, M. De re publica ac magistratibus Megarensium. Halis Saxonum 1885.

Todorova, Kh. "Dobrudzha prez praistoricheskata epokha." In Istoriya na Dobrudzha, vol. 1, ed. by A. Fol and S. Dimitrov, 23-71. Sofia 1984.

Tonfieva, C. "L"influence thrace h Odessos." IVAD (1956): 51 -64.

Toynbee, A. Some Problems of Greek History. London 1969.

Tudor, V. "ComunicSri epigrafice X." Pontica 13 (1980): 241 -253.

Velkov, V. "Belezhki za kolonizaciata i gradovete po nasheto Chernomorsko krayberezhe." IID 11-12 (1931-1932): 33-53.

. "Dobrudzha v perioda na rimskoto vladichestvo." In Istoriya na Dobrudzha, vol. 1, ed. by A. Fol. and S. Dimitrov, 72-123. Sofia 1984.

. "Gracka kolonizaciya." In Istoriya na Dobrudzha, vol. 1, ed. by. A. Fol and S. Dimitrov, 97-101. Sofia 1984.

. "Mesambria - Mesembria - Ness&bre." In Nessebre, vol. 1, ed. by T. Ivanov, 9-28. Sofia 1969.

. "Mesambria Pontica." In Die bulgarische Schwarzmeerkuste im Altertum, ed. by W. Schuller, 29-49. Konstanz 1985. 322

. "Odessos - Varna: Kurze historische Bemerkungen." In Antike und Mittelater in Bulgarien, ed. by V. Besevliev and J. Irmscher, 339-344. Berlin 1960.

. "Zur Geschichte der Mesambria Pontica im III Jh. v. u. Z." In Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy. Cambridge 1967. 109-112. Oxford 1972.

Velkova, Z. The Thracian Glosses: Contribution to the Study of the Thracian Vocabulary. Amsterdam 1986.

Venedikov, I. "La Mesambria thrace." In NessSbre, vol. 2, ed. by V. Velkov, 7-22. Sofia 1980.

. "Trois reliefs surprenants de Mesambria." In Nessdbre, vol. 2, ed. by V. Velkov. 81-95. Sofia 1980.

Veyne, P. "Augustal de l'an 1. - Premier pontarque." BCH 90 (1966): 144-155.

. Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism. London 1990.

Vianu, M. A. "L'iconographie des reliefs aux strat&ges de Mesambria." St.Cl. 24 (1986): 99-107.

Vinogradov, J. "Die historische Entwicklung der Poleis der nordlichen Schwarzmeergebietes im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr." Chiron 10 (1980): 63-100.

Vlakhov, K. " Za ezikoviya proizkhod na ’OSTiaadc - Varna." Ezik i Literatura 21 (1966. 4): 47-50.

Vulic, N. "Hexapolis. 2." In RE, vol. 8, 1386-1387.

. "Istros." In RE, vol. 9, 2268-2269.

. "Kallatis." In RE, vol. 10, 1610-1612.

. "Koinon." In RE, vol. 11, 1053-1054.

Vulpe, A. "Les plus anciens t&noignages sur les Thraces du nord (Point de vue historique et ach6ologique)." RESEE 24 (1986): 333-342.

Vulpe, R. "Gerania, Cranea, Ecrende." Balcania 6 (1943): 14 -29 .

. "Le G&te Bur6bista, chef de tous les G6to-Daces." In R. Vulpe. Studia Thracologica. 39-61. Bucure§ti 1976. 323

. "Histoire ancienne de la Dobroudja." In La Dobroudja. Bucure?ti 1938.

"Histrum ingressi - Histriae excidum." St.Cl. 11 (1969): 157-172.

. "Note de istorie Tomitana." Pontica 2 (1969): 149-167.

. "Ovidio nella citta dell'esilio." In Studi Ovidiani, Istituto di Studi Romani. 39-62. Roma 1959.

Waser. "Eubosia." In RE, vol. 6, 858-860.

Wasowicz, A. "Les indices de la civilisation et de 1 'helldnisation des cdtes de la mer Noire dans 1 ’antiquit#." DHA 6 (1980): 29-39.

Weiss, J. Die Dobrudscha im Altertum: historische Landschaftskunde. Sarajevo 1911.

Werner, R. "Die Dynastie der Spartokiden." Historia 4 (1955): 412-444.

Wiegand, Th. "Vierter vorlaufiger Bericht iiber die Ausgrabungen der Kdniglichen Museen zu Milet." AA (1906): 1-41.

Wilhelm, Ad. "Inschriften des Bundes der Magneten." Hermes 44 (1909): 41-59.

. "Zu griechischen Epigrammen." BCH 29 (1905): 405-416.

. "Zum griechischen Wortschatz. " Glotta, Zeitschrift fur griechische und lateinische Sprache 14 (1925): 68-84.

Yordanov, K. "Dobrudzha prez I khil. pr. n. e. Geti." In Istoriya na Dobrudzha, vol. 1, ed. by A. Fol and S. Dimitrov, 72-80. Sofia 1984.

. [Jordanov] "The Getae against Lysimachus." Bulgarian Historical Review 18. 1 (1990): 39-51.

— -. "Thraco - Scythica: Politicheskiye otnosheniya do serediny IV v. do n. e." £tudes Balkaniques 24 (1988): 64-80.

Youroukova, Y. "Les monnaies dans 1'inscription de Sadala." Epigraphica 42 (1980): 13-24. 324

. "Nouvelles donnSes sur la chronologie des rois scythe en Dobroudja." Thracia 4 (1977): 105-121.

Ziebarth, E. "EiicotSGi <;." In RE, vol. 5, 2098.

. Das Griechische Vereinswesen. Leipzig 1896.

. "NoM.o6AaicGc •" In RE* vol. 17, 832-833.

. "Oikonomos." In RE, vol. 17, 2118-2119.

. " ’ Opavi arai ." In RE, vol. 18, 1197.

. "HavTiYupi&px^C •" In RE, vol. 18, 559.

Ziehen, L. "Panegyris." In RE, vol. 18, 581-583.

Zlatkovskaya, T. D. "Plemennoy soyuz pod rukovodstvom Birebisty (I v. do n. e.)." VDI (1955. 2): 73-91.

. Meziya v I i II vekakh n. e. Moscow 1951

Zwolski, E. Ustrdj panstwowy w starotytnym Argos. Lublin 1967.