In Search of Territories in Southwestern Thrace: the Peraia of Samothrace, the Strategy of Korpilike and the Civitas of Traianopolis

BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, XLIV, 2018 Proceedings of the First International Roman and Late Antique Thrace Conference “Cities, Territories and Identities” (Plovdiv, 3rd – 7th October 2016)

In Search of Territories in Southwestern Thrace: The Peraia of Samothrace, the Strategy of Korpilike and the Civitas of Traianopolis

Maria Gabriella PARISSAKI

Abstract: The present communication focuses on the region lying between the Ismaros Mountain to the west and the lower course of the Hebrus River to the east. Knowledge of the region has importantly grown during the last decades, through excavations and field research but also through the publication of the epigraphic corpus of Aegean Thrace in 2005 (IThrAeg). Despite this growth of knowledge, however, some basic desiderata remain. Among them, the better understanding of the evolution and size of the three major administrative units attested in the region during the Roman times; namely, the peraia of Samothrace, attested since Hecataeus’ and Herodorus’ times, the strategy of Korpilike – attested only once in the Geography of Claudius Ptolemy – and the civitas of Ulpia Traianopolis, founded by Trajan in the realm of his important administrative reorganisation of the Roman province of Thrace.

Key words: administrative organisation, Samothracian peraia, Corpili, strategies, Traianopolis.

Introduction In the region lying between the Ismaros Mountain to the west and the lower course of the Hebrus River to the east – that is the region cor- responding in broad lines to the “Hebrus Prefecture” of the modern Greek state – no major urban settlement developed until well into the Roman times. Here the Hebrus estuary defined the region’s character and historical development by offering no effective protection from the north and no good harbour on the shore. Thus, from the 7th century BC till the early 2nd century AD – that is from the period of the Greek colonization of the north Aegean shore till the foundation of Traianopolis and Plotinopolis further to the north – ancient sources mention only the fort of Doriskos and a number of settlements at- tached to the island of Samothrace and forming its peraia1. The region’s ancient development also determined to a certain extent the character and pace of modern research. Excavations, field surveys and publications mainly focused on the major Greek colonies lying to the west of the Ismaros Mountain, that is Maroneia (Psoma et al. 2008, with earlier bibliography), the settlement at the Molyvoti Peninsula, 1 For this region see, in general, Isaac 1986, 125-140, Mottas 1989 and IThrAeg, sometimes identified as ancient Stryme (Arrington et al. 2016, where p. 501-592. For bibliography on particu- the problem of the site’s identification is also discussed), and Abdera lar sites, see also below, section I. (Chryssanthaki 2007). To the east of the Ismaros Mountain, excava- 14 Maria Gabriella PARISSAKI tions focused mainly on two of the most important settlements of the Samothracian peraia – that is Zone2 and Makri (Ευστρατίου / Καλλιντζή 1994) – and to a limited number of tumuli3. Of the two Roman foundations, only Plotinopolis, lying by the modern city of Didymoteichon, has been partially excavated4; but Traianopolis, safely identified with the archaeological site by the modern community of Loutra, remains unfortunately largely unexplored. In the field of publications, finally, the coinage of Plotinopolis is currently under preparation by Marina Tasaklaki (see her article in the present volume); and a stele of a gladiator, recently published by Athanasia Tsoka, seems to be the only important addition to the epigraphic corpus of Aegean Thrace published in 2005 (Τσόκα 2013-2014). Despite this slow but steady growth of knowledge, much, of course, remains open to further research; among them a better understanding of the exact location, size, evolution and inter-relation of the basic administrative units that are attested in the region during the Roman period; that is the Samothracian peraia – attested in our sources since the 5th century BC but still existing at least till the 3rd century AD – the strategy of Korpilike, only attested once during the 2nd century AD, and of course Traianopolis, founded by Trajan as its name clearly indicates. It has to be stressed that this paper is not about settling long 2 Zone was excavated by Andreas standing problems by offering definitive answers, but more about pre- Vavritsas and later by Polyxeni senting available data as currently understood. Tsatsopoulou; for bibliography on exca- vation reports and for the site in general, The Samothracian peraia see below note 5. 3 For an overview on the tumuli of Interest in the Samothracian peraia started basically in the begin- Aegean Thrace, see Τριαντάφυλλος / th ning of the 20 century AD. An article devoted to the peraia was Τερζοπούλου 1996. Further to the north, published by Perdrizet in the REG of 1909; a few years later, in 1918, the famous tumulus of Doxipara was un- Gawril Kazarow excavated a part of what was to be identified as Zone earthed and excavated in recent years; (Perdrizet 1909; Kazarow 1918). From then onwards, scholars have see Τερζοπούλου 2013. 4 For the ongoing excavations at gathered and painstakingly analysed all literary and epigraphic evi- Plotinopolis (modern Didymoteichon), dence that span from the time of Herodotus to Late Antiquity, trying to see Κουτσουμανής et al. 2009 with ear- locate the six polismata mentioned by name – that is Mesambria, Zone, lier bibliography; an impressive build- Drys, Sale, Tempyra and Charakoma – and, of course, the Serrheion ing of probably public character and a promontory. In 1989, François Mottas published a most important ar- hydraulic structure are among the most important discoveries. ticle that greatly contributed to the better understanding of the region’s 5 In earlier times, scholars considered topography by presenting the most plausible identifications (Mottas that Zone and the Serrheion promon- 1989). But up to that date, all contributions on the Samothracian per- tory should be located at modern Makri; aia resulted from an “a-chronological” approach, where the evidence this identification was largely based on offered by Hecataeus, Herodotus and Thucydides was added to that their belief that the only archaeological offered by Strabo and Titus Livius, disregarding the many upheavals site available to the west of Makri was the one excavated by Κazarow at 1918 at the that took place in this quite important – from a strategic point of view mouth of the Şaplı-dere stream, which – zone. The most important contribution of the “post-Mottas” period they identified as Mesambria. This iden- lies exactly in this notion of evolution. Thus in an article published tification was seriously questioned by by Tsatsopoulou in the 10th Congress of Thracology held in 2005 a J. and L. Robert, who pointed out the chart was published clearly tabulating this evolution (Tsatsopoulou strong presence of coins of Zone found at the site of Şaplı-dere (more than 2,000 2007, 655, pl. 1; Tsatsopoulou 2009, 410, fig. 1). References to Zone coins), see indicatively BullÉpigr 1976, and Drys, seem to follow more or less the same general pattern: Zone 464; 1978, 312; 1980, 319 and 1981, 326. – identified today to the archaeological site of Şaplı-dere – was first The identification of Şaplı-dere with mentioned by Hecataeus, as attested by Stephanus of Byzantium, by Zone became thereof widely accepted, Herodotus at the beginning of the 5th century BC, and in inscriptions see e.g. Mottas 1989, 88-89. For the lit- th rd erary and epigraphic evidence on Zone, of the 4 and 3 centuries BC, like a catalogue of cities from Delphi see Isaac 1986, 130-131; IThrAeg, p. 505- 5 and a decree of Samothrace for Aristomachos ; Drys – whose exact 511; Tsatsopoulou 2007 and 2009; Psoma identification still eludes us, but which is to be searched by Serrheion 2008, 125-126; Zahrnt 2008. In search of territories in Southwestern Thrace: The peraia... 15

and Zonaia mountains – was also mentioned by Hecataeus, as attested by Stephanus of Byzantium, in the catalogue of cities from Delphi mentioned just above, and in two decrees dated to the early 3rd century BC6. Thus references to these two settlements – that are to be located at the westernmost part of the coastal strip between the Ismaros and the Hebrus – seem to date exclusively to the Late Archaic, Classical and Early Hellenistic periods. References to Sale, on the other hand, cover all periods from Late Archaic to Late Roman Times. The name occurs in Herodotus, in Livy and also in the Itineraria of the Roman period; to these Itineraria we owe the valuable information that mu- tatio Sale lay on the via Egnatia, 15 miles to the west of Traianopolis, thus suggesting a generally accepted identification with the archaeological site at the promontory of Makri7. On the easternmost end of this coastline, the two settlements of Tempyra and Charakoma, seem to occur only from the 3rd century BC onwards. Tempyra is generally identified today with the modern city and port of Alexandroupolis, where important finds of the Roman period are from time to time un- earthed; among them we should mention an inscription, a horos of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace, found at the eastern part of the modern city. But Charakoma – only mentioned once by Strabo – still eludes a generally accepted identification (see Isaac 1986, 132-133; Psoma 2008, 126-127). Finally, an article published by Zahrnt one year later than the article of Tsatsopoulou, that is in 2008, offered one further contribution, by putting forward the idea that Mesambria – only occurring once in Herodotus – may be discarded as a name of a settlement and be rather interpreted as a direction mistakenly understood by later copyists (see Zarhnt 2008)8. Are we to see in this shift from west to east a simple shift to the urban development of the Samothracian peraia or are we to interpret it as 6 Drys was located just to the west of Zone, according to Skylax; Drys παρὰ a sign of a deeper change that also affected its size and character? The Σέρρειον is mentioned in the Athenian second alternative seems suggested by the fact that in 188 BC, at the tribute list of 422-421 BC, while Drys end of the war against Antiochus III, Livy (38.41.8) mentions Sale as and Zone are mentioned in a catalogue a vicus Maronitarum, thus clearly indicating that an important change of towns from Delphi, dating to the be- has occurred in the meantime. But this process might have started ear- ginning of the 4th century BC; for the literary and epigraphic references on Drys, lier. An inscription, originating from the sanctuary of the Great Gods see Isaac 1986, 129-130; IThrAeg, p. 501- at Samothrace and published by McCredie (1968, 220-221), informs 502; Psoma 2008, 125. us that the island acquired a sacred land at the opposite shore during 7 On Sale, see Isaac 1986, 131; IThrAeg, the reign of Philip and his son – either Philip II/III and Alexander III/ p. 129; Psoma 2008, 125-126. According IV respectively – that was later restituted by Lysimachus; this land is to Mottas (1989, 88) and on the evi- probably to be identified to the ἱερὰ χώρα mentioned above; and the dence of distances given by the Roman Itineraria, Sale is to be identified with Gallic invasions of 279/78 BC may also have had an impact on the re- modern Makri. gion’s development, as suggested by Selene Psoma (2008). 8 At about the same period, Tsatsopoulou As things stand and on available evidence, therefore, the following suggested that Mesambria should be development may be suggested: for the period spanning from approxi- searched not on the coast but on the imme- mately the 6th century BC and till the Early Hellenistic period, the peraia diate hinterland of the Samothracian peraia, see Tsatsopoulou 2007, 656 and pl. 4. of Samothrace may have extended from the Serrheion promontory to 9 In this part of the coastal strip, the that of Makri, where the settlement of Sale is to be identified. No indica- southern slopes of the Zonaia Mountains tion exists that during this first period the peraia extended to the east offered a relative protection from the of Makri9. But Macedonian expansion and the Hellenistic kingdoms’ north. Field surveys have revealed a desire to effectively control the route running along the north Aegean number of forts in the mountainous re- gions of Ismaros and Zonaia that seem shore, seem to have put a serious strain on Samothrace, which may have to have operated as a barrier zone, see found it hard to constantly control the zone on the opposite coast. The Tsatsopoulou 2007, 651-652. founding of Orthagoreia at about the middle of the 4th century BC – to 16 Maria Gabriella PARISSAKI be placed somewhere between Maroneia and the Serrheion promontory 10 Orthagoreia is known through its silver – may have been a first blow10; Gallic invasions may have aggravated the and bronze coinage dating to the 4th centu- situation and Maronitan pressure was felt too. That the island did pos- ry BC and by two literary references, namely Strabo (7a.1.48) and Pliny (HN 4.42-43); sess a peraia, though, is clearly indicated by the Samothracian decrees on available evidence, thus, it seems that for Hippomedon and Epinikos, which refer to an ochyroma and a chori- Orthagoreia was a short-lived city, probably on on the opposite shore (IThrAeg TE 63 and TE 64; Psoma 2008, 127, # founded during the reign of Philip II. On 31). In Roman times, though, and on the evidence of Strabo’s testimony, the city and its coinage, see Chryssanthaki- Nagle 2004 and Psoma et al. 2008, 193-206. only the region around Tempyra (= Alexandroupolis) seems securely 11 For a similar development regarding connected to the island. The vicus of Sale, still present in our sources, is the peraia of Thasos, less extensive dur- never again explicitly associated to Samothrace11. Under this perspec- ing the Roman period compared to the tive, the usual definition of the Samothracian peraia as the coastal strip one of the archaic and classical times, see of land stretching from the Serrheion promontory to the Hebrus estuary Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 1990, esp. 506. 12 On the strategies of Thrace and their may never have been the case; and it certainly does not apply for the evolution from the middle of the 1st cen- Roman period, here under consideration. tury BC to Trajan’s reign, see Parissaki 2009 and 2013, with earlier bibliography. Some The strategy of Korpilike new inscriptions recently published by The Roman conquest of Macedonia and, even more so, the creation of Sharankov (Шаранков 2015 and Sharankov the client-kingdom of Thrace at about the middle of the 1st century BC 2016) indicate that a revision is required for the third and final period of the history of led to a new reality. From that date onwards all land lying outside the this institution, that is the period spanning Greek settlements of the north Aegean shore went under the direct con- from the reign of Vespasian onwards; to this trol of the client kingdom of Thrace and as such was probably organised we will return in a later publication. 13 into strategies; this system was maintained after the provincialisation of Ptol. Geog. 3.11.8-10 (Stückelberger and Graβhoff’s edition of 2006): Thrace in AD 46 and functioned till the reign of Trajan at the begin- Στρατηγίαι δέ εἰσιν ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ πρὸς μὲν nd 13 ning of the 2 century AD . Unfortunately, the name of the strategy or ταῖς Μυσίαις καὶ περὶ τὸν Αἷμον τὸ ὄρος strategies that lay along the lower course of the Hebrus River has/have ἀρχομένοις ἀπὸ δυσμῶν Δανθηλητική, not survived in our sources for the period spanning from the middle of Σαρδική, Οὐσδικησική, Σελλητική. Πρὸς the 1st century BC to the end of the 1st AD. Then, Claudius Ptolemy in- δὲ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ τῷ Αἰγαίῳ πελάγει ὁμοίως στρατηγίαι Μαιδική, Δροσική, cludes in his work Γεωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις a catalogue entitled “strategies Κοιλητική, Σαπαϊκή, Κορπιλική, Καινική· 13 of Thrace” (στρατηγίαι Θρᾴκης) . In this catalogue strategies are organ- καὶ ὑπὲρ μὲν τὴν Μαιδικὴν Βεσσική, ὑφ᾿ ized in four distinct groups; in the second, covering the region along the ἣν Βεννική, εἶτα Σαμαϊκή. Παρὰ δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ border of Thrace with Macedonia and along the north Aegean shore, Περίνθου πόλεως μέχρις ᾿Απολλωνίας Ptolemy mentions the strategy of Maidike – clearly to be connected to παράλιον ἡ ᾿Αστικὴ στρατηγία. 14 For the Maedi and their localisation the tribe of the Maedi and thus placed along the Strymon valley – the along the Strymon valley, in the region to strategy of Drosike, the Koiletike, then the Sapaike – clearly connected to the north of the Kresna Pass, see Parissaki the Sapaei and thus placed in the mountainous region above Abdera and 2015; for Drosike, Koiletike and Sapaike, Maroneia – and then the strategy of Korpilike. From Claudius Ptolemy’s see Делев 2014, 285 (for the first two) and 416-430 respectively. catalogue, moreover, it becomes clear that the strategy of Korpilike bor- 15 For a detailed description of the at- dered to the west with the Sapaike, to the east with the Kainike and to tack, see Livy 38.40-41; the tribes involved the north with either Samaïke or Bennike14. in the first attack before the Hebrus’ Setting aside this general arrangement, valuable information can crossing are mentioned in 38.40.7. Of the also be derived from the name of the strategy, to be associated to many commentaries on this passage, see especially Mottas 1989, 91-92. the Thracian tribe of the Corpili. Most scholars agree today that the 16 See e.g. Delev 2009, 246: “although the th Corpili are first mentioned by Livy in his 38 book; there Livy de- Corpili are not mentioned on this occa- scribes the well-known and many times commented upon attack of sion by Livy, it could be suggested that the Thracians against Manlius Vulso and his army just after the Roman name Coreli in this list of allied Thracian victory over Antiochus III and the treaty of Apameia in 188 BC15. In tribes was a misnomer”; for this emendation in relation to manuscript tradition, a narrow pass, difficult to identify though certainly lying to the east see Briscoe 2008, 144-145. Some scholars of the Hebrus River, the army was attacked by the Coreli, Maduateni, have also suggested the identification of Astae and Caeni. Two of these tribes – the Astae and Caeni – are cer- the Coreli with the Cepnati, also men- tainly located to the east of the Hebrus, but the names of the other two tioned by Livy in (42.19.6; see Detschew 19762, s.v. Κορπῖλοι and Delev 2009, 246) – the Maduateni and Coreli – occur here for the first and only time. and with the Coralli mentioned by Strabo If we accept the emendation of Coreli to Corpili, this would date their (7.5.12; see Iliev 2015, 131, n. 20). These emergence at the beginning of the 2nd century BC16. But the first cer- identifications seem less probable. In search of territories in Southwestern Thrace: The peraia... 17

17 Strabo 7, frg. 47 (48): Παροικοῦσι tain mention of the Corpili occurs in Strabo and the fact that Strabo’s δὲ τὸν Ἕβρον Κορπῖλοι καὶ Βρέναι ἔτι work dates to the turn of the 1st century BC – 1st century AD – that ἀνωτέρω, εἶτ’ ἔσχατοι Βέσσοι· μέχρι γὰρ δεῦρο ὁ ἀνάπλους. Ἅπαντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη is precisely at the time when the client kingdom of Thrace acquires λῃστρικὰ ταῦτα, μάλιστα δ’οἱ Βέσσοι, οὓς its importance – gives to this reference a special interest. In book 7, λέγει γειτονεύειν Ὀδρύσαις καὶ Σαπαίοις. frg. 47 (48), the geographer mentions that “along the Hebrus dwell the 18 Steph. Byz., s.v. Κορπίλοι: Κορπίλοι, Corpili, the Brenni still higher up above them, and lastly the Bessi”, Θρᾳκῶν τινές. Στράβων ζ. ἡ χώρα without specifying whether this indicates the east or the west side of Κορπιλική ʻἡ γὰρ Αἶνος κεῖται κατὰ τὴν πρότερον Ἀψυνθίδα, νῦν δὲ Κορπιλικὴν the river, though mention of the Brenni and even more so of the Bessi λεγομένην. further to the north could be interpreted as indicating a western direc- 19 This pass is mentioned by Appian in tion17. In his entry on the Corpili, moreover, Stephanus of Byzantium BCiv. 4.11.87: Δεκίδιος δὲ καὶ Νωρβανὸς adds the information that Ainos lay in the region of Korpilike, former- οὓς ὁ Καῖσαρ καὶ ᾿Αντώνιος μετὰ ὀκτὼ ly called Apsinthis, and this certainly indicates that about a century τελῶν ἐς Μακεδονίαν προεπεπόμφεσαν, ἐκ Μακεδονίας ἐχώρουν ἐπὶ Θρᾴκης τῆς before Ptolemy’s catalogue the region of Korpilike – or, at least, a part ὀρείου χιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους σταδίους, of it – extended to the east of the Hebrus18. Then comes, the third and μέχρι πόλιν ὑπερβάντες Φιλίππους most precise information to be found in Appian; when describing the τὰ στενὰ Κορπίλων καὶ Σαπαίων, τῆς march of the Roman army of Cassius and Brutus just before the battle ῾Ρασκουπόλιδος ὄντα ἀρχῆς, κατέλαβον, ᾗ μόνῃ διελθεῖν ἔστιν ἐς τὴν Εὐρώπην of Philippi in 42 BC – that is too in a date quite close to the emergence ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ασίας τὴν γνώριμον ὁδόν. Also of the client kingdom of Thrace – Appian mentions the defiles of the in 4.13.102: Ὑπὸ γὰρ τῆς φαντασίας τῶν Corpili, to the east of the Serrheion promontory and certainly to the νεῶν Νωρβανὸς ἐπὶ τῶν Σαπαίων στενῶν west of the Hebrus River; these defiles are almost unanimously identi- ἐθορυβήθη καὶ ἐκάλει Δεκίδιον ἐκ τῶν fied today as the pass of the Zonaia Mountains19. Κορπίλων κατὰ σπουδὴν ἐπικουρεῖν οἱ. Καὶ ἐπεκούρει, τὰ δὲ τῶν Κορπίλων The ambiguity of ancient sources – east or west bank of the riv- στενὰ ἐκλειφθέντα οἱ περὶ τὸν Βροῦτον er – is also reflected in modern views; some scholars locate the tribe διώδευον. And one last time in 4.13.105: and the strategy on the east side (Tacheva, Delev), some on the west ἔχει [sc. Philippi] δὲ πρὸς μὲν ἄρκτῳ (Detschew, Fol) and only a few suggest that the river may not have δρυμούς, δι᾿ ὧν ῾Ρασκούπολις ἤγαγε τοὺς been such a barrier after all20. That the strategy extended to the west ἀμφὶ τὸν Βροῦτον· πρὸς δὲ τῇ μεσημβρίᾳ ἕλος ἔστι καὶ θάλασσα μετ᾿ αὐτό, κατὰ side of the river is, I think, clearly indicated by the identification of δὲ τὴν ἕω τὰ στενὰ τῶν Σαπαίων τε the defiles that may have functioned as the western limit of the ho- καὶ Κορπίλων, ἐκ δὲ τῆς δύσεως πεδίον monymous strategy. To the east, the Hebrus River does indeed offer μέχρι Μυρκίνου τε καὶ Δραβήσκου καὶ the best possible natural boundary. But the possibility that a part at ποταμοῦ Στρυμόνος, τριακοσίων που καὶ πεντήκοντα σταδίων εὔφορον πάνυ καὶ least of the strategy also extended to the east of the river should not be καλόν. For the identification of the Pass of excluded; Strabo clearly equates Korpilike to Apsinthis and in ancient the Corpili with the region of Makri, see Thrace we also know of other tribes and cities extending on both sides Παρισάκη 2000-2003, with earlier views of a river; the Maedi, e.g., dwelled on both sides of the Strymon, while and further bibliography. 20 the urban centre of Topeiros lay to the west bank of the Nestus while A localisation to the west/right 21 bank of the Hebrus river has been its chora extended to the east . The strategy, though, should not have suggested by Detschew and Fol, see extended much further than the region of Ainos; for a more eastward Detschew 19762 s.v. Κορπῖλοι (“vom location would have left too much space for the strategy of Sapaike Bistonischen See bis zur Mündung des and not enough for the strategy of Kainike, to be placed to the west of Hebrus”) and Фол 1975, 86 (“на запад Astike and the chora of Perinthos22. To the south, the strategy probably от долното течение на Марица докъм Бистонското езеро”) respectively. touched the Aegean shore, leaving outside the Samothracian peraia of A localisation to the east/left bank of Roman times, as defined above. The most difficult limit to define is, the river and to the north of Ainos has of course, the northern one. The only scholar to have ever proposed been suggested by e.g. Mihailov, Jones a more concrete definition towards this direction was Alexander Fol, and Tacheva, see Михайлов 1967, 39- who considered that the strategy of Korpilike extended up to the line 40 (“по долна Марица над Енос”), Jones 19712, 13 and Тачева 2000, 42 of Zlatograd-Didymoteichon (Фол 1975, 85-86, esp. 86). Though not (“на запад край долното течение на substantiated, such an extent would have corresponded to the size of Хеброс и на изток до реката Мелас”) the other strategies mentioned in the catalogue of Claudius Ptolemy. and, recently, by Delev 2009, 246-247: “they [sc. the Corpili] must have occu- Traianopolis and its territory pied therefore the left bank of the Lower Hebrus between Aenus and Cypsela and The location and extent of the strategy of Korpilike brings us to the last the limited hinterland to the Melas gulf, part of our presentation, the definition of Traianopolis’ territory. The or the lands previously ascribed to the city was founded by Trajan at the crossroads of the Via Egnatia with a 18 Maria Gabriella PARISSAKI vertical artery running along the Hebrus River and leading to the Via Paeti (Hdt. 7.110; Arr. Anab. 1.11.4) and Diagonalis23. The city proper developed on flat terrain to the west of Melanditi (Xen. Anab. 7.2.32). It remains uncertain whether they also occupied the a hill – St. George Hill – which offered not only a convenient location opposite right bank of the river, or its stream for the city’s acropolis but also control of the surrounding area. The and the adjoining marshlands served as a extent of the city’s territory has been the subject of only short refer- natural western frontier for both the tribal territory of the Corpili and the homony- ences, due to the lack of any direct relevant information (e.g. IThrAeg, mous strategy”; Delev (op. cit.) also identi- p. 534). Available data – which amounts to a couple of inscriptions fies the Pass of the Corpili mentioned by and coins and which still largely depends on the study of the region’s Appian (see above note 19) with the one geological formation – will be only briefly repeated here. mentioned by Livy in the region of Cypsela during the attack against Manlius Vulso Two inscriptions found at Traianopolis (IThrAeg E433) and at in 188 BC (see note 15). A scholar who modern Alexandroupolis (IThrAeg E447) respectively and dating seems to have adopted a localisation on from the reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla refer to works of both sides of the river is Σαμοθράκης 19632; 2 maintenance of the city’s road network, allocated among the various thus at 1963 , 314, s.v. Κορπῖλοι he locates 24 the Corpili to the south of the Rhodope phylai . A reference to the road leading to the Hebrus river at l. 22-23 Mountains, between the Hebrus river to of inscription IThrAeg E433 (ἡ ὁδὸς μέχρι Ἕβρου ποταμοῦ), offers an the east and the Cicones to the west (“ἐπὶ indication that the city’s territory may have extended at least till there; τῶν μεσημβρινῶν ὑπωρειῶν τῆς Ῥοδόπης, this conclusion seems further corroborated by coins depicting a re- μεταξὺ τοῦ Ἕβρου πρὸς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τῶν Κικόνων πρὸς δυσμάς”, while at 19632, 314, 25 clining male figure, usually identified to the river god Hebrus . To the s.v. Κορπιλική he adds that during Strabo’s west the defiles of Makri – identified to those mentioned by Appian as time the term was also applied to the region the defiles of the Corpili26 – seem to set a reasonable limit; just to the of Apsinthis to the north of Aenus (“ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων τοῦ Στράβωνος Κορπιλικὴ west of these and, more precisely, by the site of modern Aetolophos a ἐκαλεῖτο καὶ ἡ παλαιὰ Ἀψυνθὶς χώρα περὶ milliarium was set up by the city of Ulpia Topeiros (IThrAeg E395). τὴν Αἶνον, ἐκτεινομένη μεταξὺ Ἕβρου καὶ The most difficult limit to define at the present state of our knowledge Μέλανος κόλπου καὶ καταλήγουσα εἰς τὸ seems to be the northern one; we may conjecture – but at the present Σαρπηδόνιον ἀκρωτήριον (νῦν Γκρέμια)”; cf. also 19632, 84, s.v. Ἀψινθιάς, Ἀψινθίς state of our knowledge, we have to stress that this is only a conjecture (“οὕτω ἐκαλεῖτο ἡ περὶ τὴν Αἶνον παραλία, – that the city’s northern limit may have lain at the region of mod- ἡ μετὰ ταῦτα ὀνομασθεῖσα Κορπιλική”). ern Soufli, where the eastern slopes of the Rhodopes Mountain almost 21 On the Maedi, see Strabo 7, fr. 36 and reach the west bank of the Hebrus river. This would have left enough the relevant analysis of Gerov 1960, 242 (=68). The same may be maintained for the space for the territory of Plotinopolis, a city also founded by Trajan at Bisaltae, located mostly to the west/left bank the confluence of the Hebrus and the Erythropotamos. of the Strymon, but also to its east/right side Thus defined, the territory of Korpilike and that of Traianopolis as indicated by the discovery of an inscription locating Vergi at the site of Neos Skopos, seem to have partially, if not substantially, overlapped. And this brings see Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη 2000. As for us to the last and most difficult question: that of the fate of Ptolemy’s towns in Thrace with territories extending strategies after the foundation of Trajan’s cities. The answer to this on both sides of a river, see Topeiros and the question, of course, evades the limits of the present communication. analysis of Πολυχρονίδου-Λουκοπούλου 1989; the same is suggested for Ainos in the As things stand, we may perhaps suggest that either the strategy of passage of Livy describing the attack against Korpilike antedates the foundation of Traianopolis and was totally Manlius Vulso, see above note 15. abolished with its creation, or that the strategy continued to exist for 22 Despite uncertainties as to its borders, a certain period of time, restricted perhaps to the more remote and the region of Kainike is firmly located to the north of the Chersonese, as indicated mountainous areas of the Rhodopes; but for the time being, other pos- by the association of these two areas in the sibilities should not be excluded either. It is only to be hoped that exca- famous Knidos inscription; on this text, vations, a more careful study and a better understanding of the region’s see Hassall et al. 1974. 23 On Trajan’s foundations at Thrace in archaeological map and, most of all, comparisons with the other strat- general, see Zahrnt 2002 and Boteva 2014, egies and cities of Thrace, will lead us to a better understanding of the esp. 198. On Traianopolis, the city, its his- region’s development during this period. tory and its cults, see IThrAeg p. 531-534 and Zournatzi 2003; for its coinage, see Schönert-Geiss 1991, 139-183. 24 To the bibliography mentioned there, add Kunnert 2012, 62-63. 25 For the coins (Septimius Severus), see LIMC IV, s.v. Hebrus, # 18 with depiction. For the depiction of River Gods on cities’ coins and their use in defining territories, see Robert 1980, 88-89. 26 See above note 19. In search of territories in Southwestern Thrace: The peraia... 19

Bibliography sita est = Ἐπιγραφὲς τῆς Θράκης τοῦ programme d’urbanisation de l’em- Αἰγαίου μεταξὺ τῶν ποταμῶν Νέστου pereur Trajan. Réflexions sur le pro- Arrington, N. T. / Terzopoulou, D. / καὶ Ἕβρου (Νομοὶ Ξάνθης, Ροδόπης καὶ cessus d’une réforme administrative. Tasaklaki, M. / Lawall, M. L. / Brellas, Ἕβρου). Athens. In: Parissaki, M.-G. (ed.). Thrakika D. J. / White, Ch. E. 2016. Molyvoti, Zetemata II: Aspects of the Roman Thrace, archaeological project: 2013 Gerov, B. 1960. Der thrakische Stamm Province of Thrace (= Μελετήματα 69). preliminary report. – Hesperia 85, 1-64. der Mäden. Ethnographisch-historische Athens. 65-84. Untersuchung. In: Condurachi, Boteva, D. 2014. Trajan and his cities in Em. (ed.). Omagiu lui Constantin Parissaki, M.-G. 2009. Étude sur l’orga- Thrace: Focusing on the two Nicopoleis. Daicoviciu cu prilejul împlinirii a 60 nisation administrative de la Thrace à In: Trajan und seine Städte. Colloquium de ani. Bucureşti. 241-249 (= Gerov, B. l’époque romaine. L’histoire des straté- Cluj-Napoca, 29. September – 2. Beiträge zur Geschichte der römischen gies. – Revue des Études Grecques 122, Oktober 2013. Cluj-Napoca. 195-204. Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien. 319-357. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Amsterdam 1980. Briscoe, J. 2008. A commentary on Livy, 67-75). Perdrizet, P. 1909. Le Σαμοθραικικός Books 38-40. Oxford. d’Antiphon et le pérée samothracienne. Jones, A. H. M. 19712. Cities of the – Revue des Études Grecques 22, 33-41. Chryssanthaki-Nagle, K. 2007. L’histoire Eastern Roman provinces. Oxford. monétaire d’Abdère en Thrace (VIe s. Psoma, S. 2008. An honorary de- av. J.-C. – IIe s. ap. J.-C.) (= Μελετήματα Kazarow, G. 1918. Zur Archäologie cree from Thasos (IG XII 8, 267) and 51). Athens. Thrakiens. – Jahrbuch des Deutschen the Samothracian peraia during the Archäologischen Instituts / Hellenistic period. In: Loukopoulou, L. Chryssanthaki-Nagle, K. 2004. Le Archäologischer Anzeiger 33, 3-64. D. / Psoma, S. with the collaboration of monnayage d’Orthagoreia. – Revue Iakovidou, Ath. (eds.). Thrakika Zetemata Numismatique 160, 49-62. Kunnert, U. 2012. Bürger unter sich. I (= Μελετήματα 58). Athens. 121-138. Phylen in den Städten des kaiserzeitli- D el e v, P. 2009. Once more on the chen Ostens. Basel. Psoma, S. / Karadima, Chr. / Thracian strategies of Claudius Ptolemy. Terzopoulou, D. 2008. The coins from In: Gedenkschrift für Professor Velizar LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Maroneia and the Classical city at Velkov. Nationales Archäologisches Mythologiae Classicae, vol. I-VIII. Molyvoti. A contribution to the history Institut und Museum, Bulgarische Zürich, München, Düsseldorf 1981- of Aegean Thrace (= Μελετήματα 62). Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sofia. 1999. Athens. 245-253. MacCredie, J. R. 1968. Samothrace: Robert, L. 1980. À travers l’Asie Detschew, D. 19762. Die thrakischen Preliminary report on the campaigns of Mineure. Poètes et prosateurs, monnaies Sprachreste. Wien. 1965-1967. – Hesperia 37, 200-234. grecques, voyageurs et géographie. Paris. Hassall, M. / Crawford, M. / Reynolds, J. Mottas, Fr. 1989. Les voies de commu- 1974. Rome and the eastern provinces nication antiques de la Thrace Égéenne. Schönert-Geiss, Ed. 1991. Griechisches at the end of the second century BC. In: Herzog, H. E. / Frei-Stolba, R. (eds.). Münzwerk. Die Münzprägung von The so-called ‘Piracy Law’ and a new Labor omnibus unum. Gerold Walser Augusta Traiana und Traianopolis (= inscription from Cnidos. – Journal of zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur der Roman Studies 64, 195-220. Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (= Antike 31). Berlin. Historia Einzelschriften 60). Stuttgart. Iliev, J. 2015. The Roman conquest of 82-104. Sharankov, N. 2016. Notes on Greek Thrace (188 B.C.-45 A.D.). In: I traci tra inscriptions from Bulgaria. In: Slavova, geografia e storia (= Aristonothos 9). Parissaki, M.-G. 2015. Reconstructing M. / Sharankov, N. (eds.). Monuments Trento. 129-142. the tribal history of the Middle Strymon and texts in Antiquity and beyond. valley: The Impact of the Muletarovo Essays for the centenary of Georgi Isaac, B. 1986. The Greek settlements in inscription. In: Vagalinski, L. / Nankov, Mihailov (1915-1991) (= Studia Classica Thrace until the Macedonian conquest E. (eds.). Heraclea Sintica: From the Serdicensia 5). Sofia. 305-361. (= Studies of the Dutch Archaeological Hellenistic polis to Roman civitas (4th and Historical Society 10). Leiden. c. BC – 6th c. AD) (= Papers of the Tsatsopoulou, P. 2007. The colonies American Research Center in Sofia, 2). of Samothrace: Topography and ar- IThrAeg = Loukopoulou, L. D. / Sofia. 36-46. chaeological research. In: Iakovidou, Parissaki, M.-G. / Psoma, S. / Zournatzi, Ath. (ed.). Thrace in the Graeco- A. 2005. Inscriptiones antiquae partis Parissaki, M.-G. 2013. L’abolition du Roman world. Proceedings of the 10th Thraciae quae ad ora maris Aegaei système des stratégies en Thrace et le International Congress of Thracology, 20 Maria Gabriella PARISSAKI

Komotini-Alexandroupolis, 18-23 Συνεδρίου, Καβάλα 9-11 Μαΐου 1986. Συμπεράσματα ανασκαφικών ερευνών. – October 2005. Athens. 648-656. Θεσσαλονίκη. 493-532. Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη 10Β, 927-948. Zahrnt, M. 2008. Gab es in Thrakien Κουτσουμανής, Μ. / Τσόκα, Α. / zwei Städte Namens Mesambria? Κεκές, Χρ. 2009. Η συνέχιση της Τσατσοπούλου, Π. 2009. Μεσημβρία- Überlegungen zur Samothrakischen ανασκαφικής έρευνας στη Θυρέα και Ζώνη: Η συμβολή της αρχαιολογικής Peraia. In: Loukopoulou, L. D. / Psoma, στην Πλωτινόπολη Διδυμοτείχου. – Το έρευνας στην αναζήτηση της S. with the collaboration of Iakovidou, Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και ταυτότητας των αποικιών της Ath. (eds.). Thrakika Zetemata I (= στη Θράκη 23, 465-470. Σαμοθράκης. – Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Μελετήματα 58). Athens. 87-120. στη Μακεδονία και στη Θράκη – Παρισάκη, Μ.-Γ. 2000-2003. Τὰ στενὰ επετειακός τόμος, 409-419. Zahrnt, M. 2002. Urbanitas gleich τῶν Κορπίλων καὶ τῶν Σαπαίων. Ἡ Romanitas. Die Städtepolitik des Kaisers ἐπανεξέταση ἑνὸς τοπογραφικοῦ Τσόκα, Α. 2013-2014. Επιτύμβια στήλη Trajan. In: Nünnerich-Asmus, A. (ed.). προβλήματος. – ΗΟΡΟΣ 14-16, 345-362. μονομάχου από την Πλωτινόπολη Traian. Ein Kaiser der Superlative am (Διδυμότειχο). – Τεκμήρια 12, 81-98. Beginn einer Umbruchzeit? Mainz am Πολυχρονίδου-Λουκοπούλου, Λ. Rhein. 51-72. 1989. Τόπειρος, πόλις τῆς Θράκης: Делев, П. 2014. История на племената προβλήματα ἱστορικῆς γεωγραφίας в Югозападна Тракия през I хил. пр. Zournatzi, A. 2003. A goldsmith’s καὶ τοπογραφίας. – Byzantinische Хр. София. dedication: New evidence for the cult Forschungen 14/1, 577-599 and 14/2, pl. of Asclepius at Traianopolis. – Ancient 232-236. Михайлов, Г. 1967. Към въпроса за West and East 2/2, 325-347. стратегиите в Тракия. – Годишник на Σαμοθράκης, Α. 19632. Λεξικὸν Софийския университет, Факултет Ευστρατίου, Ν. / Καλλιντζή, Ντ. 1994. γεωγραφικὸν καὶ ἱστορικὸν τῆς Θρᾴκης по западни филологии 61/2, 31-50. Μάκρη. Αρχαιολογικές Έρευνες 1988- ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχαιοτάτων χρόνων μέχρι τῆς 1993. Θεσσαλονίκη. ἁλώσεως τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Тачева, М. 2000. Тракийските стра- Ἀθῆναι. тегии и Траяновата урбанизация. In: Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Χ. 2000. Власт и социум в римска Тракия и Αρχαία Βέργη. In: Μύρτος. Μνήμη Τερζοπούλου, Δ. 2013. Ο ταφικός Мизия. София. 32-47. Ιουλίας Βοκοτοπούλου. Θεσσαλονίκη. τύμβος της Μικρής Δοξιπάρας-Ζώνης 351-375. Νομού Έβρου. Τα ανασκαφικά δεδομένα Фол, А. 1975. Тракия и Балканите και κτερίσματα από τις καύσεις των през ранноелинистическата епоха. Κουκούλη-Χρυσανθάκη, Χ. 1990. Τα νεκρών. Θεσσαλονίκη. In: Μνήμη Δ. Λαζαρίδη. Πόλις και Шаранков, Н. 2015. Нови данни за χώρα στην αρχαία Μακεδονία και Τριαντάφυλλος, Δ. / Τερζοπούλου, Δ. тракийските стратези. – Археология Θράκη. Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικού 1996. Ταφικοί τύμβοι της Θράκης: 56/1-2, 62-78.

Maria Gabriella G. Parissaki Senior Researcher Section of Greek and Roman Antiquity National Hellenic Research Foundation – Institute of Historical Research 48 Vassileos Constantinou Av. GR-11635 Athens [email protected]